Finger Replantation Optimization Study (FRONT): Update on National Trends.
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Traumatic digit amputations have an adverse impact on patients' daily living. Despite experts advocating for digit replantation, studies have shown a continued decrease in rate of replantation. We performed a national-level investigation to examine the recent trend of practice for digital replantation. METHODS:We used the National Inpatient Sample database under the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project to select adult patients with traumatic digit amputation from 2001 to 2014. We calculated the rate of attempted and rate of successful digit replantation per year, subcategorizing for digit type (thumb or finger) and for hospital type (rural, urban nonteaching, or urban teaching). We also analyzed the pattern of distribution of case volume to each hospital type per year. We used 2 multivariable logistic regression models to investigate patient demographic and hospital characteristics associated with the odds of replantation attempt and success. RESULTS:Among the 14,872 adult patients with a single digit amputation from 2001 to 2014, only 1,670 (11.2%) underwent replantation. The rate of replantation attempt trended down over the years for both thumb and finger injuries at all hospital types, despite increasing proportions of cases being sent to urban teaching hospitals where they were more than twice as likely to undergo replantation. The rate of successful replantation stayed stable for the thumb at 82.9% and increased for fingers from 76.1% to 82.4% over the years. Patients were more likely to undergo replantation if they had private insurance or a higher level of income. Neither hospital case volume nor hospital type was predictive of successful replantation. CONCLUSIONS:Although more single-digit amputations were treated by urban teaching hospitals with higher likelihood to replant, the downward trend in rate of attempt regardless of hospital type demonstrates that concentration of case volume is not the solution to reverse the declining trend. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:Financial aspects of digit replantation need to be considered from both the patients' and the surgeons' perspectives to improve delivery of care for digit replantation.
Project description:Digital replantation attempt and success rates have been declining in the United States. Regionalization of digit replantation has been proposed as a solution to improve both attempt and success rates of these procedures. There is limited information about which criteria could establish a hospital as a center specialized for digit replantation. The authors analyzed hospital replantation volume and patient factors associated with successful thumb/finger replantation.A retrospective study using data from the 2008 to 2012 State Inpatient Databases of the Health Care Cost and Utilization Project from five states (New York, California, North Carolina, Utah, and Florida) was performed. The generalized estimating equation method was used to examine the association between patient characteristics and hospital volume and success of thumb/finger replantation. A receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden's J statistic were used to determine annual hospital replantation volume cutoff levels for success rates.There were 3417 digit amputation injuries, with 631 replantation attempts (18 percent) and with an overall thumb/finger replantation success rate of 70 percent. The hospital annual replantation volume increased the odds of success (OR, 1.06; 95 percent CI, 1.02 to 1.10). The annual hospital volume of three replantations was needed to achieve a success rate of 70 percent.Practice patterns demonstrate that hospitals with higher annual volume have greater success. Identifying high-volume centers and regionalization of digit replantation should be considered a priority.Therapeutic, III.
Project description:Little is known about the association between the quality of trauma care and management of nonfatal injuries. The authors used emergency department wait times as a proxy for hospital structure, process, and availability of on-call surgeons with microsurgical skills. They evaluated the association between average hospital emergency department wait times and likelihood of undergoing digit replantation for patients with traumatic amputation digit injuries. The authors hypothesized that hospitals with shorter emergency department wait times were associated with higher odds of replantation.Using the 2007 to 2012 National Trauma Data Bank, the authors' final sample included 12,126 patients. Regression modeling was used to first determine factors that were associated with longer emergency department wait times among patients with digit amputation injuries. Second, the authors examined the association between emergency department wait times for this population at a hospital level and replantation after all types of digit amputation and after complicated thumb amputation injuries only.For patients with simple and complicated thumb amputation injuries, and patients with complicated thumb amputation injuries only, longer emergency department wait times were associated with lower odds of replantation. In addition, being minority and having no insurance were associated with longer emergency department wait times; teaching hospitals were associated with shorter emergency department wait times; and finally, for patients with complicated thumb amputation injuries only, there was no association between patients' minority or insurance status and replantation.Variation in emergency department wait time and its effects on treatment of traumatic digit amputation may reflect maldistribution of hand or plastic surgeons with the required microsurgical skills among trauma centers across the United States.Therapeutic, III.
Project description:<h4>Importance</h4>Given that 40% of hand function is achieved with the thumb, replantation of traumatic thumb injuries is associated with substantial quality-of-life benefits. However, fewer replantations are being performed annually in the US, which has been associated with less surgical expertise and increased risk of future replantation failures. Thus, understanding how interfacility transfers and hospital characteristics are associated with outcomes warrants further investigation.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the association of interfacility transfer, patient characteristics, and hospital factors with thumb replantation attempts and success.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This cross-sectional study used data from the US National Trauma Data Bank from 2009 to 2016 for adult patients with isolated traumatic thumb amputation injury who underwent revision amputation or replantation. Data analysis was performed from May 4, 2020, to July 20, 2020.<h4>Exposures</h4>Interfacility transfer, defined as transfer of a patient from 1 hospital to another to obtain care for traumatic thumb amputation.<h4>Main outcomes and measures</h4>Replantation attempt and replantation success, defined as having undergone a replantation without a subsequent revision amputation during the same hospitalization. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to assess the associations of interfacility transfer, patient characteristics, and hospital factors with replantation outcomes.<h4>Results</h4>Of 3670 patients included in this analysis, 3307 (90.1%) were male and 2713 (73.9%) were White; the mean (SD) age was 45.8 (16.5) years. A total of 1881 patients (51.2%) were transferred to another hospital; most of these patients were male (1720 [91.4%]) and White (1420 [75.5%]). After controlling for patient and hospital characteristics, uninsured patients were less likely to have thumb replantation attempted (odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.78) or a successful replantation (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84). Interfacility transfer was associated with increased odds of replantation attempt (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.59), with 13% of the variation at the hospital level. Interfacility transfer was also associated with increased replantation success (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47), with 14% of variation at the hospital level.<h4>Conclusions and relevance</h4>In this cross-sectional study, interfacility transfer and particularly hospital-level variation were associated with increased thumb replantation attempts and successes. These findings suggest a need for creating policies that incentivize hospitals with replantation expertise to provide treatment for traumatic thumb amputations, including promotion of centralization of replantation care.
Project description:Importance:Traumatic digit amputation is the most common type of amputation injury, but the cost-effectiveness of its treatments is unknown. Objective:To assess the cost-effectiveness of finger replantation compared with revision amputation. Design, Setting, and Participants:This economic evaluation was conducted using data from the Finger Replantation and Amputation Challenges in Assessing Impairment, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (FRANCHISE), a retrospective, multicenter cohort study at 19 centers in the United States and Asia that enrolled participants from August 1, 2016, to April 12, 2018. Model variables were based on the FRANCHISE database, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and published literature. A total of 257 participants with unilateral traumatic finger amputations treated with revision amputation or replantation distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint and at least 1 year of follow-up after treatment were included in the analysis. Exposures:Revision amputation or replantation of traumatic finger amputations. Main Outcomes and Measures:Main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs (in US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100?000 per QALY was used to assess cost-effectiveness. Results:Of the 257 study participants (mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.9] years; 221 [86.0%] male), 178 underwent finger replantation and 79 underwent revision amputation. In a base case of a 46.7-year-old patient, replantation was associated with QALY gains of 0.30 (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.72 to 1.38) for single-finger (not thumb), 0.39 (95% CrI, -1.00 to 1.90) for thumb, 1.69 (95% CrI, -0.13 to 3.76) for multifinger excluding thumb, and 1.27 (95% CrI, -2.21 to 5.04) for multifinger including thumb injury patterns. Corresponding ICERs for replantation compared with revision amputation were $99?157 per QALY for single-finger (not thumb), $66?278 per QALY for thumb, $18?388 per QALY for multifinger excluding thumb, and $21?528 per QALY for multifinger including thumb injury patterns. Sensitivity analysis revealed that age at time of injury, life expectancy, postinjury utility, wages, and time off work for recovery had the strongest associations with cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed the following chances of replantation being cost-effective: 47% in single-finger (not thumb), 52% in thumb, 78% in multifinger excluding thumb, and 64% in multifinger including thumb injury patterns. Conclusions and Relevance:With proper patient selection, replantation of all finger amputation patterns, whether single-finger or multifinger injuries, may be cost-effective compared with revision amputation. Multifinger replantations had a higher probability of being cost-effective than single-finger replantations. Cost-effectiveness may depend on injury pattern and patient factors and thus appears to be important for consideration when patients and surgeons are deciding whether to replant or amputate.
Project description:The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries across a spectrum of injury scenarios.The study was conducted from the societal perspective. Decision tree models were created for the reference case (two-finger amputation injury) and seven additional injury scenarios for comparison. Inputs included cost, quality of life, and probability of each health state. A Web-based time trade-off survey was created to determine quality-adjusted life-years for health states; 685 nationally representative adult community members were invited to participate in the survey. Overall cost and quality-adjusted life-years for revision amputation and replantation were calculated for each decision tree. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated if a treatment was more costly but more effective.The authors had a 64 percent response rate (n = 437). Replantation treatment had greater costs and quality-adjusted life-years compared with revision amputation in all injury scenarios. Replantation of single-digit injuries had the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($136,400 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Replantation of three- and four-digit amputation injuries had relatively low cost-to-benefit ratios ($27,100 and $23,800 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Replantation for distal thumb amputation had a relatively low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($26,300 per quality-adjusted life-year) compared with replantation of nonthumb distal amputations ($60,200 per quality-adjusted life-year).The relative cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with replantation treatment varied greatly among the injury scenarios. Situations in which indications for replantation are debated had higher cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This study highlights variability in value for replantation among different injury scenarios.
Project description:Traumatic finger/thumb amputations are some of the most prevalent traumatic injuries affecting Americans each year. Rates of replantation after traumatic finger/thumb amputation, however, have been declining steadily across U.S. hospitals, which may make these procedures less accessible to minorities and vulnerable populations. The specific aim of this study was to examine racial variation in finger replantation after traumatic finger/thumb amputation.Using a two-level hierarchical model, the authors retrospectively compared replantation rates for African American patients with those of whites, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. Patients younger than 65 years with traumatic finger/thumb amputation injuries who sought care at a U.S. trauma center between 2007 and 2012 were included in the study sample.The authors analyzed 13,129 patients younger than 65 years with traumatic finger/thumb amputation. Replantation rates declined over time from 19 percent to 14 percent (p = 0.004). Adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, African Americans (OR, 0.81; 95 percent CI, 0.66 to 0.99; p = 0.049) were less likely to undergo replantation procedures than whites, and uninsured patients (OR, 0.73; 95 percent CI, 0.62 to 0.84; p < 0.0001) were less likely than those who were privately insured.Despite advancements in microsurgical techniques and the increasing use of reconstructive surgery in other fields, finger/thumb replantation rates are declining in the United States and vulnerable populations are less likely to undergo replantation after amputation injuries. Regionalization of care for these injuries may not only provide a higher quality care but also reduce variations in treatment.Risk, III.
Project description:Reconstruction of an irreparably amputated thumb in multiple digit amputations using amputated fingers can considerably improve hand function and allows creation of a newly transplanted thumb with acceptable cosmetic and functional attributes. However, the surgery is challenging and rarely reported. We report six cases using this procedure in patients with crushed thumbs unsuitable for replantation. In four of the patients, the remnant of the index finger was replanted on the thumb stump and in another two patients, an amputated middle finger and ring finger were used. The patients had a minimum followup of 12 months (mean, 18 months; range, 12-45 months). All newly transplanted thumbs survived resulting in the patients having satisfactory postoperative hand function and appearance.
Project description:Surgical ingenuity has resulted in continuing microsurgical innovation in replantation. In this article, the authors define complex amputations as those that stretch the boundaries or fall outside traditionally defined indications for replantation. They discuss management of difficult situations involving multiple digit amputations, multiple-level amputations, prolonged ischemia, and multiple trauma. The role of transpositional and ectopic replantation, as well as the requirement for secondary procedures in replantation is also discussed. Although technically challenging, microsurgical management of complex amputations ultimately results in far superior outcomes.
Project description:Since the first successful replantation of a human thumb reported by Komatsu and Tamai in 1968, thousands of severed digits and body parts have been successfully salvaged. Restoration of anatomic form and function are the goals of replantation after traumatic tissue amputation. Regardless of anatomic location, methods include microsurgical replantation and nonmicrosurgical replantation, such as composite graft techniques. Numerous techniques to maximize tissue survival after revascularization have been described, including "pocket procedures" to salvage composite grafts, interposition vein grafts, and medicinal leeches to name a few. Artery-to-venous anastomoses have been performed with successful "arterialization" of the distal venous system in fingertip replantation. Although there is documented survival of free venous cutaneous flaps, to our knowledge this is the first report of a replanted composite body part (bone, tendon, soft tissues, and skin) utilizing exclusively multiple, microvascular, nonarterialized venous-venous anastomoses. We present a patient with an isolated band saw fillet amputation to the back of the thumb at the metacarpal-phalangeal joint region, resulting in a composite graft composed of bone, tendon, soft tissue, and skin. The hand wound provided no viable regional arterial inflow source, but there were multiple good caliber superficial veins present. The amputated tissues were replanted and revascularized by using only venous blood flow. The replanted part survival was 100% with excellent function of the digit. We conclude that a hand composite body part involving bone, tendon, soft tissues, and skin can survive replantation with a strict venous blood supply if sufficient good caliber, microvascular, venous-venous anastomoses are performed, granted that arterial inflow options are not available. This is an isolated case, yet introduces a new way of thinking regarding tissue replantation.
Project description:Importance:Optimal treatment for traumatic finger amputation is unknown to date. Objective:To use statistical learning methods to estimate evidence-based treatment assignment rules to enhance long-term functional and patient-reported outcomes in patients after traumatic amputation of fingers distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint. Design, Setting, and Participants:This decision analytical model used data from a retrospective cohort study of 338 consenting adult patients who underwent revision amputation or replantation at 19 centers in the United States and Asia from August 1, 2016, to April 12, 2018. Of those, data on 185 patients were included in the primary analysis. Exposures:Treatment with revision amputation or replantation. Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcome measures were hand strength, dexterity, hand-related quality of life, and pain. A tree-based statistical learning method was used to derive clinical decision rules for treatment of traumatic finger amputation. Results:Among 185 study participants (mean [SD] age, 45  years; 156 [84%] male), the median number of fingers amputated per patient was 1 (range, 1-5); 115 amputations (62%) were distal to the proximal interphalangeal joint, and 110 (60%) affected the nondominant hand. On the basis of the tree-based statistical learning estimates, to maximize hand dexterity or to minimize patient-reported pain, replantation was found to be the best strategy. To maximize hand strength, revision amputation was the best strategy for patients with a single-finger amputation but replantation was preferred for all other injury patterns. To maximize patient-reported quality of life, revision amputation was the best approach for patients with dominant hand injuries, and replantation was the best strategy for patients with nondominant hand injuries. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that the approach to treating traumatic finger amputations varies based on the patient's injury characteristics and functional needs.