Outcomes and Disability After Massive Proximal Upper Extremity Reconstruction in a Resource-Limited Setting

Overview

Journal World J Surg

Publisher Wiley

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2017 Feb 8

PMID 28168319

Citations 1

Authors

Aviram M Giladi

R Raja Shanmugakrishnan

Hari Venkatramani

S Raja Sekaran

Kevin C Chung

S Raja Sabapathy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: At Ganga Hospital in Coimbatore, India, a unique approach is applied to treat massive upper limb injuries. However, long-term outcomes of complex reconstruction performed in the resource-limited setting are not known. This hinders understanding of outcomes and disability from these injuries and prevents systematically addressing care delivery around upper extremity trauma in the developing world. This project aims to analyze the details of the unique Ganga Hospital reconstruction experience and use patient-reported outcome measures for the first time in this patient population to evaluate post-injury recovery and disability .

Methods: Forty-six patients were evaluated 6 months or more after massive proximal upper extremity reconstruction at Ganga Hospital. Patients completed functional tests, Jebsen-Taylor test (JTT), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs)-Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ), Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Correlations between metrics were assessed with Pearson's correlation coefficients. Linear regression modeling evaluated associations between severity, reconstruction, and outcomes.

Results: MHQ and DASH results correlated with functional test performance, JTT performance, and SF-36 scores (Pearson's coefficients all ≥0.33, p ≤ 0.05). In this cohort, mean MHQ score was 79 ± 15 and mean DASH score was 13 ± 15, which are not significantly different than scores for long-term outcomes after other complex upper extremity procedures. The following factors predicted PROs and functional performance after reconstruction: extent of soft tissue reconstruction, multi-segmental ulna fractures, median nerve injury, and ability for patients to return to work and maintain their job after injury.

Conclusions: Complex proximal upper extremity salvage can be performed in the resource-limited setting with excellent long-term functional and patient-reported outcomes. PRO questionnaires are useful for reporting outcomes that correlate to functional and sensory testing and may be used to assess post-traumatic disability.

Citing Articles

Repair of segmental ulnar bone defect in juvenile caused by osteomyelitis with induced membrane combined with tissue-engineered bone: A case report with 4-year follow-up.

Gao Y, Cheng J, Long Z, Cheng P, Zhang S, Pei G Int J Surg Case Rep. 2022; 99:107569.

PMID: 36108376 PMC: 9568728. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2022.107569.

References

Graham B, Adkins P, Tsai T, Firrell J, Breidenbach W . Major replantation versus revision amputation and prosthetic fitting in the upper extremity: a late functional outcomes study. J Hand Surg Am. 1998; 23(5):783-91. DOI: 10.1016/s0363-5023(98)80151-2. View

JEBSEN R, Taylor N, Trieschmann R, Trotter M, Howard L . An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969; 50(6):311-9. View

Giladi A, McGlinn E, Shauver M, Voice T, Chung K . Measuring outcomes and determining long-term disability after revision amputation for treatment of traumatic finger and thumb amputation injuries. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014; 134(5):746e-755e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000591. View

Gupta A, Shatford R, Wolff T, Tsai T, Scheker L, Levin L . Treatment of the severely injured upper extremity. Instr Course Lect. 2000; 49:377-96. View

GAUL Jr J . Identifiable costs and tangible benefits resulting from the treatment of acute injuries of the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 1987; 12(5 Pt 2):966-70. DOI: 10.1016/s0363-5023(87)80266-6. View

Roh Y, Kim K, Paik N, Kim T, Gong H . How much are upper or lower extremity disabilities associated with general health status in the elderly?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(11):3246-52. PMC: 3462850. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2417-1. View

Weinstock-Zlotnick G, Page C, Ghomrawi H, Wolff A . Responsiveness of three Patient Report Outcome (PRO) measures in patients with hand fractures: A preliminary cohort study. J Hand Ther. 2015; 28(4):403-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2015.05.004. View

Dowrick A, Gabbe B, Williamson O, Cameron P . Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremity following trauma: a review. Injury. 2005; 36(4):468-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2004.06.014. View

Changulani M, Okonkwo U, Keswani T, Kalairajah Y . Outcome evaluation measures for wrist and hand: which one to choose?. Int Orthop. 2007; 32(1):1-6. PMC: 2219945. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-007-0368-z. View

10.

Ware Jr J, Sherbourne C . The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30(6):473-83. View

11.

Horng Y, Lin M, Feng C, Huang C, Wu H, Wang J . Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire in patients with hand injury. J Hand Surg Am. 2010; 35(3):430-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.11.016. View

12.

Citron I, Galiwango G, Hodges A . Challenges in global microsurgery: A six year review of outcomes at an East African hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015; 69(2):189-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.10.016. View

13.

Shauver M, Chung K . The minimal clinically important difference of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 2009; 34(3):509-14. PMC: 4413464. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.11.001. View

14.

Giladi A, Chung K . Measuring outcomes in hand surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 2013; 40(2):313-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.cps.2012.10.006. View

15.

McCall B, Horwitz I . An assessment and quantification of the rates, costs, and risk factors of occupational amputations: analysis of Kentucky workers' compensation claims, 1994-2003. Am J Ind Med. 2006; 49(12):1031-8. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20390. View

16.

Sabapathy S, Venkatramani H, Bharathi R, Dheenadhayalan J, Bhat V, Rajasekaran S . Technical considerations and functional outcome of 22 major replantations (The BSSH Douglas Lamb Lecture, 2005). J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2007; 32(5):488-501. DOI: 10.1016/J.JHSE.2007.06.013. View

17.

Holmberg J, Lindgren B, Jutemark R . Replantation-revascularization and primary amputation in major hand injuries. Resources spent on treatment and the indirect costs of sick leave in Sweden. J Hand Surg Br. 1996; 21(5):576-80. DOI: 10.1016/s0266-7681(96)80134-3. View

18.

Regel G, Seekamp A, Blauth M, KLEMME R, Kuhn K, Tscherne H . [Complex injury of the elbow joint]. Unfallchirurg. 1996; 99(2):92-99. View

19.

Meara J, Leather A, Hagander L, Alkire B, Alonso N, Ameh E . Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015; 25:75-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2015.09.006. View

20.

Beveridge M, Howard A . The burden of orthopaedic disease in developing countries. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(8):1819-22. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200408000-00029. View