Osseointegrated Finger Prostheses Using a Tripod Titanium Mini-Plate

Background Digital amputation is a common upper extremity injury and can cause significant impairment in hand function, as well as psychosocial stigma. Currently, the gold standard for the reconstruction of such injuries involves autologous reconstruction. However, when this or other autologous options are not available, prosthetic reconstruction can provide a functionally and aesthetically viable alternative. This study describes a novel technique, known as a tripod titanium mini-plate, for osseointegrated digit prostheses, and reviews the outcomes in a set of consecutive patients.

Methods A retrospective review of patients who underwent 2-stage prosthetic reconstruction of digit amputations was performed. Demographic information, occupation, mechanism of injury, number of amputated fingers, and level of amputation were reviewed. Functional and aesthetic outcomes were assessed using the quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (Q-DASH) scale and a visual analog scale (VAS) score, respectively. In addition, complications during the postoperative period were recorded.

Results Seven patients were included in this study. Their average age was 29 years. Five patients had single-digit amputations and 2 patients had multiple-digit amputations. Functional and aesthetic outcomes were assessed using the Q-DASH score (average, 10.4) and VAS score (average, 9.1), respectively. One episode of mild cellulitis was seen at 24 months of follow-up. However, it was treated successfully with oral antibiotics. No other complications were reported.

Conclusions When autologous reconstruction is not suitable for digit reconstruction, prosthetic osseointegrated reconstruction can provide good aesthetic and functional results. However, larger series with longer-term follow-up are required in order to rule out the possibility of other complications.

Keywords

Osseointegration - Prostheses - Amputation - Outcome assessment

This article was presented at the American Association for Hand Surgery, January 21–24, 2015, Bahamas, Paradise Island.

Publication History

Received: 08 July 2016

Accepted: 18 October 2016

Article published online:
20 April 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Leigh JP, Markowitz SB, Fahs M. et al. Occupational injury and illness in the United States: estimates of costs, morbidity, and mortality. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1557-1568
• 2 Chung KC, Shauver MJ. Table saw injuries: epidemiology and a proposal for preventive measures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 777e-783e
• 3 Sears ED, Chung KC. Replantation of finger avulsion injuries: a systematic review of survival and functional outcomes. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36: 686-694
• 4 Conn JM, Annest JL, Ryan GW. et al. Non-work-related finger amputations in the United States, 2001-2002. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 45: 630-635
• 5 Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K. et al. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 121-132
• 6 Aydin C, Karakoca S, Yilmaz H. Implant-retained digital prostheses with custom-designed attachments: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97: 191-195
• 7 Manurangsee P, Isariyawut C, Chatuthong V. et al. Osseointegrated finger prosthesis: an alternative method for finger reconstruction. J Hand Surg Am 2000; 25: 86-92
• 8 Shanmuganathan N, Maheswari MU, Anandkumar V. et al. Aesthetic finger prosthesis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011; 11: 232-237
• 9 Aydin C, Karakoca S, Yilmaz H. et al. The use of dental implants to retain thumb prostheses: a short-term evaluation of 2 cases. Int J Prosthodont 2008; 21: 138-140
• 10 Rampazzo A, Kutz JE, Kaufman C. et al. A cadaver study of the feasibility of multidigit allotransplantation for reconstruction of the metacarpal hand. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136: 531-540
• 11 Yuan F, McGlinn EP, Giladi AM. et al. A systematic review of outcomes after revision amputation for treatment of traumatic finger amputation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136: 99-113
• 12 Wilhelmi BJ, Lee WP, Pagenstert GI. et al. Replantation in the mutilated hand. Hand Clin 2003; 19: 89-120
• 13 Buncke GM, Buncke HJ, Lee CK. Great toe-to-thumb microvascular transplantation after traumatic amputation. Hand Clin 2007; 23: 105-115
• 14 Wang H. Secondary surgery after digit replantation: its incidence and sequence. Microsurgery 2002; 22: 57-61
• 15 Bueno Jr RA, Battiston B, Ciclamini D. et al. Replantation: current concepts and outcomes. Clin Plast Surg 2014; 41: 385-395
• 16 Jazayeri L, Klausner JQ, Chang J. Distal digital replantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 1207-1217
• 17 Pet MA, Ko JH, Vedder NB. Reconstruction of the traumatized thumb. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134: 1235-1245
• 18 Taghinia AH, Littler JW, Upton J. Refinements in pollicization: a 30-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130: 423e-433e
• 19 Cervelli V, Bottini DJ, Arpino A. et al. Bone-anchored implant in cosmetic finger reconstruction. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2008; 53: 365-367
• 20 Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50: 399-410
• 21 Sierakowski A, Watts C, Thomas K. et al. Long-term outcomes of osseointegrated digital prostheses for proximal amputations. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2011; 36: 116-125
• 22 Doppen P, Solomons M, Kritzinger S. Osseointegrated finger prostheses. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2009; 34: 29-34
• 23 Jonsson S, Caine-Winterberger K, Branemark R. Osseointegration amputation prostheses on the upper limbs: methods, prosthetics and rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011; 35: 190-200
• 24 Branemark PI, Adell R, Breine U. et al. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses: I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969; 3: 81-100
• 25 Lundborg G, Branemark PI, Rosen B. Osseointegrated thumb prostheses: a concept for fixation of digit prosthetic devices. J Hand Surg Am 1996; 21: 216-221