Safa, Bauback

AbstractDespite being relatively uncommon in the general population, thumb amputations cause severe disability. More than 3,300 thumb amputations occurred in the United States. The thumb makes up around 40% of the function of the hand. Therefore, losing it would result in significant medical, hospital, and societal costs. Thumb reconstruction surgery's primary goal is to restore grip strength, including the range of motion, fine and tripod pinch, power grasp, strength, and sensibility, while secondary goals include restoring hand aesthetics. In cases of thumb replantation, like-for-like replacement is possible; however, when thumb replantation is not possible, great toe-to-hand transplantation is the best available reconstruction. When compared with other reconstructive options such as osteoplastic thumb reconstruction, pollicization, second toe transplantation, and the use of a thumb prosthesis, great toe transplantation provides superior function and aesthetics. For restoring pinch, sensitivity, strength, and aesthetics of the hand with well-tolerated donor site morbidity, toe to thumb transplantation is regarded as the gold standard.

AbstractBackgroundPeripheral nerve damage resulting in pain, loss of sensation, or motor function may necessitate a reconstruction with a bridging material. The RANGER® Registry was designed to evaluate outcomes following nerve repair with processed nerve allograft (Avance® Nerve Graft; Axogen; Alachua, FL). Here we report on the results from the largest peripheral nerve registry to‐date.MethodsThis multicenter IRB‐approved registry study collected data from patients repaired with processed nerve allograft (PNA). Sites followed their own standard of care for patient treatment and follow‐up. Data were assessed for meaningful recovery, defined as ≥S3/M3 to remain consistent with previously published results, and comparisons were made to reference literature.ResultsThe study included 385 subjects and 624 nerve repairs. Overall, 82% meaningful recovery (MR) was achieved across sensory, mixed, and motor nerve repairs up to gaps of 70 mm. No related adverse events were reported. There were no significant differences in MR across the nerve type, age, time‐to‐repair, and smoking status subgroups in the upper extremity (p > .05). Significant differences were noted by the mechanism of injury subgroups between complex injures (74%) as compared to lacerations (85%) or neuroma resections (94%) (p = .03) and by gap length between the <15 mm and 50–70 mm gap subgroups, 91 and 69% MR, respectively (p = .01). Results were comparable to historical literature for nerve autograft and exceed that of conduit.ConclusionsThese findings provide clinical evidence to support the continued use of PNA up to 70 mm in sensory, mixed and motor nerve repair throughout the body and across a broad patient population.

AbstractBackgroundIn microvascular free‐tissue harvest and transfer, the need for repositioning from lateral decubitus position and the inability to use a two‐team approach are major drawbacks of the subscapular system. We present our experience with the subscapular system for upper and lower extremity reconstruction using a two‐team approach without need for repositioning.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review for all patients undergoing free flap transplant based on the subscapular system to the upper or lower extremity at our microsurgical facility from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011. Only cases not requiring intraoperative repositioning were included. Sixty‐four patients underwent the two‐team approach (37 upper extremity and 27 lower extremity transplants). Flap types included latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous, partial superior latissimus, dorsal thoracic fascia, serratus, scapular bone, and thoracodorsal artery perforator, either alone or as chimeric flaps. All patients were placed in the lateral decubitus position for the duration of the surgery.ResultsThe ipsilateral subscapular system was used in 16% of cases for lower extremity defects, where the anterior tibial vessels served as recipient vessels. The contralateral subscapular system was used in all remaining cases for upper extremity or the vast majority for lower extremity (84%) defects, where either the superficial femoral, genicular, popliteal, sural, or posterior tibial vessels served as recipient vessels. With the exception of one partial flap loss secondary to infection, all flaps survived.ConclusionsProper lateral decubitus positioning allows for a two‐team approach without compromising safety or outcomes.