A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The first dorsal metacarpal artery flaps versus reverse homodigital dorsal flaps for thumb reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Purpose: This review was performed to systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of the first dorsal metacarpal artery flaps (FDMAF) and reverse homodigital dorsal flaps (RHDF) for thumb reconstruction.

Methods: All literatures, which compared FDMAF versus RHDF for thumb reconstruction, were acquired through a comprehensive search in multiple databases from inception until 31st August 2022. A meta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.4 software.

Results: A total of 19 articles were retrieved, comprising 396 patients in the FDMAF group and 423 patients in the RHDF group. The pooled estimates suggested that there were no significant differences in venous congestion, complications about flap necrosis and reduced range of motion (ROM) of thumb, static 2-point discrimination (S-2PD) between the two groups. On the other hand, patients in the RHDF group had less vascular crisis (odds ratio [OR] = 3.15, 95%CI, 1.31-7.56), complications about poor cortical reorientation (OR = 440.02, 95%CI, 91.97-2105.27) and higher satisfaction rate (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.33-0.96) than those in the FDMAF group.

Conclusions: The two surgical procedures were both safe and reliable since no significant differences were found in flap necrosis between the two groups. However, the patients in the RHDF group had less complications about vascular crisis, poor cortical reorientation and higher satisfaction rate. Accordingly, we thought RHDF may be more superior for thumb reconstruction than FDMAF.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v59.12435DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

thumb reconstruction
12
patients rhdf
12
rhdf group
12
dorsal metacarpal
8
metacarpal artery
8
artery flaps
8
reverse homodigital
8
homodigital dorsal
8
dorsal flaps
8
rhdf thumb
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!