Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36(03): 213-222
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3400515
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Long-Term Quality of Life after Free Flap Upper Extremity Reconstruction for Traumatic Injuries

Sara van Bekkum 
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Tim de Jong
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Michiel Zuidam
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Marc A. M. Mureau 
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

22 July 2019

10 October 2019

Publication Date:
22 November 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Microsurgical reconstruction of upper extremity injuries is often challenging, and the resulting impact on the quality of life (QoL) may be significant. However, there is a lack of knowledge on long-term patient-reported QoL.

Methods In a retrospective long-term follow-up study, all consecutive patients with an upper extremity injury who had undergone a free flap reconstruction were identified and categorized into three groups based on the type of injury. Patient-reported upper extremity function and QoL were assessed using three validated questionnaires: the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ).

Results A total of 61 patients were identified, of whom 10% had undergone a free flap reconstruction for soft tissue loss only, 62% for an injury accompanied by a fracture, and 28% for a (sub) total amputation. Twenty-one (44%) patients responded to the questionnaires, with a mean follow-up time of 9.7 ± 6.2 years. Patients, on average, reported poorer SF-36 “physical component score” and “role limitations due to physical health” scores compared with Dutch norms. Also, they reported poorer mean DASH scores compared with the general population, indicating worse upper extremity function. Mean MQH scores were lower for the injured side compared with the noninjured side. Pain correlated negatively with the total scores of DASH, MHQ, and SF-36.

Conclusion Free flap upper extremity reconstruction is challenging. At 10 years of follow-up, the injury and its treatment continued to have a significant impact on the upper extremity function and daily QoL, with chronic pain being an important factor negatively affecting these outcomes.

Keywords

upper extremity - free flap - patient-reported outcomes
 

  • References

  • 1 Hegge T, Neumeister MW. Mutilated hand injuries. Clin Plast Surg 2011; 38 (04) 543-550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rosberg HE, Carlsson KS, Dahlin LB. Prospective study of patients with injuries to the hand and forearm: costs, function, and general health. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2005; 39 (06) 360-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Matsuzaki H, Narisawa H, Miwa H, Toishi S. Predicting functional recovery and return to work after mutilating hand injuries: usefulness of Campbell's Hand Injury Severity Score. J Hand Surg Am 2009; 34 (05) 880-885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Meyer TM. Psychological aspects of mutilating hand injuries. Hand Clin 2003; 19 (01) 41-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Harrison BL, Lakhiani C, Lee MR, Saint-Cyr M. Timing of traumatic upper extremity free flap reconstruction: a systematic review and progress report. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (03) 591-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Stevanovic M, Sharpe F. Functional free muscle transfer for upper extremity reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (02) 257e-274e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bumbasirevic M, Stevanovic M, Lesic A, Atkinson HD. Current management of the mangled upper extremity. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (11) 2189-2195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Panattoni JB, Ahmed MM, Busel GA. An ABC technical algorithm to treat the mangled upper extremity: systematic surgical approach. J Hand Surg Am 2017; 42 (11) 934.e1-934.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dolan RT, Butler JS, Murphy SM, Cronin KJ. Health-related quality of life, surgical and aesthetic outcomes following microvascular free flap reconstructions: an 8-year institutional review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2012; 94 (01) 43-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Prasarn ML, Helfet DL, Kloen P. Management of the mangled extremity. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 2012; 7 (02) 57-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cano SJ, Browne JP, Lamping DL. Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg 2004; 57 (01) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gupta A, Lakhiani C, Lim BH. , et al. Free tissue transfer to the traumatized upper extremity: risk factors for postoperative complications in 282 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (09) 1184-1190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Derderian CA, Olivier WA, Baux G, Levine J, Gurtner GC. Microvascular free-tissue transfer for traumatic defects of the upper extremity: a 25-year experience. J Reconstr Microsurg 2003; 19 (07) 455-462
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wormald JCR, Rodrigues JN. Outcome measurement in plastic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (03) 283-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (06) 473-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD. , et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51 (11) 1055-1068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. ; The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) [corrected]. Am J Ind Med 1996; 29 (06) 602-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther 2001; 14 (02) 128-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Veehof MM, Sleegers EJ, van Veldhoven NH, Schuurman AH, van Meeteren NL. Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV). J Hand Ther 2002; 15 (04) 347-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 1998; 23 (04) 575-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Chung KC, Hamill JB, Walters MR, Hayward RA. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg 1999; 42 (06) 619-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hunsaker FG, Cioffi DA, Amadio PC, Wright JG, Caughlin B. The American academy of orthopaedic surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84 (02) 208-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hsu CC, Lin YT, Lin CH, Lin CH, Wei FC. Immediate emergency free anterolateral thigh flap transfer for the mutilated upper extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (06) 1739-1747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sauerbier M, Ofer N, Germann G, Baumeister S. Microvascular reconstruction in burn and electrical burn injuries of the severely traumatized upper extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119 (02) 605-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Godina M. Early microsurgical reconstruction of complex trauma of the extremities. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986; 78 (03) 285-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Las DE, de Jong T, Zuidam JM, Verweij NM, Hovius SER, Mureau MAM. Identification of independent risk factors for flap failure: a retrospective analysis of 1530 free flaps for breast, head and neck and extremity reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (07) 894-906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Malahias M, Jordan DJ, Hindocha S, Khan W, Juma A. The development and future of reconstructive and microvascular surgery of the hand. Open Orthop J 2014; 8 (01) 415-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chung KC, Yoon AP, Malay S, Shauver MJ, Wang L, Kaur S. ; FRANCHISE Group. Patient-reported and functional outcomes after revision amputation and replantation of digit amputations: the FRANCHISE multicenter international retrospective cohort study. JAMA Surg 2019; 154 (07) 637-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Sabapathy SR, Satbhai NG. Microsurgery in the urgent and emergent management of the hand. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2014; 7 (01) 40-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pet MA, Morrison SD, Mack JS. , et al. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after traumatic upper extremity amputation: replantation versus prosthetic rehabilitation. Injury 2016; 47 (12) 2783-2788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Stanger K, Horch RE, Dragu A. Severe mutilating injuries with complex macroamputations of the upper extremity - is it worth the effort?. World J Emerg Surg 2015; 10: 30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kremer T, Bickert B, Germann G, Heitmann C, Sauerbier M. Outcome assessment after reconstruction of complex defects of the forearm and hand with osteocutaneous free flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (02) 443-454 , discussion 455–456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 George JM, Scott DS, Turner SP, Gregg JM. The effects of psychological factors and physical trauma on recovery from oral surgery. J Behav Med 1980; 3 (03) 291-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Jayakumar P, Overbeek CL, Lamb S. , et al. What factors are associated with disability after upper extremity injuries? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476 (11) 2190-2215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Giladi AM, Ranganathan K, Chung KC. Measuring functional and patient-reported outcomes after treatment of mutilating hand injuries: a global health approach. Hand Clin 2016; 32 (04) 465-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Chan J, Spencer J. Adaptation to hand injury: an evolving experience. Am J Occup Ther 2004; 58 (02) 128-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Galanakos SP, Bot AG, Zoubos AB, Soucacos PN. Psychological and social consequences after reconstruction of upper extremity trauma: methods of detection and management. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (03) 193-206
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Gustafsson M, Hagberg L, Holmefur M. Ten years follow-up of health and disability in people with acute traumatic hand injury: pain and cold sensitivity are long-standing problems. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2011; 36 (07) 590-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Egeler SA, de Jong T, Luijsterburg AJM, Mureau MAM. Long-term patient-reported outcomes following free flap lower extremity reconstruction for traumatic injuries. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (03) 773-783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Aerny-Perreten N, Domínguez-Berjón MF, Esteban-Vasallo MD, García-Riolobos C. Participation and factors associated with late or non-response to an online survey in primary care. J Eval Clin Pract 2015; 21 (04) 688-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hutchings A, Neuburger J, Grosse Frie K, Black N, van der Meulen J. Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012; 10: 34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kim J, Lonner JH, Nelson CL, Lotke PA. Response bias: effect on outcomes evaluation by mail surveys after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (01) 15-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Bot AGJ, Anderson JA, Neuhaus V, Ring D. Factors associated with survey response in hand surgery research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (10) 3237-3242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar