[Operative treatment of Dupuytren's contracture : Arthrolysis of the proximal interphalangeal finger joint]

A Personalized Approach to Treat Advanced Stage Severely Contracted Joints in Dupuytren’s Disease with a Unique Skeletal Distraction Device—Utilizing Modern Imaging Tools to Enhance Safety for the Patient

Background: While surgical therapy for Dupuytren’s disease is a well-established standard procedure, severe joint flexion deformities in advanced Dupuytren’s disease remain challenging to treat. Skeletal distraction has proven to be an additional treatment option. Methods: We analyzed the surgical treatment algorithm, including the application of a skeletal distraction device, in patients with a flexion deformity due to Dupuytren’s disease, Iselin stage III or IV, who were operated on from 2003 to 2020 in our department. Results: From a total of 724 patients, we included the outcome of 55 patients’ fingers in this study, who had undergone additional skeletal joint distraction with our Erlangen device. Additional fasciotomy or fasciectomy, in a one- or two-staged procedure, was performed in all patients, according to the individual findings and necessities. The range of motion of the PIP joint improved from 12° to 53°. A number of complications, in all steps of the treatment, were noted in a total of 36.4% of patients, including the development of fractures (16.4%), followed by vessel injury, pin infections, and complex regional pain syndrome (5%). Conclusions: Additional skeletal distraction improves the range of motion of severely contracted joints in Dupuytren’s disease. Nevertheless, careful patient selection is necessary, due to the moderate rate of complications.

[Tenolysis of extensor and flexor tendons of the hand]

BACKGROUND

Unrestricted gliding of extensor and flexor tendons is essential for normal functioning of the hand. If tendon gliding is impaired, a restricted range of motion of finger joints and, finally, joint stiffness result.

OBJECTIVES

To answer the questions about the causes of tenodesis in the hand, which examinations are most informative, how tenolysis is technically performed, and what results can be expected.

METHODS

The reasons, examinations, surgical technique, and results of extensor and flexor tendon tenolysis are presented.

RESULTS

Based on the data in the literature tenolysis of flexor tendons leads to range of motion that is only 50-60% of the preoperative range of motion. In about 20% of patients, deterioration as serious as secondary tendon rupture is observed. Meaningful results of extensor tendon tenolysis have not yet been published.

CONCLUSIONS

Tenolysis of extensor and flexor tendons in the hand is a demanding surgical procedure, and in addition to detailed knowledge of anatomy and biomechanics, it requires sufficient experience-especially following the primary repair of tendon injuries. The earliest indication for tenolysis can occur at about 3 months, usually after 6 months, if continuous intensive hand therapy and splinting have not been successful. General and individual benefits and risks must be carefully weighed. The key to successful tenolysis is the patient's access to and unrestricted participation in competent postoperative treatment, ideally performed by a specialist in hand therapy, which may last for weeks or months.

Range of motion, postoperative rehabilitation and patient satisfaction in MCP and PIP joints affected by Dupuytren Tubiana stage 1-3: collagenase enzymatic fasciotomy or limited fasciectomy? A clinical study in 52 patients

INTRODUCTION

In Switzerland, collagenase Clostridium histolyticum therapy (CCH) for Dupuytren's disease was introduced in 2011. This study analyzes possible differences between CCH and limited fasciectomy (LF) in terms of range of motion, patient satisfaction and postoperative rehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 52 patients with Dupuytren's disease stage 1-3 according to Tubiana, treated with CCH or LF between January 2012 and December 2013. Complications were analyzed for each patient. The contracture of each treated joint measured on average at the 3 months and up to 2 years follow-up was compared with the preoperative values. The Michigan Hand score was evaluated at 2 years and the patients were asked to subjectively evaluate the outcome of the treatment and whether they would repeat it if necessary. Postoperative rehabilitation was also precisely quantified.

RESULTS

11 minor complications were reported for a complication rate of 29% in the CCH group. No major complications were reported in both groups. In the CCH group, mean MCP joint contracture was, respectively, 44° ± 20°, 9° ± 2° (gain of mobility compared to the preoperative situation 35°, P < 0.001), and 10° ± 3° (gain 34°, P < 0.001), respectively, before, at the 3 months' control and at the 2-year clinical control. In the LF group, mean MCP joint contracture was, respectively, 30° ± 21°, 2° ± 0.5° (gain 28°, P < 0.001), and 1° ± 0.5° (gain 29°, P < 0.001) for the same control periods. In the CCH group, mean PIP joint contracture was, respectively, 51° ± 21°, 18° ± 3° (gain of mobility compared to the preoperative situation 33°, P < 0.001), and 32° ± 4° (gain 19°, P < 0.001), respectively, before, at the 3 months' control and at the 2-year clinical control. In the LF group, mean PIP joint contracture was, respectively, 30° ± 20°, 2° ± 0.5° (gain of mobility compared to the preoperative situation 28°, P < 0.001), and 11° ± 4° (gain 19°, P < 0.001) for the same control periods. Outcomes were compared across the LF and CCH groups: surgery performed better than collagenase for PIP joint treatment at early (P < 0.001) and 2-year follow-up (P = 0.004) controls. However, patient satisfaction was higher in the CCH group: 92% were satisfied or very satisfied of the treatment compared to 71% in the LF group. All patients would reiterate the treatment in the CCH group if necessary compared to only 71% in the LF group. Rehabilitation was highly reduced in the CCH group compared to the LF group.

CONCLUSION

In this study, surgery performed better than collagenase at early and 2-year follow-up in PIP joints and similar in MCP joints. While surgery seems to achieve better results, collagenase is considered in Switzerland as an off-the-shelf therapy that provides consistent results without scars, with shorter rehabilitation time, minor hand therapy, shorter splinting time, and applicability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE AND STUDY TYPE

Level III.