METHODS: Patients with hand amputation who underwent replantation or revascularization from 2005 to 2012 were identified and reviewed for patient characteristics, amputation characteristics and survival rates. Successfully treated patients were interviewed to assess the functional outcome using Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Quick-DASH) questionnaire and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ). Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate outcome and elicit predictive factors.
RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled: 37 (67.3%) underwent replantation and 18 (32.7%) underwent revascularization. The overall success rate of 78% ( n = 43) was within the range of previously reported data (61.6% to 96.0%). Ischaemic time <6 h provided significantly better survival rates ( p < 0.05). Functional outcomes were successfully assessed in 34 patients (79%), at a mean follow-up of 40 months (range 11-93 months). The overall Quick-DASH and MHQ scores were 42.82 ± 23.69 and 60.94 ± 12.82, respectively. No previous reports of functional outcome were available for comparison. Both Quick-DASH ( p = 0.001) and MHQ scores ( p < 0.001) were significantly higher for finger injuries, followed by thumb, wrist and palm injuries.
CONCLUSION: Ischaemic time and level of injury are important predictors of success rate of replantation and revascularization of amputated upper limb appendages.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia to assess patients with burns between 10 to 40% total body surface area (TBSA) and with at least one year after injury. The Burn Specific Health Score-brief (BSHS-B) was utilized to compare the functional outcome whilst the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used for comparison on the scar outcome of the two skin grafting techniques.
RESULTS: Forty three patients (Meek,15; SSG,28) were included. The mean current age (years old) of Meek and SSG was 24.7 (range, 7-75) and 25.9 (range, 7-65) respectively. The mean TBSA (%) of the Meek group was 26.7 (range, 13-40) while that of the SSG group was 16.1 (range, 10-32). A simplified domain structure was used for the BSHS-B questionnaire. The work and sexuality subscale were analyzed separately due to missing data. There mean scores of affect and relations was higher in Meek compared to SSG (Meek, 3.86; SSG, 3.75; p > 0.05). Function domain was also better in Meek compared to SSG (Meek, 3.88; SSG, 3.73; p > 0.05). The Meek group displayed superior scar outcome compared to SSG as evidenced by the statistically significant difference in score for the pigmentation, pliability, height and total VSS score.
CONCLUSION: The Meek group showed more favorable BSHS-B scores compared to the SSG group. The scar outcome of the Meek technique is significantly superior to SSG. Therefore, the Meek technique is superior in the management of burns because the long term scar and functional outcome of this technique is better compared to conventional SSG.