Cargando…
Thumb duplication classifications: Is there still a need for improvement?
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the usefulness of two systems in classifying thumb duplication cases and give some examples of the cases we believe that are unclassifiable. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2011 and January 2018, a total of 50 patients (29 males, 21 females; median age: 4...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Bayçınar Medical Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9057550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35361090 http://dx.doi.org/10.52312/jdrs.2022.482 |
_version_ | 1784697922681569280 |
---|---|
author | Şencan, Ayşe Baydar, Mehmet Öztürk, Kahraman Ayhan Ünkar, Ethem Demirkaynak, Ersin Üçpunar, Hanifi |
author_facet | Şencan, Ayşe Baydar, Mehmet Öztürk, Kahraman Ayhan Ünkar, Ethem Demirkaynak, Ersin Üçpunar, Hanifi |
author_sort | Şencan, Ayşe |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the usefulness of two systems in classifying thumb duplication cases and give some examples of the cases we believe that are unclassifiable. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2011 and January 2018, a total of 50 patients (29 males, 21 females; median age: 46.4±68.3 months; range, 1 to 318 months) with thumb duplications as assessed according to the Wassel and Rotterdam classification systems were included. RESULTS: Duplication was present in the right hand in 28, in the left hand in 21, and in both hands in one patient. According to the Wassel classification system, 45 patients could be allocated in any of the types; however, five patients could not be classified. According to the Rotterdam classification, 47 cases fell into one of the classifications; however, three cases could not be classified. CONCLUSION: Despite efforts to find the best classification system for thumb duplications, the proposed systems may not fully cover the presented radial polydactyly cases, and additions to the system are required. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9057550 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Bayçınar Medical Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90575502022-05-04 Thumb duplication classifications: Is there still a need for improvement? Şencan, Ayşe Baydar, Mehmet Öztürk, Kahraman Ayhan Ünkar, Ethem Demirkaynak, Ersin Üçpunar, Hanifi Jt Dis Relat Surg Original Article OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the usefulness of two systems in classifying thumb duplication cases and give some examples of the cases we believe that are unclassifiable. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2011 and January 2018, a total of 50 patients (29 males, 21 females; median age: 46.4±68.3 months; range, 1 to 318 months) with thumb duplications as assessed according to the Wassel and Rotterdam classification systems were included. RESULTS: Duplication was present in the right hand in 28, in the left hand in 21, and in both hands in one patient. According to the Wassel classification system, 45 patients could be allocated in any of the types; however, five patients could not be classified. According to the Rotterdam classification, 47 cases fell into one of the classifications; however, three cases could not be classified. CONCLUSION: Despite efforts to find the best classification system for thumb duplications, the proposed systems may not fully cover the presented radial polydactyly cases, and additions to the system are required. Bayçınar Medical Publishing 2022-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9057550/ /pubmed/35361090 http://dx.doi.org/10.52312/jdrs.2022.482 Text en Copyright © 2021, Turkish Joint Diseases Foundation https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Şencan, Ayşe Baydar, Mehmet Öztürk, Kahraman Ayhan Ünkar, Ethem Demirkaynak, Ersin Üçpunar, Hanifi Thumb duplication classifications: Is there still a need for improvement? |
title | Thumb duplication classifications: Is there still a need for improvement? |
title_full | Thumb duplication classifications: Is there still a need for improvement? |
title_fullStr | Thumb duplication classifications: Is there still a need for improvement? |
title_full_unstemmed | Thumb duplication classifications: Is there still a need for improvement? |
title_short | Thumb duplication classifications: Is there still a need for improvement? |
title_sort | thumb duplication classifications: is there still a need for improvement? |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9057550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35361090 http://dx.doi.org/10.52312/jdrs.2022.482 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sencanayse thumbduplicationclassificationsistherestillaneedforimprovement AT baydarmehmet thumbduplicationclassificationsistherestillaneedforimprovement AT ozturkkahraman thumbduplicationclassificationsistherestillaneedforimprovement AT ayhanunkarethem thumbduplicationclassificationsistherestillaneedforimprovement AT demirkaynakersin thumbduplicationclassificationsistherestillaneedforimprovement AT ucpunarhanifi thumbduplicationclassificationsistherestillaneedforimprovement |