Fig. 22.1
Assessment of flexion deformity for rays and independent joint. α PED of MCP joint, β PED of PIP joint, α + β TPED of ray. TPED the total passive extension deficit, PED the passive extension deficit
22.2.2 Operative Technique
All affected rays of a hand were treated during a single session. Portal sites in areas of definite cords were carefully chosen and marked with a surgical marker. Portals were spaced 5 mm apart and were not made in skin creases. After marking the portals, 0.1 mL or less of a lidocaine 1 % w/v solution and epinephrine (1:100,000) were injected into each site to be treated. Working in a distal-to-proximal direction, a 25-gauge needle was used as a scalpel to release the cord at multiple levels. As previously described by Eaton (2011), three basic moves—clear, perforate, and sweep—were performed to transect diseased cords. The needle was changed frequently to maintain sharpness. After division of the cord, the fingers of treated rays were passively extended to obtain maximal release. Portals and nodules were subsequently injected with a 10 mL lidocaine 1 % w/v solution and 20 mg triamcinolone acetate mixture because its efficacy had been proved by McMillan and Binhammer (2012) in their randomized controlled trial study, and it is also known that steroids downregulate cell proliferation and induce apoptosis by affecting collagen ratios and fibroblast activity at the molecular level (Meek et al. 1999, 2002).
Postoperatively, a light gauze bandage dressing was applied and removed the next day if the skin had not ruptured. Immediately after the procedure, a fiberglass volar or ulnar gutter splint was applied to mold night splint, and its use at night was recommended for up to 3 months. No restrictions were applied to daily activities. Patients were encouraged to start increasing the motion of their hand immediately after the procedure, although they did not receive formal hand therapy.
22.2.3 Statistical Analysis
Fisher’s exact test was used to determine the association between categorical variables. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used.
22.3 Results
Initially 77 patients were included. Of these 77 patients, 2 patients were lost to follow-up due to other medical problems or death, 3 patients dropped out because they wanted to undergo limited fasciectomy, and 5 patients moved far away from authors’ institute. Therefore, this case series consisted of 67 patients (59 men and 8 women) with 123 fingers and involved 112 MCP joints and 84 PIP joints. The average age at surgery was 66.8 ± 6.8 years. The patient profile and characteristics of our case series are shown in Table 22.1.
Table 22.1
Patient characteristics at each follow-up
D > 4 | Time of postoperative follow-up | ||
---|---|---|---|
Characteristic | 1 year | 2 years | 3 years |
Patients, n | 17 | 9 | 4 |
Mean age, years ± SD | 60.8 ± 11.2 | 59.7 ± 15.2 | 58.9 ± 15.8 |
Male/female, n | 17/0 | 9/0 | 4/0 |
Diabetes, n (%) | 4 (24 %) | 4 (44 %) | 2 (50 %) |
Current alcohol use, n (%) | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) |
Family history of Dupuytren contracture [DC], n (%) | 2 (12 %) | 2 (22 %) | 1 (25 %) |
Knuckle pads n (%) | 10 (58 %) | 4 (44 %) | 2 (50 %) |
Ledderhose Disease, n (%) | 5 (29 %) | 3 (33 %) | 2 (50 %) |
DC onset age <45 years, n (%) | 3 (18 %) | 3 (33 %) | 1 (25 %) |
Site of DC, n (%) | |||
Radial side | 7 (41 %) | 5 (56 %) | 4 (100 %) |
Little finger | 16 (94 %) | 8 (89 %) | 4 (100 %) |
Bilateral | 14 (82 %) | 7 (78 %) | 4 (100 %) |
D ≤ 4 | |||
Characteristic | 1 year | 2 years | 3 years |
Patients, n | 50 | 40 | 19 |
Mean age, years ± SD | 68.8 ± 8.8 | 67.1 ± 7.2 | 72.2 ± 6.2 |
Male/female, n | 42/8 | 36/4 | 17/2 |
Diabetes, n (%) | 12 (24 %) | 5 (13 %) | 2 (12 %) |
Current alcohol use, n (%) | 2 (4 %) | 1 (3 %) | 0 (0 %) |
Family history of Dupuytren contracture [DC], n (%) | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) |
Knuckle pads n (%) | 2 (4 %) | 1 (3 %) | 1 (5 %) |
Ledderhose Disease, n (%) | 2 (4 %) | 1 (3 %) | 1 (5 %) |
DC onset age <45 years, n (%) | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) |
Site of DC, n (%) | |||
Radial side | 3 (6 %) | 2 (5 %) | 1 (5 %) |
Little finger | 25 (50 %) | 24 (60 %) | 9 (47 %) |
Bilateral | 40 (80 %) | 33 (83 %) | 14 (74 %) |
Based on their Abe’s score at the time of entry to this study, 50 patients were allocated to the D ≤4 group and 17 patients were allocated to the D >4 group. A total of 52 right hands and 46 left hands required PNF and 3 index, 13 middle, 52 ring, and 55 small finger rays underwent PNF.
Depending on the parameter used (patients, hands, MCP, PIP), recurrence rates were 18.8–44.0 % at the 1-year follow-up (Table 22.2), 33.8–53.8 % at the 2-year follow-up (Table 22.3), and 41.5–65.2 % at the 3-year follow-up (Table 22.4). The recurrence rate p-values and odds ratios, pertaining to each parameter assessed for both cohorts at each year of the 3-year follow-up, are summarized in Tables 22.2, 22.3, and 22.4, and longitudinal data of each parameter was shown in Fig. 22.2. Of note, the odds ratio for recurrence was significant for digital rays and MCP joints at the 2- and 3-year follow-ups in the D >4 group (Fig. 22.3). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the recurrence rates between the D >4 group and the D ≤4 group in patients, hands, and PIP joints at yearly intervals over the 3 years of follow-up.
Table 22.2
Dupuytren contracture recurrence rate at the 1-year follow-up
Patients (n = 67) | Hands (n = 99) | MCP joints (n = 112)
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channelFull access? Get Clinical TreeGet Clinical Tree app for offline access |
---|