Journal of plastic surgery and hand surgery · 2024
The first dorsal metacarpal artery flaps versus reverse homodigital dorsal flaps for thumb reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shi Haifeng, Huang Yongjing, Shen Yong, Wu Ke, Zhang Zhihai, Li Qian
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This review was performed to systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of the first dorsal metacarpal artery flaps (FDMAF) and reverse homodigital dorsal flaps (RHDF) for thumb reconstruction.
METHODS: All literatures, which compared FDMAF versus RHDF for thumb reconstruction, were acquired through a comprehensive search in multiple databases from inception until 31st August 2022. A meta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.4 software.
RESULTS: A total of 19 articles were retrieved, comprising 396 patients in the FDMAF group and 423 patients in the RHDF group. The pooled estimates suggested that there were no significant differences in venous congestion, complications about flap necrosis and reduced range of motion (ROM) of thumb, static 2-point discrimination (S-2PD) between the two groups. On the other hand, patients in the RHDF group had less vascular crisis (odds ratio [OR] = 3.15, 95%CI, 1.31-7.56), complications about poor cortical reorientation (OR = 440.02, 95%CI, 91.97-2105.27) and higher satisfaction rate (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.33-0.96) than those in the FDMAF group.
CONCLUSIONS: The two surgical procedures were both safe and reliable since no significant differences were found in flap necrosis between the two groups. However, the patients in the RHDF group had less complications about vascular crisis, poor cortical reorientation and higher satisfaction rate. Accordingly, we thought RHDF may be more superior for thumb reconstruction than FDMAF.
METHODS: All literatures, which compared FDMAF versus RHDF for thumb reconstruction, were acquired through a comprehensive search in multiple databases from inception until 31st August 2022. A meta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.4 software.
RESULTS: A total of 19 articles were retrieved, comprising 396 patients in the FDMAF group and 423 patients in the RHDF group. The pooled estimates suggested that there were no significant differences in venous congestion, complications about flap necrosis and reduced range of motion (ROM) of thumb, static 2-point discrimination (S-2PD) between the two groups. On the other hand, patients in the RHDF group had less vascular crisis (odds ratio [OR] = 3.15, 95%CI, 1.31-7.56), complications about poor cortical reorientation (OR = 440.02, 95%CI, 91.97-2105.27) and higher satisfaction rate (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.33-0.96) than those in the FDMAF group.
CONCLUSIONS: The two surgical procedures were both safe and reliable since no significant differences were found in flap necrosis between the two groups. However, the patients in the RHDF group had less complications about vascular crisis, poor cortical reorientation and higher satisfaction rate. Accordingly, we thought RHDF may be more superior for thumb reconstruction than FDMAF.