ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Thumb metacarpophalangeal (MP) fusion is generally successful; however, complications have been reported to occur in 0% to 30% of cases, whereas nonunion rates vary by method but, overall, are reported to occur in 0% to 15% of cases. Many fixation techniques have been described, but there is no consensus on the optimal fusion technique. Our goal was to compare complication and union rates of different thumb MP arthrodesis techniques. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent primary thumb MP fusion between 2000 and 2022. Patients who underwent revision fusion, fusion for infection, or amputation were excluded. Fusions of MP joints of other fingers were also excluded. Data collection consisted of demographic data, complications, time to fusion, rate of delayed union and rate of nonunion. Five different fusion constructs were evaluated during our study period: staples, Kirschner wires (K-wires), cerclage, K-wires with cerclage, and intramedullary screw. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients underwent fusion with staples, 16 with K-wires, 14 with cerclage, 9 with K-wires and cerclage, and 6 with an intramedullary screw. The individual complication and nonunion rates differed significantly among the groups with the intramedullary screw group having a statistically higher rate of nonunion (P = .004). Furthermore, smoking, diabetes, and being overweight were associated with nonunions. CONCLUSION: Union rates were significantly lower in patients treated with an intramedullary screw and those who are smokers, diabetics, and/or overweight. Caution should be exercised when using intramedullary screw fixation for MP fusion, especially in patients with these comorbidities.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We evaluated a cohort of patients who developed vasopressor-induced limb ischemia and the management options to prevent progression or minimize morbidity of digital necrosis. METHODS: We reviewed all current literature on pressor-induced limb ischemia and report options for the management of patients requiring vasopressors who developed limb ischemia. We then retrospectively reviewed presentation, treatment, and short-term outcomes for patients at our tertiary referral academic medical center that developed this complication. Finally, we recommend guidelines for the tiered management of these complex patients. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were included. Twenty-six patients (72%) required resuscitation with more than one vasopressor. Vasopressors were initiated for septic-shock (52.7%), cardiogenic-shock (16.7%), hypovolemic-shock (13.9%), acute transplant rejection (13.9%), and neurogenic-shock (2.8%). According to the tiered management recommendations, patients were managed with phase 1 care (19%), phase 2 care (8.3%), phase 3 care (50%) or phase 4 care (5.6%). The patient expired in the acute setting in 13.9% of cases. CONCLUSION: Life-saving vasopressors risk digital ischemia and necrosis. Early recognition, reporting, and treatment of this complication are important in minimizing morbidity. Using a tiered approach helps organize the healthcare team's management of this iatrogenic complication while respecting the treatment paradigm of "life over limb," and may be safely performed with acceptable outcomes.
