Download PDF
J Hand Microsurg 2020; 12(02): 074-084
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700445
Review Article

Correction of Thumb Duplication: A Systematic Review of Surgical Techniques

Robert Miller 
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom
,
Alexandre Kaempfen
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Jamil Moledina
3   Department of Plastic Surgery, St George’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom
,
Bran Sivakumar
4   Department of Plastic Surgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom
5   Department of Paediatric Plastic Surgery, Sidra Hospital, Doha, Qatar
,
Gill Smith
4   Department of Plastic Surgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom
,
Dariush Nikkhah
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Surgical intervention for thumb duplication can be divided into three categories: simple excision of the accessory thumb, excision of the accessory thumb with reconstruction from available “spare parts,” and combining the two thumbs into one, as described by Bilhaut. This prospectively PROSPERO registered systematic review evaluates the overall, aesthetic and functional outcomes for the latter two options (reconstruction from spare parts vs. combining two thumbs into one), aiming to facilitate evidence-based decision making when addressing thumb duplication and direct future research. The review was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and PRISMA statement. Embase, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched. Studies offering comparisons of techniques were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies—of Intervention tool. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Ten retrospective observational studies were included. Data did not consistently allow analysis by procedure type. Four studies reported similar overall outcomes between techniques, while two specifically reported poor overall outcomes for the Bilhaut procedure. Two studies reported comparatively worse aesthetic outcomes for the Bilhaut procedure with four studies reporting comparatively improved functional outcomes for this procedure. Overall, interpretation of outcomes was challenging with no patient-reported outcome measures used. The quality of the evidence was universally “very low” due to all studies being at risk of methodological bias. Based on the available evidence, surgical techniques for thumb duplication correction appear comparable regarding overall outcome. There is limited evidence suggesting reconstruction with spare parts offers superior aesthetic outcomes at the expense of stability. The level of evidence is III.

Keywords

thumb duplication - congenital upper limb anomaly surgery - systematic review

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
22 November 2019

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Yen CH, Chan WL, Leung HB, Mak KH. Thumb polydactyly: clinical outcome after reconstruction. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2006; 14 (03) 295-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Townsend DJ, Lipp Jr EB, Chun K, Reinker K, Tuch B. Thumb duplication, 66 years’ experience–a review of surgical complications. J Hand Surg Am 1994; 19 (06) 973-976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wassel HD. The results of surgery for polydactyly of the thumb. A review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1969; 64 (64) 175-193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tonkin MA, Bulstrode NW. The Bilhaut procedure for Wassel types III, IV and VII thumb duplication. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2007; 32 (06) 684-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dijkman RR, Selles RW, Hülsemann W. et al. A matched comparative study of the Bilhaut procedure versus resection and reconstruction for treatment of radial polydactyly types II and IV. J Hand Surg Am 2016; 41 (05) e73-e83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 M. B. Guerison d’un pouce bifide par un nouveau procédé operatoire. Congre’s Francais de Chirurgie. 1980;4(57)
    PubMed
  • 7 Tonkin MA. Thumb duplication: concepts and techniques. Clin Orthop Surg 2012; 4 (01) 1-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). CochraneHandbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed August 12, 2017
    PubMed
  • 9 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1006-1012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Miller R, Nikkhah D. Correction of thumb duplication: a systematic review of surgical techniques. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018100607. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018100607. Accessed October 03, 2018
    PubMed
  • 11 Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64 (04) 380-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ganley TJ, Lubahn JD. Radial polydactyly: an outcome study. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 35 (01) 86-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Maillet M, Fron D, Martinot-Duquennoy V, Herbaux B. Results after surgical treatment of thumb duplication: a retrospective review of 33 thumbs. J Child Orthop 2007; 1 (02) 135-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Larsen M, Nicolai JP. Long-term follow-up of surgical treatment for thumb duplication. J Hand Surg [Br] 2005; 30 (03) 276-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ogino T, Ishii S, Takahata S, Kato H. Long-term results of surgical treatment of thumb polydactyly. J Hand Surg Am 1996; 21 (03) 478-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Andrew JG, Sykes PJ. Duplicate thumbs: a survey of results in twenty patients. J Hand Surg [Br] 1988; 13 (01) 50-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Goffin D, Gilbert A, Leclercq C. Thumb duplication: surgical treatment and analysis of sequels. Ann Chir Main Memb Super 1990; 9 (02) 119-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tada K, Yonenobu K, Tsuyuguchi Y, Kawai H, Egawa T. Duplication of the thumb. A retrospective review of two hundred and thirty-seven cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983; 65 (05) 584-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dijkman R, Selles R, van Rosmalen J. et al. A clinically weighted approach to outcome assessment in radial polydactyly. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2016; 41 (03) 265-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bickham RS, Waljee JF, Chung KC, Adkinson JM. Postoperative patient- and parent-reported outcomes for children with congenital hand differences: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (06) 1422-1429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Adkinson JM. Reply: postoperative patient- and parent-reported outcomes for children with congenital hand differences: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (05) 785e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Adkinson JM, Bickham RS, Chung KC, Waljee JF. Do patient- and parent-reported outcomes measures for children with congenital hand differences capture WHO-ICF domains?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (11) 3549-3563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bae DS, Canizares MF, Miller PE, Waters PM, Goldfarb CA. Functional impact of congenital hand differences: early results from the Congenital Upper Limb Differences (CoULD) Registry. J Hand Surg Am 2018; 43 (04) 321-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ozalp T, Coşkunol E, Ozdemir O. [Thumb duplication: an analysis of 72 thumbs]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2006; 40 (05) 388-391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Guero S, Haddad R, Glicenstein J. [Surgical treatment of duplication of the thumb. Apropos of 106 cases]. Ann Chir Main Memb Super 1995; 14 (06) 272-283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jia ZW, Bai DM, Long JT. et al. [Optimal surgical timing and treatment of thumb duplication in children]. Zhonghua Zheng Xing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2013; 29 (05) 336-340
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pacheco YD, Lorca-García C, Berenguer B, De Tomás E. [Preaxial polydactyly of the hand: 15 years of experience]. Cir Pediatr 2015; 28 (04) 188-192
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Al-Qattan MM, Kattan AE, Al-Lazzam A, Gelidan AG. A modified Bilhaut procedure for zigzag thumb polydactyl types III and IV. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (12) e1589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar