A Prospective Comparative Study of Ray Resection versus Amputation through Proximal Phalanx for Nonviable Digits of Upper Limb.

Abstract

Background  Finger amputations aim at preserving function and optimizing cosmesis. The crucial decision here is whether to preserve a stump or to do a ray amputation. The present study aimed to compare the functional outcome and postoperative quality of life after ray amputation or amputation through the proximal phalanx. Materials and Methods  A prospective study was conducted from January 2019 to June 2020 in patients requiring single-finger amputation through the proximal phalanx or metacarpal. Patients were divided into two groups; Group A: amputation through the proximal phalanx and Group B: ray amputation of the finger. The following functional parameters were assessed: grip strength, hand circumference, palmar volume, and webspace span. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) score was employed to score hand function and aesthesis at 6 months in both hands. Results  Thirty patients were enrolled. Findings in 26 patients (52 hands) were subjected to further analysis, 12 in Group A and 14 in Group B. Patients in both groups lost grip strength significantly compared with their contralateral normal hands (29.22 ± 14.88 [Group A] and 34.57 ± 19.12 [Group B]); however, it was statistically nonsignificant between the two groups. There was reduced mean palmar circumference in both groups' involved hands, but the decrease in circumference was statistically significant, only for Group B. Group B patients scored better in all the six subscales of the MHQ; however, only the Aesthetics score was significantly superior. The operated hand's webspace span increased significantly with respect to the normal contralateral web by a mean of 4.55 mm. Conclusion  The study concluded that both the surgical options for the level of amputation should be discussed with the patients in detail, taking into account their occupational and personal requirements. Our study findings will help to objectively counsel the patients regarding expectations in functional and aesthetic outcomes following either technique.