A comparison of outcomes between finger and pulp replantation/revascularization

UNLABELLED: Supermicrosurgery has allowed the replantation/revascularization of the pulp, but how does this currently compare with more proximal digit replantation/revascularization? METHODS: In a retrospective case study over a 5-year period at our institute, a total of 21 patients (n = 21) had either finger or pulp replantation-revascularization posttrauma. All pulp replants had a single-vessel anastomosis viz., "artery-to-artery" or "artery-to-vein" only, with venous outflow dependent on the skin-shave technique, while more proximal replants had both arterial and venous anastomoses. Age, sex, ischemic time, handedness, smoker status, and injury-replant interval were compared between the two groups, with all procedures performed by a single surgeon. The outcome parameters studied were length of hospital stay, timeline for wound healing, viability, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Our patients consisted of 18 men and three women, of which 14.3% were smokers and 85.7% were right-handed. There were 11 finger replantation/revascularizations (n = 11) versus 10 pulp replantation/revascularizations (n = 10). The average age of digit replantation/revascularization patients was 44.8 years compared with 26.4 years in pulp replantation/revascularization patients (Student t test, P = 0.04). Mean ischemia time in digital replants was 67 minutes versus 32.3 minutes in pulp replantation/revascularization (Student t test, P = 0.056). Digital replantation/revascularization was viable in 72% of cases versus a 90% viability in the pulp subcohort. CONCLUSIONS: In our patient cohort, pulp replantation/revascularizations produced better postoperative viability. Where supermicrosurgery expertise is available, pulp replantation/revascularization should be considered a worthwhile option when compared with digital replantation/revascularization.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Systematic review comparing finger versus pulp replantation/revascularization outcomes.

Erfahren Sie, wie diese Forschung mit der klinischen Praxis verknüpft ist

More peer-reviewed studies in Klinische Studien.

• Leech Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis — The Landmark RCT — Michalsen et al. (2003)
• Leech-Assisted Flap Salvage — Systematic Review of 277 Cases — Whitaker et al. (2012)
• Effects of hirudotherapy on liver functions, lipid profile, and insulin sensitivity in rats with metabolic syndrome — Bilden A et al. (2026)
• Efficacy and Safety of Hirudotherapy for Improving Sperm Quality Parameters in Male Infertility: A Randomized Controlled Trial — Abtahi-Forooshani M et al. (2026)
• Reverse Sural Flap Venous Congestion Successfully Managed With Enoxaparin in a Male Patient With a Traumatic Foot Crush Injury: A Case Report — Velasco-Bustamante J et al. (2026)
• Investigation of the therapeutic effects of medicinal leech treatment on lower extremity ischemia-reperfusion injury — Ünal K et al. (2026)
• Efficacy of Medicinal Leech Therapy in Diverse Clinical Applications: A Comprehensive Study from Azerbaijan — Farzali S et al. (2025)
• HIRUDOTHERAPY IN RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY: CASE-REPORTS AND REVIEW — Heinz P et al. (2020)
• Hirudotherapy Efficacy and Complications in the Management of Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review — Foppiani J et al. (2024)
• Hirudotherapy in Wound Healing — Nair H et al. (2022)

Browse all ASH-analysed research →