Factitious hand disorders: review of 29 years of multidisciplinary care

[Suspected factitious disorder: identifying self-inflicted wounds in plastic surgery]

BACKGROUND

Patients with factitious disorders artificially generate, aggravate or feign injuries or illnesses, which can result in severe physical impairment and misuse of the healthcare system. The symptomatology is characterized by a protracted course of disease with frequent changes of practitioners and multiple invasive procedures due to anomalous, mostly chronic findings. Elaborate clinical presentations, lack of knowledge of disease characteristics and the fast-paced everyday clinical practice can lead to maintaining the disease through non-recognition or mistreatment.

METHODS

Based on selective literature research and clinical case reports from a university clinic for plastic surgery, this article provides a review about common features of factitious disorders as well as treatment strategies.

RESULTS

If a factitious disorder is suspected, invasive treatments should be restricted and psychosomatic or psychiatric expertise obtained. Within an empathic physician-patient relation and with psychotherapeutic support, patients can be gradually introduced to the diagnosis and therapy options and treatment terminations could be avoided.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of indicators for factitious disorders, which may become evident in medical history, findings and illness-affirming behaviour, is key to identify affected patients and initiate appropriate treatment. For this purpose, factitious disorders should be included in differential diagnostic considerations even in primarily somatic medical specialties. Since the diagnosis is often based on evidence and complicated by withheld information or medical confidentiality, the establishment of a central reporting register could facilitate the diagnostic process and improve therapy in the future.

Failed Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex Repair and Reconstruction

Unsuccessful triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) repair or reconstruction is poorly defined, often stemming from multiple causes, both patient and surgeon-related. Complete evaluation of the patient's psychosocial status and involvement in any litigation claims is essential, as is a thorough history, physical examination, and imaging workup to accurately diagnose TFCC injury, along with any concomitant wrist pathology. Awareness of common complications and technical errors is critical, and preventive treatment strategies should be implemented to minimize these events.

The clinical relevance of complex regional pain syndrome type I: The Emperor's New Clothes

The management of patients with chronic pain is a nearly daily challenge to rheumatologists, neurologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists and indeed a issue in nearly every clinical practice. Among the myriad of causes of pain are often included a unique syndrome, generally referred to as complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS). Unfortunately CRPS I has become a catch all phase and there are serious questions on whether it exists at all; this has led to an extraordinary number of poorly defined diagnostic criteria. It has also led to an etiologic quagmire that includes features as diverse as autoimmunity to simple trauma. These, in turn, have led to overdiagnosis and often overzealous use of pain medications, including narcotics. In a previous paper, we raised the issue of whether CRPS type I reflected a valid diagnosis. Indeed, the diagnostic criteria for CRPS I, and therefore the diagnosis itself, is unreliable for a number of reasons: 1) the underlying pathophysiology of the signs and symptoms of CPRS I are not biologically plausible; 2) there are no consistent laboratory or imaging testing available; 3) the signs and symptoms fluctuate over time without a medical explanation; 4) the definitions of most studies are derived from statistical analysis with little consideration to required sample size, i.e. power calculations; 5) interobserver reliability in the assessment of the signs and symptoms are often only fair to moderate, and agreement on the diagnosis of "CRPS I" is poor. Even physicians who still believe in the concept of "CRPS I" admit that it is vastly overdiagnosed and has become a diagnosis of last resort, often without a complete differential diagnosis and an alternative explanation. Finally, one of the most convincing arguments that there is no clinical entity as "CRPS I" comes from the enormous heterogeneity in sign and symptom profiles and the heterogeneity of pathophysiological mechanisms postulated. This observation is underscored by the diversity of responses among "CRPS I" patients to essentially all treatment modalities. It has even led to the concept that the signs and symptoms of CRPS can spread throughout the body, as if it is an infectious disease, without any medical plausible explanation. If true progress is to be made in helping patients with pain, it will require entirely new and different concepts and abandoning CRPS I as a legitimate diagnosis.

[The phenomenon of covert self-mutilation in the surgical routine]

Factitious disorders are conditions which are unknown to many physicians but have a prevalence of 1-5 % in outpatient departments and hospitals. In order to avoid prolonged and complicated (false) treatment in surgery this article gives a review of the definition, epidemiology and pathogenesis of factitious disorders as well as clinical symptoms and therapy options. A focus is placed on the identification of patients, treatment strategies and the prevention of malpractice. Additionally, clinical features of the disorder are illustrated with the description of some characteristic cases.

Factitious disorders and malingering: challenges for clinical assessment and management

Compared with other psychiatric disorders, diagnosis of factitious disorders is rare, with identification largely dependent on the systematic collection of relevant information, including a detailed chronology and scrutiny of the patient's medical record. Management of such disorders ideally requires a team-based approach and close involvement of the primary care doctor. As deception is a key defining component of factitious disorders, diagnosis has important implications for young children, particularly when identified in women and health-care workers. Malingering is considered to be rare in clinical practice, whereas simulation of symptoms, motivated by financial rewards, is regarded as more common in medicolegal settings. Although psychometric investigations (eg, symptom validity testing) can inform the detection of illness deception, such tests need support from converging evidence sources, including detailed interview assessments, medical notes, and relevant non-medical investigations. A key challenge in any discussion of abnormal health-care-seeking behaviour is the extent to which a person's reported symptoms are considered to be a product of choice, or psychopathology beyond volitional control, or perhaps both. Clinical skills alone are not typically sufficient for diagnosis or to detect malingering. Medical education needs to provide doctors with the conceptual, developmental, and management frameworks to understand and deal with patients whose symptoms appear to be simulated. Central to the understanding of factitious disorders and malingering are the explanatory models and beliefs used to provide meaning for both patients and doctors. Future progress in management will benefit from an increased appreciation of the contribution of non-medical factors and a greater awareness of the conceptual and clinical findings from social neuroscience, occupational health, and clinical psychology.