Cargando…
Dynavisc as an Adhesion Barrier in Finger Phalangeal Plate Fixation—a Prospective Case Series of 8 Patients
PURPOSE: Adhesion problems are common after plate fixation of finger phalanges and often lead to stiffness and reoperations with plate removal and tenolysis. The aim of this prospective case series was to study the effect of the adhesion barrier gel Dynavisc on total active motion (TAM), postoperati...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8991622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35415481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsg.2019.11.003 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: Adhesion problems are common after plate fixation of finger phalanges and often lead to stiffness and reoperations with plate removal and tenolysis. The aim of this prospective case series was to study the effect of the adhesion barrier gel Dynavisc on total active motion (TAM), postoperative pain, and grip strength after plate fixation of phalangeal fractures. Total active motion at 3 months after surgery was the primary outcome. METHODS: Eight patients with a fracture of the proximal phalanx underwent surgery with open reduction and plate fixation. The adhesion barrier Dynavisc was applied between plate and extensor tendon and between tendon and skin. Results in terms of pain, grip strength, and TAM at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery were collected. Results on TAM were classified according to Page and Stern. RESULTS: After 3 months, only 2 patients had a result classified as excellent. After 1 year, 3 patients fulfilled the criteria for an excellent result. There were no adverse events. Patients with long-standing postoperative pain had a worse outcome on TAM. CONCLUSIONS: The antiadhesive effect of Dynavisc in this prospective case series was unconvincing. Only 2 patients had an excellent result on TAM at 3 months. Because the gel is resorbed within 30 days after application, it is questionable whether the gel had a role in improvement that occurred later in the postoperative course. Larger, randomized studies would be required to show any anti-adherent effect of Dynavisc definitively in finger fracture surgery. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV. |
---|