Treatment of Volar Defects of the Finger using Dorsal Digital–metacarpal Flap Versus Free Medial Plantar Artery Flap: A Comparative Study
Background: The treatment of defects on the volar surface of the finger has been scarcely reported, and its utility for digital resurfacing remains unclear. This study compared the outcomes of free medial plantar artery flap (MPAF) and dorsal digital–metacarpal flap (DDMF) in finger reconstruction.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 24 patients with soft-tissue defects on the volar surface of the finger from March 2014 to March 2017. The patients were divided into two groups: the MPAF group and the DDMF group. The operation time, complications, such as flap necrosis, graft loss, infection, paresthesia, and donor-site morbidity, as well as two-point discrimination (2-PD) were carefully recorded. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire was used for conduct follow-up assessment.
Results: After more than 12 months of follow-up, the MPAF group had a longer operative time compared with DDMF group, but there was no significant difference in postoperative complications and the results (2-PD and Modified VSS score) were significant. In terms of overall function, MPAF was superior to DDMF (p < 0.005).
Conclusion: MPAF and DDMF are reliable for reconstruction of the volar surface of the finger; however, MPAF offers better functional outcomes and is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative complications.
Figure 1
Figure 2
On 22 Jan, 2021
On 02 Dec, 2020
On 30 Nov, 2020
On 18 Nov, 2020
On 16 Nov, 2020
On 16 Nov, 2020
On 16 Nov, 2020
Posted 03 Nov, 2020
On 05 Nov, 2020
On 03 Nov, 2020
Received 03 Nov, 2020
Invitations sent on 28 Oct, 2020
On 28 Oct, 2020
Received 28 Oct, 2020
On 28 Oct, 2020
On 27 Oct, 2020
On 27 Oct, 2020
On 06 Aug, 2020
On 05 Aug, 2020
On 05 Aug, 2020
Posted 11 Aug, 2020
On 22 Sep, 2020
Received 20 Sep, 2020
Received 09 Sep, 2020
On 05 Sep, 2020
On 30 Aug, 2020
Received 29 Aug, 2020
Invitations sent on 28 Aug, 2020
On 28 Aug, 2020
On 20 Aug, 2020
On 19 Aug, 2020
On 19 Aug, 2020
Treatment of Volar Defects of the Finger using Dorsal Digital–metacarpal Flap Versus Free Medial Plantar Artery Flap: A Comparative Study
On 22 Jan, 2021
On 02 Dec, 2020
On 30 Nov, 2020
On 18 Nov, 2020
On 16 Nov, 2020
On 16 Nov, 2020
On 16 Nov, 2020
Posted 03 Nov, 2020
On 05 Nov, 2020
On 03 Nov, 2020
Received 03 Nov, 2020
Invitations sent on 28 Oct, 2020
On 28 Oct, 2020
Received 28 Oct, 2020
On 28 Oct, 2020
On 27 Oct, 2020
On 27 Oct, 2020
On 06 Aug, 2020
On 05 Aug, 2020
On 05 Aug, 2020
Posted 11 Aug, 2020
On 22 Sep, 2020
Received 20 Sep, 2020
Received 09 Sep, 2020
On 05 Sep, 2020
On 30 Aug, 2020
Received 29 Aug, 2020
Invitations sent on 28 Aug, 2020
On 28 Aug, 2020
On 20 Aug, 2020
On 19 Aug, 2020
On 19 Aug, 2020
Background: The treatment of defects on the volar surface of the finger has been scarcely reported, and its utility for digital resurfacing remains unclear. This study compared the outcomes of free medial plantar artery flap (MPAF) and dorsal digital–metacarpal flap (DDMF) in finger reconstruction.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 24 patients with soft-tissue defects on the volar surface of the finger from March 2014 to March 2017. The patients were divided into two groups: the MPAF group and the DDMF group. The operation time, complications, such as flap necrosis, graft loss, infection, paresthesia, and donor-site morbidity, as well as two-point discrimination (2-PD) were carefully recorded. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire was used for conduct follow-up assessment.
Results: After more than 12 months of follow-up, the MPAF group had a longer operative time compared with DDMF group, but there was no significant difference in postoperative complications and the results (2-PD and Modified VSS score) were significant. In terms of overall function, MPAF was superior to DDMF (p < 0.005).
Conclusion: MPAF and DDMF are reliable for reconstruction of the volar surface of the finger; however, MPAF offers better functional outcomes and is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative complications.
Figure 1
Figure 2