Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_777_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
45 Мб
Скачать
7 Symbrachydactyly
https://t.me/medicina_free
85
deformities—the Great Ormond Street experience. J Hand Surg Br. 2003;28(6):520–7.
48. Garagnani L, Gibson M, Smith PJ, Smith GD.Long­term donor site morbidity after free nonvascu­larized toe phalangeal transfer. J Hand Surg Br. 2012;37(4):764–74.
49. Matev IB.Thumb reconstruction in children through metacarpal lengthening. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979;64(5):665–9.
50. Foucher G, Pajardi G, Lamas C, Medina J, Navarro R.Progressive bone lengthening of the hand in con­genital malformations. 41 cases. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001;87(5):451–8.
51. Miyawaki T, Masuzawa G, Hirakawa M, Kurihara K. Bone-lengthening for symbrachydactyly of the hand with the technique of callus distraction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(6):986–91.
52. Heo CY, Kwon S, Back GH, Chung MS.Complications of distraction lengthening in the hand. J Hand Surg Eur. 2008;33(5):609–15.
53. Matsuno T, Ishida O, Sunagawa T, Ichikawa M, Ikuta Y, Ochi M. Bone lengthening for congenital differ­ences of the hands and digits in children. J Hand Surg Br. 2004;29(4):712–9.
54. Seitz WH Jr, Shimko P, Patterson RW. Long-term results of callus distraction-lengthening in the hand and upper extremity for traumatic and con­genital skeletal deciencies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(Suppl 2):47–58.
55. O’Brien BM, Black MJ, Morrison WA, et al. Microvascular great toe transfer for congenital absence of the thumb. Hand. 1978;10:113–24.
56. Nyarady J, Szekeres P, Vilmos Z.Toe-to-thumb trans­fer in congenital grade III thumb hypoplasia. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1983;8:898–901.
57. Schenker M, Wiberg M, Kay SP, et al. Precision grip function after free toe transfer in children with hypoplastic digits. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:13–23.
58. Lister G.Microsurgical transfer of the second toe for congenital deciency of the thumb. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;82:658–65.
59. Richardson PW, Johnstone BR, Coombs CJ. Toe­to-hand transfer in symbrachydactyly. Hand Surg. 2004;9:11–8.
60. Jones NF, Kaplan J. Indications for microsurgical reconstruction of congenital hand anomalies by toe­to- hand transfers. Hand. 2013;8(4):367–74.
61. Spokevicius S, Radzevicius D.Late toe-to-hand trans­fer for the reconstruction of congenital defects of the long ngers. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1997;31(4):345–50.
62. Jones NF, Hansen SL, Bates SJ. Toe-to-hand trans­fers for congenital anomalies of the hand. Hand Clin. 2007;23(1):129–36.
63. Gilbert A. Reconstruction of congenital hand defects with microvascular toe transfers. Hand Clin. 1985;1:351–60.
64. Foucher G, Medina J, Navarro R, et al. Toe trans­fer in congenital hand malformations. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2001;17:1–7.
65. Gilbert A.Toe transfers for congenital hand defects. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1982;7:118–24.
66. Chang J, Jones NF.Radiographic analysis of growth in pediatric microsurgical toe-to-hand transfers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:576–82.
67. Kay SP, Wiberg M, Bellew M, Webb F.Toe to hand transfer in children. Part 2: functional and psychologi­cal aspects. J Hand Surg Br. 1996;21(6):735–45.
68. Vilkki S.Advances in microsurgical reconstruction of the congenitally adactylous hand. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;314:45–8.
69. Van Holder C, Giele H, Gilbert A.Double second toe transfer in congenital hand anomalies. J Hand Surg (Br). 1999;24:471–5.
70. Kay SP, Wiberg M. Toe to hand transfer in chil­dren. Part 1. Technical aspects. J Hand Surg (Br). 1996;21:723–34.
71. Rayan GM, Upton III J. Congenital hand anomalies and associated syndromes. Berlin: Springer; 2014.
Abstract
https://t.me/medicina_free
Central Synpolydactyly
8
AndreaJester, TatianaY.Jacomel, MichailVourvachis, andJeannetteW.C.Ting
Central synpolydactyly (CSPD) is a rare and heterogeneous, autosomal dominant congeni­tal hand condition thought to be attributed to the Homeobox-D13 (HOXD13) gene. There are multiple clinical and radiological classi­cation systems for syndactyly and CSPD although none of these comprehensively describe the complexity of the condition. The degree of exion, deviation and rotation at birth has a signicant inuence on the even­tual form and function of the affected digits. Unlike syndactyly or polydactyly alone, CSPD patients often also have stiffness and exion contractures of their interphalangeal joints, complicating their surgery and out­come. We describe our two preferred surgical approaches to CSPD depending on the patient’s skin type.
Keywords
Central synpolydactyly · SPD 1 · SPD 2 SPD 3 · Syndactyly
8.1 Introduction
Central synpolydactyly (CSPD) is a non­syndromic, complex and heterogeneous malfor­mation of the hand that is rare and can be challenging to manage. CSPD involves fusion (syn) of the central axis digits (third and fourth rays only) with excess digits or parts of digits (poly). The accessory digit may arise from either the middle or ring nger. The terminology is often confusing in the literature as classically, CSPD is a type of synpolydactyly (SPD). SPD, in turn, is a subtype (II) of syndactyly [13].
As separate entities, both polydactyly and syndactyly are common, with an incidence of 5–17 [4] and 3–40 per 10,000 births [5], respec­tively. The true incidence of CSPD is unknown, but thought to be signicantly rarer than polydac­tyly or syndactyly alone. CSPD is also associated with various forms of synpolydactyly of the toes and rarely, hypospadias, which is beyond the scope of this chapter and therefore will not be discussed [1, 6].
A. Jester (*) · T. Y. Jacomel · M. Vourvachis J. W. C. Ting Hands and Upper Limb Service, Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK e-mail: andrea.jester@nhs.net
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. Pajardi (ed.), Pediatric Hand Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30984-7_8
8.2 Genetics
CSPD is an autosomal dominant condition [1, 5,
6] which shows incomplete penetrance, variable
expressivity and intra- and inter-familial variabil­ity [5, 79] (Fig.8.1). Much of our understanding of the genetics behind CSPD has arisen from
87
88
https://t.me/medicina_free
Fig. 8.1 A family of two sisters and mother all with CSPD. Note the intra-family variability commonly seen in CSPD
A. Jester et al.
investigations of large affected Turkish and Chinese families as it is such a rare condition and therefore difcult to study in large populations [2, 6, 10]. The Homeobox (HOX) family of genes is the main family of genes affecting limb pat­terning that has been implicated in CSPD [1, 6,
11, 12]. It encodes for a family of transcription
factors that affect downstream pathways, which in turn control axis formation during embryonic development [12, 13]. In humans, there are a total of 39 HOX genes. These are grouped into four clusters based on their location on four different chromosomes and named HOXA, B, C and D clusters [6]. The HOXD cluster, and more spe­cically, the HOXD13 gene at chromosome 2q31, is believed to be responsible for CSPD [6,
14]. The HOXD13 gene is also involved with
other congenital hand conditions including cer­tain subtypes of brachydactyly, brachysyndactyly syndrome, VACTERL and other forms of syn­dactyly [2, 3, 6, 12].
The phenotype of CSPD seen is dependent on whether the genetic abnormality of the HOXD13 genes is a result of polyalanine expansion, intra­genic deletion, missense mutations or frameshift deletions [6]. Polyalanine expansion is when stretches of alanine (amino acid) increase in length beyond a threshold, resulting in mutant proteins that cannot fold and therefore bind nor­mally [6, 10, 1517]. In the HOXD13 gene, a
minimum of seven alanine expansions will pro­duce SPD [6, 11, 13] with the greater expansion leading to greater penetrance of phenotypic mutation and more limbs involved [1, 6, 11, 18]. Deletions, frameshifting and missense mutations are also attributed to atypical or milder forms of SPD and other congenital hand conditions by producing proteins that are unable to function normally [6, 19, 20].
Very few syndromic conditions are associated with CSPD. One of these is Pallister–Hall syn­drome, a very rare autosomal dominant disorder with unknown prevalence that can present with postaxial SPD or CSPD [21, 22]. It is caused by mutations in the GLI3 gene, responsible for the shaping of many organs during the prenatal period [22, 23]. These patients universally pres­ent with hypothalamic hamartoma [24].
8.2.1 Classication
Several classication systems have been used over the years for SPD that are also applicable to CSPD.
The rst classication system used for SPD, described by Stelling and Turek in 1963, classi­es SPD according to the morphological skeletal abnormalities of the polydactylous component of SPD [2527]. Type I is associated with no skele-
8 Central Synpolydactyly
https://t.me/medicina_free
89
tal syndactylous attachment. Type II is character­ised by a duplication of the common metacarpal or phalanx associated with (Subtype A) or with­out skeletal syndactyly (Subtype B). Type III refers to polydactyly associated with a complete duplication of the nger including the metacarpal [2527].
Over two decades later, in 1989, Buck­Gramcko and Behrens [28] published a different classication of SPD based on radiological fea­tures rather than morphological features. Their aim was to be able to classify all polydactylies, including pre, central and postaxial variations. However, it does not include complex fusions, hypoplastic or incomplete digits [28].
In 2014, Zhou etal. [13] developed a classi­cation with no genetic or precise radiological fea­tures. The types are classied according to predicted surgical difculty. The mild form clini­cally presents with supplementary ngers, with normal outline of ngers and joints and no bony abnormalities or dysfunctions. The moderate form is associated with supplementary ngers, with a normal bony shape and webbed ngers or nger adhesions affecting joint movement. In severe forms, the extra digits are associated with bony deformity, resulting in compromised grip and function.
In 2016, Wall etal. [25] published a radiologi­cal classication for CSPD only, identifying types based on the bony level of the polydacty­lous digit and its associated characteristic skele­tal deformities (Fig.8.2 and Table8.1). They do not, however, include additional clinical features such as exion deformity, hypoplastic bones or soft tissue anomalies. They argue that their clas­sication system not only facilitates the commu­nication between the surgeons, but more importantly, it would allow for a more systematic approach towards CSPD than previous classica­tion systems. Type I is characterised by the involvement of the metacarpals. It is divided into two subtypes: A (division of the metacarpal bone, affecting the ring and middle ngers) and B (extra digit between third and fourth ngers). In
Type II, the affected level is the proximal pha­lanx. It is also divided into two subtypes: Type 2A involves duplication of the ring nger with a syndactyly with the middle nger. The proximal phalanx of the fourth digit is a “delta” phalanx. Type 2B, however, does not show a delta pha­lanx. Type III refers to the involvement of the middle or distal phalanx of the middle and ring ngers.
The main criticism of this classication sys­tem is that it does not take non-bony issues such as exion deformity and soft tissue contractures into consideration. This is particularly relevant in CSPD where the severity of soft tissue features signicantly affects the functional and cosmetic outcome of the ngers more so than syndactyly and polydactyly alone. A more ideal classica­tion system would combine both Zhou’s and Wall’s principles to allow surgeons to compare conditions and outcomes meaningfully. This has yet to be described.
8.2.2 Surgical Considerations
CSPD patients present even within the same fam­ily with very a wide-ranging phenotypic expres­sion. Various factors can have a signicant impact on the nal form and function of the hand. The outcome is signicantly affected by the degree of exion contracture as well as deviation or rota­tional deformity. Proximal and distal interphalan­geal joints are not rarely partially or completely stiff. Even with meticulous separation of ngers, removal of accessory digits and intensive post­operative hand therapy, stiffness often remains.
Discussions with parents with regards to the surgery and outcome need to be individualised to the patient and conducted comprehensively and openly by a surgeon who understands these com­plexities. Parents should also be aware that although the aim of surgery is to maximise the outcome with a minimal number of operations, as the child grows, additional surgery may be required to accommodate for these changes.
90
https://t.me/medicina_free
A. Jester et al.
Type 1A Type 1B Type 2A
Fig. 8.2 Classication of Polysyndactyly. (From Wall etal., synpolydactyly of the hand: a radiographic classication. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2016 Mar 41(3):301–307 [25])
Table 8.1 Classication of polysyndactyly. (From Wall etal., Synpolydactyly of the hand: a radiographic classica­tion. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2016 Mar 41(3):301–307 [25])
Classication type
1 A Metacarpal 3rd metacarpal bifurcates
2 A Proximal phalanx Duplication of ring nger
3 Middle or distal
Level of duplication Description
B Metacarpal 3-or 4-boned digits between long and ring ngers
B Proximal phalanx Duplication of ring or long ngers
phalanx
Type 2B Type 3
Affects long and ring ngers
Syndactylised to ring or both ring and long ngers
Syndactyly may involve long nger Delta phalanx of ring P1
Parallel of divergent orientation Duplication at P2 or P3 level between long and ring ngers
8 Central Synpolydactyly
https://t.me/medicina_free
91
8.3 Authors Preferred Method
The aim of CSPD surgery consists of the separa­tion of the syndactylous middle nger from the ring nger as well as the removal of the dupli­cated nger. The duplication may be of either the middle or ring nger. The principles are to achieve an excellent cosmetic result and the best possible functional outcome, without compromising either. Scars should be hidden in the inter-digital space; grafts should be of similar colour as the recipient side. Palmar scars should furthermore not lead to an increase in exion contractures. I tend to use two main techniques to separate the ngers, with the choice being dependent on the patient’s skin colour. These techniques are also used in conven­tional syndactyly releases.
In fair-skinned patients, a palmar ap com­bined with inter-digitating zig-zag aps is used to minimise visible dorsal scarring that is evident when the patient looks that their outstretched hand. The palmar ap is designed with the base of the ap just proximal to an imaginary arch connecting the palmar digital crease of the index and the little nger. The centre of the palmar ap is in the mid­dle of the fused nger mass. The ap is slightly narrowed at the waist with the distal tip of the ap shaped like the gothic arch reaching up to the proximal inter- phalangeal (PIP) crease [29]. When raising the central palmar ap careful blunt dissec­tion with the tip of the scissors aimed between the bones guarantees preservation of the perforators and the vascular bundle. The palmar incisions are matched by a dorsal straight-line incision, which begins proximally at a point halfway between the PIP joint and the metacarpal phalangeal (MCP) joint and ends distally at the PIPJ (Fig.8.3a).
Narrow thin-tipped triangular aps are designed distal to this, running up the centre of the syndactyly on the dorsal and corresponding volar surface. They extend to the middle of the nger. These zigzag incisions are made with acute angles deliberately, as they result in hori­zontal scars that eventually “vanish” in dorsal skin creases and therefore become very well hid­den. More obtuse-angled aps result in obvious
oblique scars, especially on the dorsal surface. In the author’s experience, there are no issues with ap viability and therefore can be used safely. Over the pulp, a straight-line incision continues into reciprocal triangular aps. This is a variation of the technique rst described by Lundkvist [30] and adapted by (and popularly known as aps by) Buck-Gramcko (Fig.8.3b) [31]. These aps are used to recreate the nail folds.
Full-thickness grafts from the elbow crease are used to resurface only the wounds adjacent to the web space. All other raw areas are left to heal spontaneously. Post-operative management of these patients usually involves a dressing change 14–21days after the surgery.
For dark-skinned patients, other than minimis­ing dorsal scars, the additional complication to avoid is a colour mismatch. Dark-skinned patients have very light-coloured palmar skin compared to their darker dorsal skin. A palmar ap as described above would result in a lighter-coloured palmar skin being evident in the darker dorsal skin in the depth of the web space. A combination of both dorsal and palmar rectangular aps is therefore used to avoid this and has been described by Flatt in 1974 [32]. Another advan­tage of this technique is that only one full-thick­ness graft is required compared to the two needed in the palmar ap. One of the disadvantages are more visible scars on the dorsum of the hand compared to the palmar only ap.
The removal of the polydactylous bone requires careful dissection and removal of all rudimentary part of the accessory digit, also known as the “Anlage”. Incomplete removal of the cartilaginous Anlage, especially between the metacarpal bones may lead to regrowth and a mechanical block that prevents patients from being able to adduct their ngers. This unfortunately leads to visible exten­sion of the scar on the dorsum.
The neurovascular bundles are not skeleton­ised and fully dissected to prevent inadvertent damage to these ne structures. Instead, a tech­nique of gentle spreading with scissors is used to allow the vascular bundles to be guided into their respective ngers.
92
https://t.me/medicina_free
A. Jester et al.
a
b
Fig. 8.3 (a) Planning of the incision and aps for primary operation dorsal and palmar. (b) Planning of the ngertip incisions
For patients with obviously deviated ngers
8.3.1 Secondary Surgery
caused by an aberrant epiphysis (Fig.8.3a) a decision needs be made as to be whether this can be corrected at the same time as the separa­tion. We do recommend this despite the fre­quent need for further osteotomies at a later date. (Fig.8.3c) The foot surgery is also usu­ally done at the same time as primary hand surgery.
As mentioned above, unlike patients with syn­dactyl or polydactyly alone, patients with CSPD often need secondary surgery. In the author’s experience, children that are more likely to require this are those who presented initially with exed and/or deviated synpolydactyly (Fig.8.4). Cosmetically and functionally, centrally posi-
8 Central Synpolydactyly
https://t.me/medicina_free
a
b
93
Fig. 8.4 Case 2: female, CSPD, Wall and Goldberg Type 1B.Initial radiographies (a). 2017: Pre-operative pictures (b) and intra-operative images (c). Actual clinical and radiological ndings (d)
94
https://t.me/medicina_free
A. Jester et al.
c
d
Fig. 8.4 (continued)
8 Central Synpolydactyly
https://t.me/medicina_free
95
tioned exed ngers are more bothersome to patients and parents than extended ngers. These patients also seem to have an increasing tendency to present with unfavourable palmar scar contrac­tures and webbing that need revision surgery. A large generous full thickness grafting is usually required to prevent its recurrence as the patient continues to grow. Other more invasive proce­dures are also available to the patients, including
a
straightening osteotomies. However, these proce­dures sacrice grip in return for straighter digits and therefore, are not offered to children until they are fully grown and are able of making informed and considered decisions themselves. Deviated ngers may also need osteotomies at a later stage depending on whether the patients present with a cosmetic or functional issue (Figs.8.5 and 8.6).
b
Fig. 8.5 Case 3: female, CSPD, Wall and Goldberg Type. Initial radiography (a) and clinical presentation (b). Intra- operative photos of second surgery (c). Post-operative images (d)