Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2012; 28(04): 221-226
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1306369
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Treatment of Fingertip Amputation: Comparison of Results between Microsurgical Replantation and Pocket Principle

Tetsuji Yabe
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Ishikiri-Seiki Hospital, Osaka, Japan
,
Tomoyuki Tsuda
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Ishikiri-Seiki Hospital, Osaka, Japan
,
Shunsuke Hirose
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Ishikiri-Seiki Hospital, Osaka, Japan
,
Toshiyuki Ozawa
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Osaka City University Medical School, Osaka, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

22 July 2011

09 November 2011

Publication Date:
07 March 2012 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

In this article, a comparison of replantation using microsurgical replantation (replantation) and the Brent method and its modification (pocket principle) in the treatment of fingertip amputation is reported. As a classification of amputation level, we used Ishikawa's subzone classification of fingertip amputation, and the cases of amputations only in subzone 2 were included in this study. Between these two groups, there was no statistical difference in survival rate, postoperative atrophy, or postoperative range of motion. In terms of sensory recovery, some records were lost and exact study was difficult. But there was no obvious difference between these cases. In our comparison of microsurgical replantation versus the pocket principle in treatment of subzone 2 fingertip amputation, there was no difference in postoperative results. Each method has pros and cons, and the surgeon should choose which technique to use based on his or her understanding of the characteristics of both methods.

Keywords

fingertip replantation - microsurgery - pocket principle
 

  • References

  • 1 Yamano Y. Replantation of the amputated distal part of the fingers. J Hand Surg Am 1985; 10 (2) 211-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Akyürek M, Safak T, Keçik A. Fingertip replantation at or distal to the nail base: use of the technique of artery-only anastomosis. Ann Plast Surg 2001; 46 (6) 605-612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hattori Y, Doi K, Ikeda K, Abe Y, Dhawan V. Significance of venous anastomosis in fingertip replantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111 (3) 1151-1158
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Elsahy NI. When to replant a fingertip after its complete amputation. Plast Reconstr Surg 1977; 60 (1) 14-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brent B. Replantation of amputated distal phalangeal parts of fingers without vascular anastomoses, using subcutaneous pockets. Plast Reconstr Surg 1979; 63 (1) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Arata J, Ishikawa K, Soeda H, Sawabe K, Kokoroishi R, Togo T. The palmar pocket method: an adjunct to the management of zone I and II fingertip amputations. J Hand Surg Am 2001; 26 (5) 945-950
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lin TS, Jeng SF, Chiang YC. Fingertip replantation using the subdermal pocket procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (1) 247-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ishikawa K, Ogawa Y, Soeda H, Yoshida Y. A new classification of the amputated level for the distal part of the finger. J Jpn Soc Reconstr Microsurg 1990; 3: 54-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ito H, Sasaki K, Morioka K, Nozaki M. Fingertip amputation salvage on arterial anastomosis alone: an investigation of its limitations. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 65 (3) 302-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lee PK, Ahn ST, Lim P. Replantation of fingertip amputation by using the pocket principle in adults. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 103 (5) 1428-1435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kim KS, Eo SR, Kim DY, Lee SY, Cho BH. A new strategy of fingertip reattachment: sequential use of microsurgical technique and pocketing of composite graft. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107 (1) 73-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar