Replantation of amputated finger composite tissues with microvascular anastomosis

Variation in Surgeon Proficiency Scores and Association With Digit Replantation Outcomes

IMPORTANCE

Risk-adjusted variation in surgeon outcomes has been traditionally explained by surgeon volume and hospital infrastructure, yet it is unclear how a surgeon's operative proficiency directly contributes to their patients' outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the variation of surgeons' operative proficiency and investigate its association with surgical outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This case series was a retrospective analysis of all digit replantations and revascularizations at a single US university medical center between January 2000 and August 2020. Surgeons were assigned a proficiency score based on the expected procedure difficulty and outcomes from a sample of their cases. Surgeon proficiency scores were then used to determine associations with outcomes from subsequent cases. The expected difficulty of each case was calculated using a novel scoring system that applied pooled relative risks from a meta-analysis of risk factors for replantation and revascularization failure.

EXPOSURES

Digit replantation and revascularization.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Digit survival at 1-month follow up (case success) and number of complications.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients and 226 digits were treated by 11 surgeons with training in hand or microsurgery (mean [SD] age, 41.9 [15.2] years; 204 [90%] men); there were 116 replantations and 110 revascularizations. Surgeon proficiency scores ranged from 1.3 to 5.7, with a mean (SD) of 3.4 (1.4). Case success rates among surgeons varied from 20.0% to 90.5%, with a mean (SD) of 64.9%. Higher proficiency scores were associated with fewer case failures: each point increase was associated with 40% decreased odds of failure (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94). Every 3-point increase in proficiency score was associated with 1 less complication (effect estimate, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.02). Surgeon proficiency score had a greater association with case failure than surgeon volume (16.7% vs 12.0%). The final model's association with case failure had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.93.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Operative proficiency varied widely among practicing surgeons and accounted for 17% of estimative ability for success of digit replantation and revascularization. Greater surgeon proficiency was associated with better outcomes, indicating that the value of surgical care may be optimized by improving surgeon proficiency.

Etiology and Survival of Secondary Revascularizations after Hand and Digit Replantations

Introduction  Hand and digit replantations can be complicated by vascular insufficiency necessitating revision of the original replantation. To date, few studies have evaluated outcomes in secondary revascularizations following replantation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence, etiology, and survival rates following secondary revascularization after hand and digit replantations. Materials and Methods  A literature search was performed on NCBI for studies documenting secondary revascularization procedures following hand and digit replant. Studies were evaluated for the etiology of vascular failure, frequency of secondary revascularization, and survival rates following intervention. Statistical analysis was conducted across the pooled dataset. Results  A total of 16 studies including 1,192 amputations were analyzed. We found that 16.9% (201/1,192) of replants were complicated by vascular compromise. The frequency of vascular compromise was not statistically different between arterial and venous etiologies. The survival rate following secondary revascularization was 55.6%, with no significant difference between the arterial and venous groups. Secondary arterial revascularization was often treated with arterial revision (nine of nine studies) and/or with vein grafting (two of nine studies). Secondary revascularization for venous insufficiency resulted in different survival rates for nonsurgical modalities (58%) versus vein revision (37.5%) versus vein grafting (100%). Conclusion  Survival rates following secondary revascularization are lower; however, they may be improved using vein grafts following venous insufficiency. These data can be used to better understand the etiology of replant failure and guide decision-making.

Predictors of Digit Survival following Replantation: Quantitative Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction Microsurgical replantation following digital amputation has variable success rates. Sociodemographic factors and surgery-related variables have been shown to influence survival rates; however, few studies have evaluated these data systematically across a combined dataset. Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze the current literature to identify the predictors of replant survival. Materials and Methods A literature review was performed using the PubMed/Medline database focused on complete digit amputation/replantation studies. Studies were evaluated for patient and surgery-related variables and their respective effects on survival. Statistical analysis was conducted to identify predictors of survival and derive pooled estimates from the combined dataset. Results Thirty-two studies representing more than 6,000 digit amputation/replantation cases met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Statistical analysis revealed the number of venous anastomosis (0 vs. 1 vs. 2), the number of arterial anastomosis (0 vs. 1 vs. 2), and the mechanism of injury (sharp cut versus blunt cut versus avulsion versus crush) to influence replant survival ( p < 0.05). The authors failed to find a significant association between survival and the following variables: age, sex, zone of injury, digit number, tobacco use, ischemia time, method of preservation, and use of vein graft. Conclusion Patient- and surgery-related variables affect digit survival following replantation. The etiology of injury can help risk-stratify patients and assist in an informed decision making process, whereas surgery-related factors can guide surgeon practice to improve clinical outcomes following replantation.

Effects of non-surgical factors on digital replantation survival rate: a meta-analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors affecting survival rate of digital replantation by a meta-analysis. A computer retrieval of MEDLINE, OVID, EMBASE, and CNKI databases was conducted to identify citations for digital replantation with digit or finger or thumb or digital or fingertip and replantation as keywords. RevMan 5.2 software was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios. In total, there were 4678 amputated digits in 2641 patients. Gender and ischemia time had no significant influence on the survival rate of amputation replantation (P > 0.05). Age, injured hand, injury type, zone, and the method of preservation the amputated digit significantly influence the survival rate of digital replantation (P < 0.05). Children, right hand, crush, or avulsion and little finger are the risk factors that adversely affect the outcome.

THE LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5*.

Nonsurgical factors of digital replantation and survival rate: A metaanalysis

The aim of this metaanalysis was to evaluate the association between nonsurgical factors and survival rate of digital replantation. A computer search of MEDLINE, OVID, EMBASE and CNKI databases was conducted to identify literatures for digital replantation, with the keywords of "digit," "finger" and "replantation" from their inception to June 10, 2014. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were extracted independently by two authors using piloted forms. Review Manager 5.2 software was used for data analysis. The effect of some nonsurgical factors (gender, age, amputated finger, injury mechanisms, ischemia time and the way of preservation) on the survival rate of digital replantation was assessed. The metaanalysis result suggested that gender and ischemia time had no significant influence on the survival rate of amputation replantation. However, the survival rate of digital replantation of adults was significantly higher than that of children. The guillotine injury of a finger was easier to replant successfully than the crush and avulsion. The little finger was more difficult for replantation than thumb. Survival rate of fingers stored in low temperature was higher than that in common temperature. The present metaanalysis suggested that age, injury mechanism, amputated finger and the way of preservation were significantly associated with the survival rate of digital replantation.

Economic analysis of revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries across a spectrum of injury scenarios.

METHODS

The study was conducted from the societal perspective. Decision tree models were created for the reference case (two-finger amputation injury) and seven additional injury scenarios for comparison. Inputs included cost, quality of life, and probability of each health state. A Web-based time trade-off survey was created to determine quality-adjusted life-years for health states; 685 nationally representative adult community members were invited to participate in the survey. Overall cost and quality-adjusted life-years for revision amputation and replantation were calculated for each decision tree. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated if a treatment was more costly but more effective.

RESULTS

The authors had a 64 percent response rate (n = 437). Replantation treatment had greater costs and quality-adjusted life-years compared with revision amputation in all injury scenarios. Replantation of single-digit injuries had the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($136,400 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Replantation of three- and four-digit amputation injuries had relatively low cost-to-benefit ratios ($27,100 and $23,800 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Replantation for distal thumb amputation had a relatively low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($26,300 per quality-adjusted life-year) compared with replantation of nonthumb distal amputations ($60,200 per quality-adjusted life-year).

CONCLUSIONS

The relative cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with replantation treatment varied greatly among the injury scenarios. Situations in which indications for replantation are debated had higher cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This study highlights variability in value for replantation among different injury scenarios.