ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Long-term outcome of dorsal digital defect reconstruction using reverse-cross-finger flaps.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite advances in microsurgical reconstruction, the reverse cross-finger flap (RCF) remains a reliable technique for dorsal finger defects. However, long-term outcome data are limited. This study evaluates the clinical and subjective long-term outcomes of patients treated with RCF reconstruction.
methodsA retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent RCF for dorsal finger defects between 2003 and 2022. Nineteen patients (mean age 59.0 ± 20.1 years) were included in the follow-up (mean duration: 12.6 ± 6.1 years). Functional outcomes were assessed via range of motion (ROM), two-point discrimination, and cold intolerance. Subjective satisfaction and functional limitations were evaluated using the Quick-DASH and a custom survey. Complications and aesthetic results were also recorded.
resultsAll flaps fully integrated. Complications were: 2 infections, 1 hematoma, and 1 partial flap necrosis requiring revision. Mean two-point discrimination was 7.6 mm (vs. 5.8 mm contralaterally; p < 0.05), and cold intolerance occurred in 9 cases. ROM showed no significant differences compared to the contralateral hand. Mild activity-related pain was reported by 6 patients, with no resting pain. Mean satisfaction scores were 8.1 (functional) and 7.7 (aesthetic). The mean Quick-DASH score was 5.1.
conclusionThe RCF remains a safe, effective, and durable option for dorsal finger reconstruction. It offers reliable functional and aesthetic outcomes with low donor site morbidity and complication rates, supporting its continued role in modern hand surgery, particularly where microsurgical resources are limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40932569What 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.