Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Comparing digital replantation versus revision amputation patient reported outcomes for traumatic digital amputations of the hand: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Meta-analysis published in Microsurgery (2021)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisKlinische StudienStone N et al. · Microsurgery, 2021

Abstract

PURPOSE: Adults with traumatic digital amputation (TDA) of the hand may be managed with replantation or revision amputation. To date, there is no systematic review evaluating patient reported outcomes (PROs) comparing replantation versus revision amputation. METHODS: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) were systematically searched in duplicate from inception until June 13, 2019 using Covidence software. Studies comparing replantation versus revision amputation outcomes were considered for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using Methodologic Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis model using Revman software. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: Of 4350 studies identified, 12 retrospective cohort studies met inclusion criteria and compared TDA outcomes for replantation (n = 717; 82.9% male; mean age 40.3) versus revision amputation (n = 1046; 79.8% male; mean age 41.7). The overall replantation survival rate was 85.3%. The average MINORS score was 57% (13.75/24). Replantation of the thumb had a superior Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) score (+11.88, 95% CI [7.78-15.99], I2 = 21%) compared with revision amputation. Replantation of single non-thumb digits had a superior MHQ score (+5.31, 95% CI [3.10-7.51], I2 = 67%) and Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score (-5.16, 95% CI [-8.27 to -2.06], I2 = 0%) compared with revision amputation. Most patients in the meta-analysis were from Asian populations (87.9%). CONCLUSION: There is low-quality evidence that thumb replantation achieves superior PROs compared with revision amputation, which may be clinically important. Replantation of single non-thumb digits also yielded superior PROs, which is likely not clinically important and based on very low-quality evidence. Future studies with populations outside Asia are required to determine if PROs vary based on cultural differences toward digital amputation.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
Indexed MeSH termsAdultAmputation, SurgicalAmputation, TraumaticFemaleFinger InjuriesHumansMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresReplantationRetrospective Studies

Zusammenfassung

Adults with traumatic digital amputation (TDA) of the hand may be managed with replantation or revision amputation.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared patient-reported outcomes between digital replantation and revision amputation in 12 retrospective cohort studies (717 replantation vs. 1,046 revision amputation patients) for traumatic digital amputations of the hand. It found low-quality evidence that thumb replantation yields superior Michigan Hand Questionnaire scores versus revision amputation, and that single non-thumb digit replantation also showed statistically superior PROs, though likely not clinically significant and based on very low-quality evidence. The study does not involve leeches, hirudotherapy, or leech-derived agents. There is no direct relevance to ASH's domain; the study addresses surgical decision-making without any leech-related content.

Zitation

Comparing digital replantation versus revision amputation patient reported outcomes for traumatic digital amputations of the hand: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Stone N et al. · Microsurgery, 2021

Verwandter klinischer Kontext

Zur ASH-Bibliothek hinzugefügt: May 27, 2026 · Letzte Aktualisierung der Website: June 18, 2026

Diese Website stellt Bildungsinformationen bereit und ist weder eine medizinische Beratung noch eine Diagnose oder Behandlungsempfehlung. Die medizinische Blutegeltherapie ist mit klinisch relevanten Risiken verbunden und sollte ausschließlich von qualifizierten Klinikerinnen und Klinikern unter institutionell genehmigten Protokollen durchgeführt werden. Die FDA-510(k)-Zulassung für medizinische Blutegel ist auf bestimmte Indikationen beschränkt; experimentelle und Off-Label-Diskussionen werden entsprechend gekennzeichnet. Für patientenspezifische Beratung wenden Sie sich an eine qualifizierte Gesundheitsfachkraft.