Correction of Thumb Duplication: A Systematic Review of Surgical Techniques

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

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
22. November 2019

• 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
• 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
• 3 Wassel HD. The results of surgery for polydactyly of the thumb. A review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1969; 64 (64) 175-193
• 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
• 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
• 6 M. B. Guerison d’un pouce bifide par un nouveau procédé operatoire. Congre’s Francais de Chirurgie. 1980;4(57)
• 7 Tonkin MA. Thumb duplication: concepts and techniques. Clin Orthop Surg 2012; 4 (01) 1-17
• 8 Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). CochraneHandbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed August 12, 2017
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 13 Ganley TJ, Lubahn JD. Radial polydactyly: an outcome study. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 35 (01) 86-89
• 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
• 15 Larsen M, Nicolai JP. Long-term follow-up of surgical treatment for thumb duplication. J Hand Surg [Br] 2005; 30 (03) 276-281
• 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
• 17 Andrew JG, Sykes PJ. Duplicate thumbs: a survey of results in twenty patients. J Hand Surg [Br] 1988; 13 (01) 50-53
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 25 Ozalp T, Coşkunol E, Ozdemir O. [Thumb duplication: an analysis of 72 thumbs]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2006; 40 (05) 388-391
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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