Download PDF
J Hand Microsurg 2018; 10(02): 74-78
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1626684
Original Article
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

Complications and Pitfalls after Finger Replantation in Young Children

Thibault Lafosse
1   Department of Pediatric Orthopedic and Reconstructive Surgery, Trousseau Hospital, Paris, France
,
Pascal Jehanno
2   Department of Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery, Robert Debre Hospital, Paris, France
,
Frank Fitoussi
1   Department of Pediatric Orthopedic and Reconstructive Surgery, Trousseau Hospital, Paris, France
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 08 August 2017

Accepted: 07 December 2017

Publication Date:
20 March 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Study Design This is a retrospective cohort study.

Objective The authors report surgical outcome in a series of very young children who underwent finger replantation after traumatic amputation.

Methods During a 10-year period, 65 children were treated with replantation for finger amputation in two institutions. This study focused on replantation of 15 fingers in 13 young patients under 6 years of age (mean age: 2.9 years; range: 1.1–5.7 years). Early postoperative complications were categorized into major or minor. At the time of assessment, the authors evaluated everyday life activities, pain and cold tolerance, total active range of motion (TAM) in patients with successful replantation, and growth disturbance.

Results The overall success rate for children younger than 6 years was 47% (7 out of 15), and the authors had 67% of major complications, mainly in patients with crush injuries. There was venous ischemia in 13 (86%) fingers treated with controlled bleeding. The hemoglobin level decreased more than 2 g/dL in six patients, and blood transfusion was necessary in two patients. At the last follow-up, patients with successful replantation had a mean TAM of 72%.

Conclusion Despite numerous complications mainly in relation with venous congestion, the functional outcome is satisfactory after successful replantation in young children, which should always be attempted.

Level of Evidence/Type of Study Level III, case series, therapeutic study.

Keywords

finger replantation - children - venous congestion - digital amputation - revascularization
 

  • References

  • 1 Beris AE, Soucacos PN, Malizos KN. Microsurgery in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; (314) 112-121
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chicarilli ZN. Pediatric microsurgery: revascularization and replantation. J Pediatr Surg 1986; 21 (08) 706-710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tark KC, Kim YW, Lee YH, Lew JD. Replantation and revascularization of hands: clinical analysis and functional results of 261 cases. J Hand Surg Am 1989; 14 (01) 17-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 McC O'BrienB, Franklin JD, MacLeod AM. Replantation and revascularisation surgery in children. Hand 1980; 12 (01) 12-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Yildirim S, Calikapan GT, Akoz T. Reconstructive microsurgery in pediatric population—a series of 25 patients. Microsurgery 2008; 28 (02) 99-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cheng GL, Pan DD, Zhang NP, Fang GR. Digital replantation in children: a long-term follow-up study. J Hand Surg Am 1998; 23 (04) 635-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hattori Y, Doi K, Sakamoto S, Yamasaki H, Wahegaonkar A, Addosooki A. Fingertip replantation. J Hand Surg Am 2007; 32 (04) 548-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dautel G, Barbary S. Mini replants: fingertip replant distal to the IP or DIP joint. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007; 60 (07) 811-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gaul III JS, Nunley JA. Microvascular replantation in a seven-month-old girl: a case report. Microsurgery 1988; 9 (03) 204-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nagase T, Sekiguchi J, Ohmori K. Finger replantation in a 12-month-old child: a long-term follow-up. Br J Plast Surg 1996; 49 (08) 555-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Goldner RD, Stevanovic MV, Nunley JA, Urbaniak JR. Digital replantation at the level of the distal interphalangeal joint and the distal phalanx. J Hand Surg Am 1989; 14 (02) Pt 1 214-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gilbert A. Reconstruction of congenital hand defects with microvascular toe transfers. Hand Clin 1985; 1 (02) 351-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Devaraj VS, Kay SP, Batchelor AG, Yates A. Microvascular surgery in children. Br J Plast Surg 1991; 44 (04) 276-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hattori Y, Doi K, Ikeda K, Abe Y, Dhawan V. Significance of venous anastomosis in fingertip replantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111 (03) 1151-1158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Han SK, Chung HS, Kim WK. The timing of neovascularization in fingertip replantation by external bleeding. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (04) 1042-1046
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Walaszek I, Zyluk A. Long term follow-up after finger replantation. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2008; 33 (01) 59-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hattori Y, Doi K, Ikeda K, Estrella EP. A retrospective study of functional outcomes after successful replantation versus amputation closure for single fingertip amputations. J Hand Surg Am 2006; 31 (05) 811-818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Yabe T, Muraoka M, Motomura H, Ozawa T. Fingertip replantation using a single volar arteriovenous anastomosis and drainage with a transverse tip incision. J Hand Surg Am 2001; 26 (06) 1120-1124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar