In the past decade, vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) has become clinical reality for reconstruction after face and hand trauma. It offers patients the unique opportunity to regain form and function in a way that had only been achieved with traditional reconstruction or with the use of prostheses. On the other hand, prostheses for facial and hand reconstruction have continued to evolve over the years and, in many cases, represent the primary option for patients after hand and face trauma. We compared the cost, associated complications, and long-term outcomes of VCA with prostheses for reconstruction of the face and hand/upper extremity. Ultimately, VCA and prostheses represent 2 different reconstructive options with distinct benefit profiles and associated limitations and should ideally not be perceived as competing choices. Our work adds a valuable component to the general framework guiding the decision to offer VCA or prostheses for reconstruction after face and upper extremity trauma.
In the past decade, vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) has become clinical reality for reconstruction after face and hand trauma. It offers patients the unique opportunity to regain form and function in a way that had only been achieved with traditional reconstruction or with the use of prostheses. On the other hand, prostheses for facial and hand reconstruction have continued to evolve over the years and, in many cases, represent the primary option for patients after hand and face trauma. We compared the cost, associated complications, and long-term outcomes of VCA with prostheses for reconstruction of the face and hand/upper extremity. Ultimately, VCA and prostheses represent 2 different reconstructive options with distinct benefit profiles and associated limitations and should ideally not be perceived as competing choices. Our work adds a valuable component to the general framework guiding the decision to offer VCA or prostheses for reconstruction after face and upper extremity trauma.
BACKGROUND: The loss of an upper extremity is a severely disabling condition made medically challenging by the limited window for replantation. This study aims to investigate the burden of traumatic major upper extremity amputations in the United States and uncover possibilities for improvements in treatment. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample was screened for International Classification of Diseases-9/10 diagnosis/procedure codes for traumatic and nontraumatic major upper extremity amputations and replantations within the years 2008 to 2017. The resulting pool of cases was analyzed for multiple variables, including level of injury, patient demographics, hospital type and location, length of stay, costs, comorbidities, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 15 155 major upper extremity amputations were recorded, of which 15.20% (n = 2305) were traumatic amputations-almost half of them related to the upper arm (49.6%; P = .0002). The great majority of replantations, however, was conducted at the lower arm level (87.4%; P < .0001), with an overall replantation rate of 22.3%. Nontraumatic amputations were overall associated with significantly higher burden of comorbidities relative to traumatic amputations except for long-term alcohol use (P < .0001). Both, amputations and replantations, were predominantly treated in large urban teaching hospitals, and were significantly more likely to occur in white men. The Southern region of the United States was handling the highest proportion of amputations in the United States, but had the lowest likelihood of replantation. CONCLUSION: This study provides an overview of the national trends in major traumatic upper extremity amputations and replantations, revealing potential health care shortcomings.
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
Free tissue transfer is widely used for the reconstruction of complex tissue defects. The survival of free flaps depends on the patency and integrity of the microvascular anastomosis. Accordingly, the early detection of vascular comprise and prompt intervention are indispensable to increase flap survival rates. Such monitoring strategies are commonly integrated into the perioperative algorithm, with clinical examination still being considered the gold standard for routine free flap monitoring. Despite its widespread acceptance as state of the art, the clinical examination also has its pitfalls, such as the limited applicability in buried flaps and the risk of poor interrater agreement due to inconsistent flap (failure) appearances. To compensate for these shortcomings, a plethora of alternative monitoring tools have been proposed in recent years, each of them with inherent strengths and limitations. Given the ongoing demographic change, the number of older patients requiring free flap reconstruction, e.g., after cancer resection, is rising. Yet, age-related morphologic changes may complicate the free flap evaluation in elderly patients and delay the prompt detection of clinical signs of flap compromise. In this review, we provide an overview of currently available and employed methods for free flap monitoring, with a special focus on elderly patients and how senescence may impact standard free flap monitoring strategies.
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
