See the published version of this preprint at BMC Surgery.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Heng Tian
Jilin University Second Hospital
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5973-5667
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Few cases are reported on the treatment of defects on the volar surface of the finger, and its utility for digital resurfacing remains unclear. This study compared the outcomes of the free medial plantar artery flap (MPAF) and dorsal digital–metacarpal flap (DDMF) in finger reconstruction.
Methods
This cohort study was conducted on 24 patients who had soft-tissue defects on the volar side of the finger from March 2014 to March 2017. The patients were divided into the following 2 groups: the MPAF group and the DDMF group. The operative time as well as complications, including flap necrosis, graft loss, infection, paresthesia, donor-site morbidity, and two-point discrimination (2-PD) were carefully recorded. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) was applied to conduct follow-up assessment.
Results
After more than 12 months of follow-up, the results were significant. In terms of overall function, MPAF was superior to DDMF (p < 0.005).
Conclusion
The MPAF and the DDMF are available and reliable for reconstruction of the volar surface of the finger; however, the MPAF offers better functional outcomes with a lower frequency of postoperative complications.
Keywords
soft-tissue defect, volar surface of finger, MPAF, DDMF, nerve injury
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Surgery.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 02 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 30 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 05 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Nov, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 03 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 28 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Oct, 2020
Version 1
Posted 11 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 06 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 05 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 05 Aug, 2020
Version (no preprint)
Posted 11 Aug, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 22 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 20 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 05 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 29 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Aug, 2020
This version was not preprinted
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Surgery.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Heng Tian
Jilin University Second Hospital
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5973-5667
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Surgery.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 02 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 30 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 05 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Nov, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 03 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 28 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Oct, 2020
Version 1
Posted 11 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 06 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 05 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 05 Aug, 2020
Version (no preprint)
Posted 11 Aug, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 22 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 20 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 05 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 29 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Aug, 2020
This version was not preprinted
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Surgery.
Background
Few cases are reported on the treatment of defects on the volar surface of the finger, and its utility for digital resurfacing remains unclear. This study compared the outcomes of the free medial plantar artery flap (MPAF) and dorsal digital–metacarpal flap (DDMF) in finger reconstruction.
Methods
This cohort study was conducted on 24 patients who had soft-tissue defects on the volar side of the finger from March 2014 to March 2017. The patients were divided into the following 2 groups: the MPAF group and the DDMF group. The operative time as well as complications, including flap necrosis, graft loss, infection, paresthesia, donor-site morbidity, and two-point discrimination (2-PD) were carefully recorded. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) was applied to conduct follow-up assessment.
Results
After more than 12 months of follow-up, the results were significant. In terms of overall function, MPAF was superior to DDMF (p < 0.005).
Conclusion
The MPAF and the DDMF are available and reliable for reconstruction of the volar surface of the finger; however, the MPAF offers better functional outcomes with a lower frequency of postoperative complications.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...