ArticleBMC surgery2024
Results of innervated digital artery perforator flap and direct-flow homodigital flap application in fingertip soft tissue amputations.
Article in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Aesthetic Reconstruction of Fingertip Defect Using Second Toe Pulp Free Flap.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to compare the results of the innervated digital artery perforator (IDAP) flap and the direct-flow homodigital flap as reconstruction methods for fingertip soft tissue amputations. This issue is important in hand surgery, and we aim to identify the method that provides the best functional and cosmetic outcomes.
methodsBetween 2020 and 2022, 32 patients with fingertip amputations were reconstructed by the same surgeon using two different methods. The patients were retrospectively divided into two groups: those who underwent IDAP (n = 14) and those who had a direct-flow homodigital flap (n = 18). We compared the groups in terms of defect size, cold intolerance, venous congestion, Sollerman hand function test scores, Seddon sensory test scores, and follow-up periods, as well as flap viability, flexion contracture, and static two-point discrimination (s2PD).
resultsOf the 32 patients (26 men, 6 females; age: mean 28.72 ± 11.5 years), the injuries were caused by different mechanisms, including sharp (57.1% IDAP), crush (75% IDAP) and entanglement (66.7% homodigital). The average area of tissue loss was approximately 2.70 ± 1.37 cm², while the average s2PD measurement was approximately 4.94 ± 1.04 mm. Postoperatively, the Seddon sensory test results for the homodigital flap group were S4 (61.5%), S3 (23.1%), S3+ (7.7%), and S2 (7.7%), compared to the IDAP group, which showed S4 (57.9%), S3+ (21.1%), and S3 (21.1%). Complications occurred in five patients, though no flap loss or revision was required. The postoperative mean Sollerman hand function scores were higher for the homodigital group than for the IDAP group, with values of 75 ± 2.64 and 73 ± 3.34, respectively. Although not statistically significant, the results numerically suggest that the IDAP flap is better in terms of sensory recovery and hand function compared to the homodigital flap (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThis is the first investigation to compare direct-flow flaps with IDAP. The average follow-up period for patients who underwent homodigital surgery was also shorter than that of the IDAP group. Furthermore, the mean postoperative two-point discrimination and postoperative Sollerman function score were higher in patients who had homodigital surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.