American Society of Hirudotherapy

The success of salvage procedures for failing digital replants: A retrospective cohort study

Retrospective cohort published in Microsurgery (2018)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportClinical TrialsHatchell AC et al. · Microsurgery, 2018

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The success of salvage procedures for failing digital replants (FR) is poorly documented. We sought to evaluate the success of salvage procedures for FR and factors contributing to successes and failures of replants. METHODS: Adult patients who presented to our center between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2015, suffered ≥1 digital amputation(s), and underwent digital replantation were included. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative details were recorded. Digits were monitored postoperatively via nursing and physician assessments. The presumed reason for failure, details, and outcomes of salvage attempts were recorded for FR. Length of hospital stay and complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients and 83 digits were included. Fifty-two digits (63%) were compromised (arterial ischemia in 15 digits; venous congestion in 37 digits) and 48 digits had salvage therapy. Twenty-one FR (44%) were salvaged via operative (1 of 2; 50%), nonoperative (19 of 43; 44%), and combined (1 of 3; 33%) therapies. FR patients were more likely than those with successful replants to receive a blood transfusion (52 vs. 23%; p = .009) with more transfused units (3.45 ± 3.30 vs. 0.86 ± 0.95; p = .001). Length of stay was prolonged for FR patients (9 [range: 2-22] vs. 7 [range: 3-19] days; p = .039). Ultimately, 59% (49 of 83) of replants were successful, where 25% (21 of 83) were successfully salvaged. CONCLUSION: Nonoperative and operative salvage therapies improve the rate of replant survival. We suggest close postoperative monitoring of all replants and active salvage interventions for compromised replants in the postoperative period.

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

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAdultAmputation, TraumaticBlood TransfusionFemaleFinger InjuriesFingersFollow-Up StudiesHeparinHumansHyperemiaIschemiaLeeching

Summary

Across 52 patients and 83 digits, 44% of failing replants were salvaged — 50% via operative, 44% via nonoperative (including leech therapy), and 33% via combined approaches. Patients with failing replants required more transfusions and longer hospital stays.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This retrospective cohort study evaluated salvage procedures for failing digital replants in 83 digits across 52 patients, finding that 63% of digits became compromised postoperatively (predominantly venous congestion) and that nonoperative and operative salvage therapies achieved a 44% salvage rate among failing replants. Leeching is not specifically detailed as an intervention in the abstract, which focuses on the overall success rates of various salvage approaches and factors such as blood transfusion requirements and length of stay. For ASH, this study is only indirectly relevant—while venous congestion is a central theme and leech therapy is a known salvage modality, the abstract does not report leech-specific data, outcomes, or protocols. The study provides context about the broader challenge of managing failing replants but offers no direct evidence about hirudotherapy.

Citation

The success of salvage procedures for failing digital replants: A retrospective cohort study.

Hatchell AC et al. · Microsurgery, 2018

Added to ASH library: May 26, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.