- Email: [email protected]
Reconstruction of a large soft-tissue defect in the single finger using the modified cross-finger flap
Accepted Manuscript Reconstruction of a Large Soft-tissue Defect in the Single Finger Using the Modified Cross Finger Flap Chao Chen, MD. PhD., Peifu Tang, MD. PhD., Lihai Zhang, MD. PhD. PII:
S1748-6815(15)00175-8
DOI:
10.1016/j.bjps.2015.03.033
Reference:
PRAS 4585
To appear in:
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
Received Date: 18 November 2014 Accepted Date: 30 March 2015
Please cite this article as: Chen C, Tang P, Zhang L, Reconstruction of a Large Soft-tissue Defect in the Single Finger Using the Modified Cross Finger Flap, British Journal of Plastic Surgery (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.03.033. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Reconstruction of a Large Soft-tissue Defect in the Single Finger Using the Modified Cross
2
Finger Flap
3 a, b
Chao Chen, MD. PhD., a Peifu Tang, MD. PhD.,a Lihai Zhang, MD. PhD.
RI PT
4 5
Authors’ institution
7
a
The department of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, P.R. China
8
b
Hand Surgery Department, the Second Hospital of Tangshan, Tangshan, 063000, Hebei,
9
P.R. China
M AN U
SC
6
10
Contact information for the first author
12
Chao Chen, MD. PhD.,
13
The department of Orthopedics,
14
Chinese PLA General Hospital,
15
Beijing, 100853,
16
P.R. China
17
(+86) – 13700350471 (Mobile Phone)
18
[email protected] (email)
EP
AC C
19
TE D
11
20
Corresponding author:
21
Peifu Tang, MD. PhD.,
22
The department of Orthopedics,
1
23
Chinese PLA General Hospital,
24
Beijing, 100853,
25
P.R. China
26
(+86) – 13801379901 (Mobile Phone)
27
[email protected] (email)
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
28
SC
29
M AN U
30 31 32 33
37 38 39 40 41
EP
36
AC C
35
TE D
34
42 43 44
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 45
Reconstruction of a Large Soft-tissue Defect in the Single Finger Using the Modified Cross
46
Finger Flap
47
Key words: Soft-tissue defects; dorsal branch of the digital artery; dorsal branch of the digital
49
nerve; cross-finger flap.
RI PT
48
50
Abstract
SC
51
Background: Providing soft tissue coverage for a large defect in the single finger
M AN U
52 53
presents marked functional and aesthetic challenges. This article describes the reconstruction
54
of such injuries using a modified cross-finger flap and reports the results of the use of the flap. Methods: Over five years, a retrospective study was conducted with 22 patients who had
55
a large defect in the single finger. The mean size of soft tissue defects was 4.3 cm ± 0.4 in
57
length and 1.8 cm ± 0.4 in width. The defects were reconstructed with a modified cross-finger
58
flap.
Results: Full flap survival was achieved in 20 fingers. Partial distal flap necrosis
EP
59
TE D
56
occurred in 2 fingers, which healed without surgical intervention. We collected the data of the
61
sensory restoration in 20 flaps where sensory return was considered important. Based on the
62
modified American Society for Surgery of the Hand guidelines for stratification of 2PD, 17
63
(85 %) flaps achieved excellent and good results and only 3 (15 %) flap obtained fair result.
64
No significant difference was found in joint motion between the donor finger and the
65
contralateral side. According to the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, 11 patients
66
were satisfied, 9 were somewhat satisfied and 2 were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with
AC C
60
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 67 68 69
functional recovery of the reconstructed finger. Conclusions: The modified cross-finger flap is versatile and useful for coverage of the relatively large defect in the single fingers, especially when sensory reconstruction is needed.
71 72
Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic
.
SC
73
M AN U
74 75 76 77
82 83 84 85
EP
81
AC C
80
TE D
78 79
RI PT
70
86 87 88
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 89
INTRODUCTION
90 91
There is a wide range of options for reconstructing small to moderate soft-tissue defects of the finger allowing the use of a specific flap for each reconstructive situation 1. But for a
93
large defect in the single finger, the injury condition is often complex and severe, which limits
94
the choice of reconstructive alternative. The article introduces the reconstruction of these
95
defects using a modified cross-finger flap 2 and reports the results of the use of the flap.
SC
As described in previous anatomical studies, the distribution of the dorsal branches of the 3
M AN U
96
RI PT
92
digital artery is relatively constant
and these branches could be selected as the vascular
98
pedicles of the flaps harvested from the dorsum of the finger 4. Based on this anatomical
99
structure, a large size cross-finger flap can receive sufficient blood supply from 1 or 2 dorsal
100
branches through a narrow pedicle. In this manner, covering a large defect of the single finger
101
is practicable.
TE D
97
The purpose of this study was to report reconstruction of a large defect in the single
103
finger using a modified cross-finger flap and to evaluate the efficacy of their application in
104
such specific situation.
106 107 108
AC C
105
EP
102
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the participating hospitals.
109
Informed consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consents were
110
obtained from each patient.
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT From Jul 2007 to Sep 2012, a retrospective study was conducted with 22 patients who
112
had a relatively large defect in one finger treated with our technique. Our series included 17
113
male and 5 female patients, with mean age of 33 years (range, 21–56 years). The mechanisms
114
of injury were avulsion (n = 8), crush (n = 6), and degloving (n = 8). There were 22 soft tissue
115
defects in 22 fingers. The fingers requiring resurfacing included 6 index, 7 long, 5 ring, and 4
116
little fingers. The injuries included soft-tissue defect in 7 cases and fingertip degloving injury
117
involved the entire nail bed in 15 cases. The mean size of soft tissue defects was 4.3 cm ± 0.4
118
in length and 1.8 cm ± 0.4 in width. The defects were reconstructed with the dual- (n=16),
119
single- (n=4) and non- (n=2) innervated modified cross-finger flaps. Emergency surgery was
120
conducted in 17 patients, whereas elective surgery was noted in 5 patients.
SC
M AN U
121
RI PT
111
Patients were selected on the basis of the following: (1) a patient who had a large defect in one finger; (2) the defect 4 cm in length and (3) a patient between 15 and 60 years of age.
123
Patients were excluded when they had one of the following: (1) concomitant injuries to the
124
dorsum of adjacent finger that precluded its use as donor site; (2) a defect < 4 cm in length
125
and (3) the defect of the thumb.
EP
TE D
122
127 128
AC C
126
Surgical technique
The operation was performed under axillary block with the aid of tourniquet control. The
129
flap was designed on the dorsum of adjacent finger between the distal half of the proximal
130
phalanx and the distal interphalangeal joint. The pattern of the flap was based on the pattern
131
of the defect.
132
An incision was made through the flap outline and the flap was elevated above the
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT tenosynovium. The pedicle was selected at the level of the distal interphalangeal joint or the
134
base of the middle phalanx, at which digital artery sent off dorsal branches. One or two dorsal
135
branches were included in the 1-cm-wide pedicle. The pedicle was dissected to the original
136
site of the dorsal branch, and thus the maximal pedicle length was achieved. For a defect
137
where return of sensation was important, one or two dorsal branches of the digital nerves
138
could be harvested with the flap to restore neurosensory function. Thereafter, the injured
139
finger was flexed and placed in a position to receive the cross-finger flap. The flap was
140
transferred to the injured finger and the defect was covered. At last, the donor defect was
141
resurfaced with a full-thickness skin graft and tie-over dressing.
142
144
Postoperative management
A splint was used to maintain a tension-free pedicle. The pedicle was divided after a
TE D
143
M AN U
SC
RI PT
133
mean time of 20 days (range, 19–24 days). After that, the patient started active range of
146
motion exercises with the help of a physical therapist.
148 149
Evaluation of outcomes
AC C
147
EP
145
At final follow-up, sensation of the flaps was assessed using static two-point
150
discrimination (2PD) 5. The modified American Society for Surgery of the Hand guidelines
151
were used to stratify the 2PD measurements (excellent, < 6 mm; good, 6–10 mm; fair, 11–15
152
mm; poor, > 15 mm) 6. The range of motion (ROM) of the proximal and distal interphalangeal
153
joints of the donor finger was measured by a goniometer. Patients reported their satisfaction
154
with functional recovery of the injured finger according to the Michigan Hand Outcomes
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 155
Questionnaire that was based on a 5-point response scale 7.
156 157
RESULTS
159
RI PT
158
Full flap survival was observed in 20 fingers. Partial distal flap necrosis occurred in 2 fingers, which ranged from 10% to 15% of the original flaps and healed without surgical
161
intervention. No wound infection was observed. The follow-up period ranged from 20 to 24
162
months (mean, 22 months).
M AN U
163 164
SC
160
Sensory Recovery
We collected the data of the flap sensibility in the fingers where sensory return was
166
considered important. These anatomical regions included the fingertip and the volar aspect of
167
the finger. Reconstructive techniques included the dual- (n=16) and single-innervated (n=4)
168
cross-finger flaps. At the final follow-up, the mean static 2PD was 7.2 mm (range, 5 to 11 mm)
169
and 9.0 mm (range, 7 to 12mm), respectively. Based on the modified American Society for
170
Surgery of the Hand guidelines for stratification of 2PD, 17 (85 %) flaps achieved excellent
171
and good results and only 3 (15 %) flap obtained fair result.
173 174
EP
AC C
172
TE D
165
Joint Motion
Of the donor fingers, the ROM of the proximal and distal interphalangeal joints were 99°
175
(range, 85° to 110°) and 72° (range, 40° to 90°), respectively. The measurements of the
176
contralateral side were 101° (range, 90° to 110°) and 73° (range, 45° to 90°), respectively. No
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 177
significant difference was found between the donor finger and the contralateral side.
178 179
Patient satisfaction According to the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, 11 patients were satisfied
181
(score 5), 9 were somewhat satisfied (score 4) and 2 were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
182
with functional recovery of the reconstructed finger.
CASE REPORTS
185
Case 1
186
M AN U
184
SC
183
RI PT
180
A 22-year-old worker sustained a degloving injury to his left ring, resulting in a projecting tip of the distal phalanx and a soft tissue defect with 4.3×1.8 cm in size (Fig. 1). A
188
modified cross-finger flap was harvested from the dorsum of the middle finger. The size of
189
the flap was 4.4×2.0 cm. Double dorsal branches of the digital nerves were harvested with
190
the flap for sensory reconstruction of the pulp (Fig. 2 and 3). The flaps survived completely.
191
Four months after surgery, almost full range of motion was attained to the donor finger (Fig.
192
4). The static 2PD on the reconstructed pulp was 8 mm at 22 months postoperatively.
194 195
EP
AC C
193
TE D
187
Case 2
A 35-year-old male worker had a crushing injury in the right hand, resulting in a large
196
volar defect in the little finger with 4.2×1.6 cm in size (Fig. 5). Although the ring finger had
197
a fingertip defect, its dorsal skin on the proximal and middle phalanxes was uninjured and
198
could be used as a donor site. A single-innervated cross-finger flap was harvested from the
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 199
dorsum of the ring finger (Fig. 6). The flap survived completely and the graft healed
200
uneventfully (Fig. 7). No loss of joint motion occurred in the donor finger 3 months after
201
surgery. The static 2PD was 10 mm on the flap at 23 months postoperatively.
203
RI PT
202
DISCUSSION
204
Providing soft tissue coverage for a large defect in the single finger often presents
SC
205
marked functional and aesthetic challenges 9. The article introduces the use of a modified
207
cross-finger flap 2, which can be an optional solution.
208
M AN U
206
Some reconstructive techniques have been described in the literature. A volar V-Y flap10 can result in a good sensory recovery, but the flap cannot be used to cover a defect longer
210
than 1.5 cm. The neurovascular island pedicle advancement flap11, dorsal homodigital island
211
flap based on the digital artery12 or its dorsal branch13 are available options for tissue coverage
212
of the small to moderate defects. But for a large defect in the single finger, none of these
213
options can afford to provide sufficient or reasonable coverage. The abdominal or forearm
214
random-pattern flap is technically easy for repairing these injuries14. However, the overstaffed
215
form and poor sensory recovery are major disadvantages of these technique15. The reverse
216
dorsal metacarpal artery flap or its modified technique can be used as alternatives but have a
217
limited pedicle length to reach the defects distal to the distal interphalangeal joint16. A Littler
218
flap17 based on the heterodigital neurovascular bundle provides relatively large tissue
219
coverage and achieves sufficient sensory restoration, but it is characterised by several major
220
drawbacks such as the loss of the digital artery and deterioration of the pulp sensibility and
AC C
EP
TE D
209
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT hyperaesthesia of the donor finger 18. Transferring a free flap, such as venous flow through
222
flap19, free groin20 or toe flap21, can be used as an alternative and is associated with minimal
223
donor site morbidities. However, these techniques usually require a two-team approach,
224
microsurgical technique, long operating time and carry a risk of anastomotic failure 22.
225
RI PT
221
The conventional cross-finger flap is an alternative for repairing the large regular defects, but for the irregular defect or fingertip degloving injury, the wide pedicle restricts its
227
application 23. We modified this technique to improve its flexibility by means of a narrow
228
pedicle containing the dorsal branch of the digital artery. Moreover, the entire dorsum of the
229
middle or proximal phalanx can be used as the donor. The important features of the modified
230
flap makes it more versatile for reconstructing a large soft-tissue defect, especially for the
231
fingertip degloving injury.
M AN U
SC
226
Fingertip degloving injury is a special type tissue defect involved the pulp and nail bed,
233
and is often associated with transected digital nerves in both sides 24. Therefore, restoration
234
of pulp sensation and reduction of complications are difficult. Double dorsal branches of the
235
digital nerves can be harvested with the flap to restore neurosensory function and reduce the
236
recurrence of the painful digital neuroma 25. It may become one valuable option as sensory
237
recovery and pain prevention in fingertip reconstruction.
EP
AC C
238
TE D
232
When the modified cross-finger flap can not provide sufficient coverage or can not reach
239
the distal portion of the defect, a combinative reconstruction with the two flaps may be an
240
alternative. However, more scars along the dorsum of the hand is its major disadvantage.
241
Therefore, this technique is only an additional option for coverage of the large soft-tissue
242
defects.
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 243
Finger stiffness may be the major concern in terms of joint motion when the modified cross-finger flap extends proximally beyond the proximal interphalangeal joint. However,
245
early rehabilitation can lower stiffness incidence and render the skin graft less prone to
246
contraction. In addition, early rehabilitation can prevent the development of extensor tendon
247
adhesion 26.
RI PT
244
Limitation of the study is the lack of comparison and control. Future studies ideally will
249
be prospective, randomized, and blinded to better ascertain the efficacy of our reconstructive
250
technique.
M AN U
SC
248
251 252
CONCLUSION
253
255
The modified cross-finger flap is versatile and useful for coverage of the relatively large
TE D
254
defect in the single fingers, especially when sensory reconstruction is needed.
258 259 260 261
AC C
257
EP
256
Funding: None
Conflicts of interest: None declared Ethical approval: Not required
262 263 264
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 265
REFERENCES
266
1. Yang D, Morris SF. Reversed dorsal digital and metacarpal island flaps supplied by the
268
dorsal cutaneous branches of the palmar digital artery. Ann Plast Surg. 2001;46:444–449.
269
2. Chen C, Tang P, Zhang L, Wang B. Treatment of fingertip degloving injury using the
270
bilaterally innervated sensory cross-finger flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2013; June; 6.
271
3. Strauch B, Moura W. Arterial system of the fingers. J Hand Surg Am. 1990;1:148–154.
272
4. Li YF, Cui SS. Innervated reverse island flap based on the end dorsal branch of the digital
273
artery: surgical technique. J Hand Surg Am. 2005;30:1305–1309.
274
5. Chen C, Tang P, Zhang L. Reconstruction of a soft tissue defect in the finger using the
275
heterodigital neurocutaneous island flap. Injury. 2013,44: 1607–1614.
276
6. Crosby PM, Dellon AL. Comparison of two-point discrimination testing devices.
277
Microsurgery. 1989;10:134–137.
278
7. Dellon AL, Kallman CH. Evaluation of functional sensation in the hand. J Hand Surg Am.
279
1983;8:865–870.
280
8. Chung KC, Hamill JB, Walters MR, Hayward RA. The Michigan Hand Outcomes
281
Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg.
282
1999;42:619–622.
283
9. Teoh LC, Tay SC, Yong FC, Tan SH, Khoo DB. Heterodigital arterialized flaps for large finger
284
wounds: results and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:1905–1913.
285
10. Tupper J, Miller G. Sensitivity following volar V-Y plasty for fingertip amputations. J Hand
286
Surg Br. 1985;10:183–184.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
267
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 11. Snow JW. Volar advancement skin flap to the fingertip. Hand Clin. 1985;1:685–688.
288
12. Han SK, Lee BI, Kim WK. The reverse digital artery island flap: an update. Plast Reconstr
289
Surg. 2004;113:1753–1755.
290
13. Chen C, Tang P, Zhang X. Sensory reconstruction of a finger pulp defect using a dorsal
291
homodigital island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 ;130:1077–1086.
292
14. Senarath-Yapa K, Bell DR. 'Front and back' flaps for multiple dorsal and palmar digital
293
skin loss. J Hand Surg Br. 2010;35:721–724.
294
15. Cohen BE, Cronin ED. An innervated cross-finger flap for fingertip reconstruction. Plast
295
Reconstr Surg. 1983;72:688–697.
296
16. Yoon SW, Rebecca AM, Smith AA, Mazaheri MK, Casey WJ. Reverse second dorsal
297
metacarpal artery flap for reconstruction of fourth-degree burn wounds of the hand. J Burn
298
Care Res. 2007;28:521–523.
299
17. Littler JW. The neurovascular pedicle method of digital transposition for reconstruction of
300
the thumb. Plast Reconstr Surg 1953;12:303–19.
301
18. Adani R, Squarzina PB, Castagnetti C, Lagana
302
study of the heterodigital neurovascular island flap in thumb reconstruction, with and without
303
nerve reconnection. J Hand Surg Br 1994;19:552–9.
304
19. Brooks D, Buntic RF, Taylor C. Use of the venous flap for salvage of difficult ring
305
avulsion injuries. Microsurgery. 2008;28:397–402.
306
20. Collins D, Sebire NJ, Barnacle A, Ramakrishnan V, Kangesu L. 'Mini' free groin flap for
307
treatment of a tufted angioma of the finger. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64:128–131.
308
21. Deglise B, Botta Y. Microsurgical free toe pulp transfer for digital reconstruction. Ann
309
Plast Surg. 1991;26:341–346.
A, Pancaldi G, Caroli A. A comparative
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
287
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22. Yao J, Li J, Shen X, Chen Q, Jing S. Clinical application of free digital artery flap of the
311
hand. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:980–983.
312
23. Lee JY, Teoh LC, Seah VW. Extending the reach of the heterodigital arterialized flap by
313
cross-finger transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:2320–1328.
314
24. Kazufumi S, Shinpo A, Sachiko K, et al. Delayed extended “midthenar” flap for
315
reconstruction of total fingertip avulsion injury and a proposal of ideal postoperative
316
immobilization for a palmar flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;58: 116–119.
317
25. Chen C, Tang P, Zhang X. The dorsal homodigital island flap based on the dorsal branch
318
of the digital artery: a review of 166 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014,133:519–529.
319
26. Shao X, Chen C, Zhang X, Yu Y, Ren D, Lu L. Coverage of fingertip defect using a
320
dorsal island pedicle flap including both dorsal digital nerves. J Hand Surg Am.
321
2009;34:1474–1481.
SC
M AN U
TE D EP
323
AC C
322
RI PT
310
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure legends
RI PT
Figure 1: A fingertip degloving injury involved the entire nail bed.
Figure 2: The modified cross-finger flap was harvested from the dorsum of adjacent middle
M AN U
Figure 3: The flap was transferred to the recipient site.
SC
finger. The 2 dorsal nerve branches were elevated with the flap (arrows).
Figure 4: At 3 months after surgery, the contour of the finger pulp was restored.
TE D
Figure 5: A soft-tissue defect of the little finger involving entire volar aspect.
Figure 6: A cross-finger flap was harvested from the dorsum of the ring finger. One dorsal
AC C
EP
branch of the digital nerve was harvested with the flap.
Figure 7: (Left) Transposition of the flap. (right) the appearance of the reconstructed finger at 5 weeks after surgery.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
S1748-6815(15)00175-8
DOI:
10.1016/j.bjps.2015.03.033
Reference:
PRAS 4585
To appear in:
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
Received Date: 18 November 2014 Accepted Date: 30 March 2015
Please cite this article as: Chen C, Tang P, Zhang L, Reconstruction of a Large Soft-tissue Defect in the Single Finger Using the Modified Cross Finger Flap, British Journal of Plastic Surgery (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.03.033. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Reconstruction of a Large Soft-tissue Defect in the Single Finger Using the Modified Cross
2
Finger Flap
3 a, b
Chao Chen, MD. PhD., a Peifu Tang, MD. PhD.,a Lihai Zhang, MD. PhD.
RI PT
4 5
Authors’ institution
7
a
The department of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, P.R. China
8
b
Hand Surgery Department, the Second Hospital of Tangshan, Tangshan, 063000, Hebei,
9
P.R. China
M AN U
SC
6
10
Contact information for the first author
12
Chao Chen, MD. PhD.,
13
The department of Orthopedics,
14
Chinese PLA General Hospital,
15
Beijing, 100853,
16
P.R. China
17
(+86) – 13700350471 (Mobile Phone)
18
[email protected] (email)
EP
AC C
19
TE D
11
20
Corresponding author:
21
Peifu Tang, MD. PhD.,
22
The department of Orthopedics,
1
23
Chinese PLA General Hospital,
24
Beijing, 100853,
25
P.R. China
26
(+86) – 13801379901 (Mobile Phone)
27
[email protected] (email)
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
28
SC
29
M AN U
30 31 32 33
37 38 39 40 41
EP
36
AC C
35
TE D
34
42 43 44
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 45
Reconstruction of a Large Soft-tissue Defect in the Single Finger Using the Modified Cross
46
Finger Flap
47
Key words: Soft-tissue defects; dorsal branch of the digital artery; dorsal branch of the digital
49
nerve; cross-finger flap.
RI PT
48
50
Abstract
SC
51
Background: Providing soft tissue coverage for a large defect in the single finger
M AN U
52 53
presents marked functional and aesthetic challenges. This article describes the reconstruction
54
of such injuries using a modified cross-finger flap and reports the results of the use of the flap. Methods: Over five years, a retrospective study was conducted with 22 patients who had
55
a large defect in the single finger. The mean size of soft tissue defects was 4.3 cm ± 0.4 in
57
length and 1.8 cm ± 0.4 in width. The defects were reconstructed with a modified cross-finger
58
flap.
Results: Full flap survival was achieved in 20 fingers. Partial distal flap necrosis
EP
59
TE D
56
occurred in 2 fingers, which healed without surgical intervention. We collected the data of the
61
sensory restoration in 20 flaps where sensory return was considered important. Based on the
62
modified American Society for Surgery of the Hand guidelines for stratification of 2PD, 17
63
(85 %) flaps achieved excellent and good results and only 3 (15 %) flap obtained fair result.
64
No significant difference was found in joint motion between the donor finger and the
65
contralateral side. According to the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, 11 patients
66
were satisfied, 9 were somewhat satisfied and 2 were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with
AC C
60
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 67 68 69
functional recovery of the reconstructed finger. Conclusions: The modified cross-finger flap is versatile and useful for coverage of the relatively large defect in the single fingers, especially when sensory reconstruction is needed.
71 72
Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic
.
SC
73
M AN U
74 75 76 77
82 83 84 85
EP
81
AC C
80
TE D
78 79
RI PT
70
86 87 88
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 89
INTRODUCTION
90 91
There is a wide range of options for reconstructing small to moderate soft-tissue defects of the finger allowing the use of a specific flap for each reconstructive situation 1. But for a
93
large defect in the single finger, the injury condition is often complex and severe, which limits
94
the choice of reconstructive alternative. The article introduces the reconstruction of these
95
defects using a modified cross-finger flap 2 and reports the results of the use of the flap.
SC
As described in previous anatomical studies, the distribution of the dorsal branches of the 3
M AN U
96
RI PT
92
digital artery is relatively constant
and these branches could be selected as the vascular
98
pedicles of the flaps harvested from the dorsum of the finger 4. Based on this anatomical
99
structure, a large size cross-finger flap can receive sufficient blood supply from 1 or 2 dorsal
100
branches through a narrow pedicle. In this manner, covering a large defect of the single finger
101
is practicable.
TE D
97
The purpose of this study was to report reconstruction of a large defect in the single
103
finger using a modified cross-finger flap and to evaluate the efficacy of their application in
104
such specific situation.
106 107 108
AC C
105
EP
102
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the participating hospitals.
109
Informed consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consents were
110
obtained from each patient.
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT From Jul 2007 to Sep 2012, a retrospective study was conducted with 22 patients who
112
had a relatively large defect in one finger treated with our technique. Our series included 17
113
male and 5 female patients, with mean age of 33 years (range, 21–56 years). The mechanisms
114
of injury were avulsion (n = 8), crush (n = 6), and degloving (n = 8). There were 22 soft tissue
115
defects in 22 fingers. The fingers requiring resurfacing included 6 index, 7 long, 5 ring, and 4
116
little fingers. The injuries included soft-tissue defect in 7 cases and fingertip degloving injury
117
involved the entire nail bed in 15 cases. The mean size of soft tissue defects was 4.3 cm ± 0.4
118
in length and 1.8 cm ± 0.4 in width. The defects were reconstructed with the dual- (n=16),
119
single- (n=4) and non- (n=2) innervated modified cross-finger flaps. Emergency surgery was
120
conducted in 17 patients, whereas elective surgery was noted in 5 patients.
SC
M AN U
121
RI PT
111
Patients were selected on the basis of the following: (1) a patient who had a large defect in one finger; (2) the defect 4 cm in length and (3) a patient between 15 and 60 years of age.
123
Patients were excluded when they had one of the following: (1) concomitant injuries to the
124
dorsum of adjacent finger that precluded its use as donor site; (2) a defect < 4 cm in length
125
and (3) the defect of the thumb.
EP
TE D
122
127 128
AC C
126
Surgical technique
The operation was performed under axillary block with the aid of tourniquet control. The
129
flap was designed on the dorsum of adjacent finger between the distal half of the proximal
130
phalanx and the distal interphalangeal joint. The pattern of the flap was based on the pattern
131
of the defect.
132
An incision was made through the flap outline and the flap was elevated above the
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT tenosynovium. The pedicle was selected at the level of the distal interphalangeal joint or the
134
base of the middle phalanx, at which digital artery sent off dorsal branches. One or two dorsal
135
branches were included in the 1-cm-wide pedicle. The pedicle was dissected to the original
136
site of the dorsal branch, and thus the maximal pedicle length was achieved. For a defect
137
where return of sensation was important, one or two dorsal branches of the digital nerves
138
could be harvested with the flap to restore neurosensory function. Thereafter, the injured
139
finger was flexed and placed in a position to receive the cross-finger flap. The flap was
140
transferred to the injured finger and the defect was covered. At last, the donor defect was
141
resurfaced with a full-thickness skin graft and tie-over dressing.
142
144
Postoperative management
A splint was used to maintain a tension-free pedicle. The pedicle was divided after a
TE D
143
M AN U
SC
RI PT
133
mean time of 20 days (range, 19–24 days). After that, the patient started active range of
146
motion exercises with the help of a physical therapist.
148 149
Evaluation of outcomes
AC C
147
EP
145
At final follow-up, sensation of the flaps was assessed using static two-point
150
discrimination (2PD) 5. The modified American Society for Surgery of the Hand guidelines
151
were used to stratify the 2PD measurements (excellent, < 6 mm; good, 6–10 mm; fair, 11–15
152
mm; poor, > 15 mm) 6. The range of motion (ROM) of the proximal and distal interphalangeal
153
joints of the donor finger was measured by a goniometer. Patients reported their satisfaction
154
with functional recovery of the injured finger according to the Michigan Hand Outcomes
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 155
Questionnaire that was based on a 5-point response scale 7.
156 157
RESULTS
159
RI PT
158
Full flap survival was observed in 20 fingers. Partial distal flap necrosis occurred in 2 fingers, which ranged from 10% to 15% of the original flaps and healed without surgical
161
intervention. No wound infection was observed. The follow-up period ranged from 20 to 24
162
months (mean, 22 months).
M AN U
163 164
SC
160
Sensory Recovery
We collected the data of the flap sensibility in the fingers where sensory return was
166
considered important. These anatomical regions included the fingertip and the volar aspect of
167
the finger. Reconstructive techniques included the dual- (n=16) and single-innervated (n=4)
168
cross-finger flaps. At the final follow-up, the mean static 2PD was 7.2 mm (range, 5 to 11 mm)
169
and 9.0 mm (range, 7 to 12mm), respectively. Based on the modified American Society for
170
Surgery of the Hand guidelines for stratification of 2PD, 17 (85 %) flaps achieved excellent
171
and good results and only 3 (15 %) flap obtained fair result.
173 174
EP
AC C
172
TE D
165
Joint Motion
Of the donor fingers, the ROM of the proximal and distal interphalangeal joints were 99°
175
(range, 85° to 110°) and 72° (range, 40° to 90°), respectively. The measurements of the
176
contralateral side were 101° (range, 90° to 110°) and 73° (range, 45° to 90°), respectively. No
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 177
significant difference was found between the donor finger and the contralateral side.
178 179
Patient satisfaction According to the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, 11 patients were satisfied
181
(score 5), 9 were somewhat satisfied (score 4) and 2 were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
182
with functional recovery of the reconstructed finger.
CASE REPORTS
185
Case 1
186
M AN U
184
SC
183
RI PT
180
A 22-year-old worker sustained a degloving injury to his left ring, resulting in a projecting tip of the distal phalanx and a soft tissue defect with 4.3×1.8 cm in size (Fig. 1). A
188
modified cross-finger flap was harvested from the dorsum of the middle finger. The size of
189
the flap was 4.4×2.0 cm. Double dorsal branches of the digital nerves were harvested with
190
the flap for sensory reconstruction of the pulp (Fig. 2 and 3). The flaps survived completely.
191
Four months after surgery, almost full range of motion was attained to the donor finger (Fig.
192
4). The static 2PD on the reconstructed pulp was 8 mm at 22 months postoperatively.
194 195
EP
AC C
193
TE D
187
Case 2
A 35-year-old male worker had a crushing injury in the right hand, resulting in a large
196
volar defect in the little finger with 4.2×1.6 cm in size (Fig. 5). Although the ring finger had
197
a fingertip defect, its dorsal skin on the proximal and middle phalanxes was uninjured and
198
could be used as a donor site. A single-innervated cross-finger flap was harvested from the
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 199
dorsum of the ring finger (Fig. 6). The flap survived completely and the graft healed
200
uneventfully (Fig. 7). No loss of joint motion occurred in the donor finger 3 months after
201
surgery. The static 2PD was 10 mm on the flap at 23 months postoperatively.
203
RI PT
202
DISCUSSION
204
Providing soft tissue coverage for a large defect in the single finger often presents
SC
205
marked functional and aesthetic challenges 9. The article introduces the use of a modified
207
cross-finger flap 2, which can be an optional solution.
208
M AN U
206
Some reconstructive techniques have been described in the literature. A volar V-Y flap10 can result in a good sensory recovery, but the flap cannot be used to cover a defect longer
210
than 1.5 cm. The neurovascular island pedicle advancement flap11, dorsal homodigital island
211
flap based on the digital artery12 or its dorsal branch13 are available options for tissue coverage
212
of the small to moderate defects. But for a large defect in the single finger, none of these
213
options can afford to provide sufficient or reasonable coverage. The abdominal or forearm
214
random-pattern flap is technically easy for repairing these injuries14. However, the overstaffed
215
form and poor sensory recovery are major disadvantages of these technique15. The reverse
216
dorsal metacarpal artery flap or its modified technique can be used as alternatives but have a
217
limited pedicle length to reach the defects distal to the distal interphalangeal joint16. A Littler
218
flap17 based on the heterodigital neurovascular bundle provides relatively large tissue
219
coverage and achieves sufficient sensory restoration, but it is characterised by several major
220
drawbacks such as the loss of the digital artery and deterioration of the pulp sensibility and
AC C
EP
TE D
209
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT hyperaesthesia of the donor finger 18. Transferring a free flap, such as venous flow through
222
flap19, free groin20 or toe flap21, can be used as an alternative and is associated with minimal
223
donor site morbidities. However, these techniques usually require a two-team approach,
224
microsurgical technique, long operating time and carry a risk of anastomotic failure 22.
225
RI PT
221
The conventional cross-finger flap is an alternative for repairing the large regular defects, but for the irregular defect or fingertip degloving injury, the wide pedicle restricts its
227
application 23. We modified this technique to improve its flexibility by means of a narrow
228
pedicle containing the dorsal branch of the digital artery. Moreover, the entire dorsum of the
229
middle or proximal phalanx can be used as the donor. The important features of the modified
230
flap makes it more versatile for reconstructing a large soft-tissue defect, especially for the
231
fingertip degloving injury.
M AN U
SC
226
Fingertip degloving injury is a special type tissue defect involved the pulp and nail bed,
233
and is often associated with transected digital nerves in both sides 24. Therefore, restoration
234
of pulp sensation and reduction of complications are difficult. Double dorsal branches of the
235
digital nerves can be harvested with the flap to restore neurosensory function and reduce the
236
recurrence of the painful digital neuroma 25. It may become one valuable option as sensory
237
recovery and pain prevention in fingertip reconstruction.
EP
AC C
238
TE D
232
When the modified cross-finger flap can not provide sufficient coverage or can not reach
239
the distal portion of the defect, a combinative reconstruction with the two flaps may be an
240
alternative. However, more scars along the dorsum of the hand is its major disadvantage.
241
Therefore, this technique is only an additional option for coverage of the large soft-tissue
242
defects.
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 243
Finger stiffness may be the major concern in terms of joint motion when the modified cross-finger flap extends proximally beyond the proximal interphalangeal joint. However,
245
early rehabilitation can lower stiffness incidence and render the skin graft less prone to
246
contraction. In addition, early rehabilitation can prevent the development of extensor tendon
247
adhesion 26.
RI PT
244
Limitation of the study is the lack of comparison and control. Future studies ideally will
249
be prospective, randomized, and blinded to better ascertain the efficacy of our reconstructive
250
technique.
M AN U
SC
248
251 252
CONCLUSION
253
255
The modified cross-finger flap is versatile and useful for coverage of the relatively large
TE D
254
defect in the single fingers, especially when sensory reconstruction is needed.
258 259 260 261
AC C
257
EP
256
Funding: None
Conflicts of interest: None declared Ethical approval: Not required
262 263 264
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 265
REFERENCES
266
1. Yang D, Morris SF. Reversed dorsal digital and metacarpal island flaps supplied by the
268
dorsal cutaneous branches of the palmar digital artery. Ann Plast Surg. 2001;46:444–449.
269
2. Chen C, Tang P, Zhang L, Wang B. Treatment of fingertip degloving injury using the
270
bilaterally innervated sensory cross-finger flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2013; June; 6.
271
3. Strauch B, Moura W. Arterial system of the fingers. J Hand Surg Am. 1990;1:148–154.
272
4. Li YF, Cui SS. Innervated reverse island flap based on the end dorsal branch of the digital
273
artery: surgical technique. J Hand Surg Am. 2005;30:1305–1309.
274
5. Chen C, Tang P, Zhang L. Reconstruction of a soft tissue defect in the finger using the
275
heterodigital neurocutaneous island flap. Injury. 2013,44: 1607–1614.
276
6. Crosby PM, Dellon AL. Comparison of two-point discrimination testing devices.
277
Microsurgery. 1989;10:134–137.
278
7. Dellon AL, Kallman CH. Evaluation of functional sensation in the hand. J Hand Surg Am.
279
1983;8:865–870.
280
8. Chung KC, Hamill JB, Walters MR, Hayward RA. The Michigan Hand Outcomes
281
Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg.
282
1999;42:619–622.
283
9. Teoh LC, Tay SC, Yong FC, Tan SH, Khoo DB. Heterodigital arterialized flaps for large finger
284
wounds: results and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:1905–1913.
285
10. Tupper J, Miller G. Sensitivity following volar V-Y plasty for fingertip amputations. J Hand
286
Surg Br. 1985;10:183–184.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
267
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 11. Snow JW. Volar advancement skin flap to the fingertip. Hand Clin. 1985;1:685–688.
288
12. Han SK, Lee BI, Kim WK. The reverse digital artery island flap: an update. Plast Reconstr
289
Surg. 2004;113:1753–1755.
290
13. Chen C, Tang P, Zhang X. Sensory reconstruction of a finger pulp defect using a dorsal
291
homodigital island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 ;130:1077–1086.
292
14. Senarath-Yapa K, Bell DR. 'Front and back' flaps for multiple dorsal and palmar digital
293
skin loss. J Hand Surg Br. 2010;35:721–724.
294
15. Cohen BE, Cronin ED. An innervated cross-finger flap for fingertip reconstruction. Plast
295
Reconstr Surg. 1983;72:688–697.
296
16. Yoon SW, Rebecca AM, Smith AA, Mazaheri MK, Casey WJ. Reverse second dorsal
297
metacarpal artery flap for reconstruction of fourth-degree burn wounds of the hand. J Burn
298
Care Res. 2007;28:521–523.
299
17. Littler JW. The neurovascular pedicle method of digital transposition for reconstruction of
300
the thumb. Plast Reconstr Surg 1953;12:303–19.
301
18. Adani R, Squarzina PB, Castagnetti C, Lagana
302
study of the heterodigital neurovascular island flap in thumb reconstruction, with and without
303
nerve reconnection. J Hand Surg Br 1994;19:552–9.
304
19. Brooks D, Buntic RF, Taylor C. Use of the venous flap for salvage of difficult ring
305
avulsion injuries. Microsurgery. 2008;28:397–402.
306
20. Collins D, Sebire NJ, Barnacle A, Ramakrishnan V, Kangesu L. 'Mini' free groin flap for
307
treatment of a tufted angioma of the finger. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64:128–131.
308
21. Deglise B, Botta Y. Microsurgical free toe pulp transfer for digital reconstruction. Ann
309
Plast Surg. 1991;26:341–346.
A, Pancaldi G, Caroli A. A comparative
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
287
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22. Yao J, Li J, Shen X, Chen Q, Jing S. Clinical application of free digital artery flap of the
311
hand. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:980–983.
312
23. Lee JY, Teoh LC, Seah VW. Extending the reach of the heterodigital arterialized flap by
313
cross-finger transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:2320–1328.
314
24. Kazufumi S, Shinpo A, Sachiko K, et al. Delayed extended “midthenar” flap for
315
reconstruction of total fingertip avulsion injury and a proposal of ideal postoperative
316
immobilization for a palmar flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;58: 116–119.
317
25. Chen C, Tang P, Zhang X. The dorsal homodigital island flap based on the dorsal branch
318
of the digital artery: a review of 166 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014,133:519–529.
319
26. Shao X, Chen C, Zhang X, Yu Y, Ren D, Lu L. Coverage of fingertip defect using a
320
dorsal island pedicle flap including both dorsal digital nerves. J Hand Surg Am.
321
2009;34:1474–1481.
SC
M AN U
TE D EP
323
AC C
322
RI PT
310
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure legends
RI PT
Figure 1: A fingertip degloving injury involved the entire nail bed.
Figure 2: The modified cross-finger flap was harvested from the dorsum of adjacent middle
M AN U
Figure 3: The flap was transferred to the recipient site.
SC
finger. The 2 dorsal nerve branches were elevated with the flap (arrows).
Figure 4: At 3 months after surgery, the contour of the finger pulp was restored.
TE D
Figure 5: A soft-tissue defect of the little finger involving entire volar aspect.
Figure 6: A cross-finger flap was harvested from the dorsum of the ring finger. One dorsal
AC C
EP
branch of the digital nerve was harvested with the flap.
Figure 7: (Left) Transposition of the flap. (right) the appearance of the reconstructed finger at 5 weeks after surgery.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT