Concurrent validity study of QuickDASH with respect to DASH in patients with traumatic upper extremity amputation.

BACKGROUND: The Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH) is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for many upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. In patients with severe traumatic conditions, limited evidence exists regarding the equivalence between DASH and its shortened version, QuickDASH, which is more feasible in clinical practice. The rationale of this study was to analyze the concurrent validity of QuickDASH with respect to DASH in patients with traumatic upper extremity amputation. METHODS: This study is based on a consecutive cohort of traumatic upper extremity amputation patients treated with replantation or revision (completion) amputation at Tampere University Hospital between 2009 and 2019. We estimated the concurrent validity of QuickDASH with respect to DASH by correlation coefficients, mean score differences, Bland-Altman plots, and distribution density. Additionally, we assessed internal reliability with Cronbach's alpha coefficients and item-total correlations. RESULTS: We found a very strong linear correlation between DASH and QuickDASH scores (r = 0.97 [CI 95% 0.97-0.98], p < 0.001). The mean difference between DASH and QuickDASH was minor (MD = -1, SD 4 [CI95% from -1 to 0] p = 0.02). The mean sub-score for the activity domain was higher for QuickDASH than DASH (MD = -3 [CI95% from -4 to -3] p < 0.000) and lower for the symptom domain (MD = 7 [CI95% from 6 to 9] p < 0.000). The Bland and Altman plot showed good agreement between DASH and QuickDASH scores, but there was measurement error in QuickDASH with high scores (r = -0.20, [CI95% from -0.31 to -0.09], p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: QuickDASH demonstrates higher total scores than the full DASH and emphasizes rating of activity over symptoms. Still, on average the differences in total scores are likely less than the MCID of DASH, and consequently, this study shows that QuickDASH can be recommended instead of the full DASH when assessing a traumatic condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered.

Is Replantation Associated With Better Hand Function After Traumatic Hand Amputation Than After Revision Amputation?

BACKGROUND: Replantation is an established treatment for traumatic upper extremity amputation. Only a few studies, however, have assessed the patient-reported outcomes of replantation, and the findings of these studies have been conflicting. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is replantation associated with better hand function than revision amputation? (2) Is replantation associated with better health-related quality of life, less painful cold intolerance, and more pleasing hand esthetics than revision amputation after a traumatic hand amputation? METHODS: In this retrospective, comparative study, we collected the details of all patients who sustained a traumatic upper extremity amputation and were treated at the study hospital. Between 2009 and 2019, we treated 2250 patients, and we considered all patients who sustained a traumatic amputation of two or more digital rays or a thumb as potentially eligible. Based on that, 15% (334 of 2250) were eligible; a further 2% (8 of 334) were excluded because of a subsequent new traumatic amputation or bilateral amputation, and another 22% (72 of 334) refused participation, leaving 76% (254 of 334) for analysis here. The primary outcome was the DASH score. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (EuroQOL-5D [EQ-5D-5L] Index), painful cold intolerance (the Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity score), and hand esthetics (the Michigan Hand Questionnaire aesthetic domain score). The minimum follow-up time for inclusion was 18 months. Patients were classified into two treatment groups: replantation (67% [171 of 254], including successful replantation in 84% [144 of 171] and partially successful replantation in 16% [27 of 171], in which some but not all of the replanted tissue survived), and revision (complete) amputation (33% [83 of 254], including primary revision amputation in 70% [58 of 83] and unsuccessful replantation followed by secondary amputation in 30% [25 of 83]). In this cohort, replantation was performed if possible, and the reason for choosing primary revision amputation over replantation was usually an amputated part that was too severely damaged (15% [39 of 254]) or was unattainable (2% [4 of 254]). Some patients (3% [8 of 254]) refused to undergo replantation, or their health status did not allow replantation surgery and postoperative rehabilitation (3% [7 of 254]). Gender, age (mean 48 ± 17 years in the replantation group versus 50 ± 23 years in the revision amputation group; p = 0.41), follow-up time (8 ± 4 years in the replantation group versus 7 ± 4 years in the revision amputation group; p = 0.18), amputation of the dominant hand, smoking, extent of tissue loss, or presence of arterial hypertension did not differ between the groups. Patients in the replantation group less frequently had diabetes mellitus (5% [8 of 171] versus 12% [10 of 83]; p = 0.03) and dyslipidemia (4% [7 of 171] versus 11% [9 of 83]; p = 0.04) than those in the revision group and more often had cut-type injuries (75% [129 of 171] versus 60% [50 of 83]; p = 0.02). RESULTS: After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, injury type, extent of tissue loss before treatment, and accident of the dominant hand, replantation was not associated with better DASH scores than revision amputation (OR 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.33]; p = 0.42). After controlling for potential cofounding variables, replantation was not associated with better EQ-5D-5L Index scores (OR 0.93 [95% CI 0.56 to 1.55]; p = 0.55), differences in Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity scores (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.51 to 1.44]; p = 0.79), or superior Michigan Hand Questionnaire esthetic domain scores (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.43 to 1.26]; p = 0.26) compared with revision amputation. CONCLUSION: Replantation surgery was conducted, if feasible, in a homogenous cohort of patients who underwent amputation. If the amputated tissue was too severely damaged or replantation surgery was unsuccessful, the treatment resulted in revision (complete) amputation, which was not associated with worse patient-reported outcomes than successful replantation. These results contradict the assumed benefits of replantation surgery and indicate the need for credible evidence to better guide the care of these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Patient-reported significant disability after major traumatic upper extremity amputation.

The aims of this study were to record patient-reported outcomes of treatment of proximal upper extremity amputation injuries and subsequent return to work. A consecutive cohort of 38 patients with a traumatic amputation at or proximal to the carpus had been treated with a replantation or revision (completion) amputation in Tampere University Hospital between 2009 and 2019, and 31 of them participated in this study. The primary outcome was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH). Patients reported significant disability indicated by DASH score after replantation (median 30; interquartile range [IQR] 21-47) and revision (completion) amputation (median 33; IQR 16-52). Most patients had cold intolerance and reported low hand function and aesthetics scores. Out of 17 working patients, 10 did not return to their previous work. Our study demonstrates the influence of major upper extremity amputation on daily life activities, even after a successful replantation.Level of evidence: IV.

Upper extremity replantation and revascularization in Finland between 1998 and 2016.

Emergency replantation and revascularization operations of upper extremity injuries demand considerable resources, but their actual occurrence is unknown. This study evaluated all emergency replantations and revascularizations in the upper extremity in Finland from 1998 to 2016. A total of 2,434 operations were identified within the study period. The average number of operations per year was 128 which corresponds with 2.4 operations per 100,000 person years. Operations were most common in persons aged 20 to 59 years and the rate of operations ranged from 1.4 to 5.0 per 100,000 person years. Thirteen percent of the patients were women and 87% were men. This study shows rates of emergency replantation and revascularization operations in upper extremity injuries and proves that the rates have been constant over the past 19 years in Finland.