Revisión del diagnóstico de mano catastrófica a lo largo de 15 años en un hospital terciario: ¿hacemos un uso adecuado del término? / Review of catastrophic hand diagnosis over 15 years in a tertiary hospital: do we make proper use of the term?

Objetivo: Describir las características de los pacientes diagnosticados de «mano catastrófica» por el Servicio de Cirugía Plástica en un hospital de tercer nivel en el periodo comprendido entre 2000 y 2015; analizar la evolución del uso del término «mano catastrófica», y realizar una revisión bibliográfica con el objetivo de proponer la definición más óptima de dicha expresión. Material y método: Realizamos un estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo de los pacientes diagnosticados de «mano catastrófica» que requirieron atención hospitalaria por el Servicio de Cirugía Plástica de un hospital terciario en el periodo comprendido entre 2000 y 2015. Efectuamos una revisión bibliográfica acerca del uso del término «mano catastrófica» y aplicamos a nuestros resultados las clasificaciones propuestas en las publicaciones consultadas. Resultados: El número de diagnósticos de «mano catastrófica» fue de 133. Objetivamos una tendencia descendente en el empleo del mencionado término con el transcurso de los años. Aplicando clasificaciones basadas en la imposibilidad de recuperación de una mano aceptable (presencia de 3 dedos largos y pulgar) mediante procedimientos reconstructivos, tan solo 9 de 133 pacientes podían ser considerados «manos catastróficas», constituyendo un 6,7% del total de casos. Discusión: El término «mano catastrófica» posee diferentes acepciones, generando ambigüedad. El uso de una clasificación basada en la posibilidad de obtener una mano aceptable disminuye su utilización y mejora el abordaje de dichas lesiones. Conclusión: Abogamos por limitar el uso de «mano catastrófica» a los casos que cumplan criterios de «mano mutilada» y «mano metacarpiana» para evitar su uso indiscriminado y optimizar su manejo terapéutico

Objective: To describe the characteristics of patients diagnosed with 'catastrophic hand' by the plastic surgery department in a tertiary hospital in the period between 2000-2015, analyse the evolution of the use of the term 'catastrophic hand' and conduct a review of the literature with a view to proposing the optimal definition for said expression. Material and method: We conducted a descriptive and retrospective study of patients diagnosed with 'catastrophic hand' who required hospital care by the plastic surgery department of a tertiary hospital in the period between 2000-2015. We conducted a literature review on the use of the term 'catastrophic hand' and we applied the classifications proposed in the publications consulted to our results. Results: The number of 'catastrophic hand' diagnoses was 133. We observed a downward trend in the use of the term over the years. Applying classifications based on the impossibility of recovery of an acceptable hand (presence of three long fingers and thumb) by reconstructive procedures, only 9 out of 133 patients could be considered to have 'catastrophic hands', constituting 6.7% of the total cases. Discussion: The term 'catastrophic hand' has different meanings, and this generates ambiguity. The use of a classification based on the possibility of obtaining an acceptable hand diminishes its use and improves the approach for such injuries. Conclusion: We advocate limiting the use of 'catastrophic hand' to cases that meet criteria of 'mutilated hand' and 'metacarpal hand' to avoid indiscriminate use of the term and optimise therapeutic management

Review of catastrophic hand diagnosis over 15 years in a tertiary hospital: do we make proper use of the term? / Revisión del diagnóstico de mano catastrófica a lo largo de 15 años en un hospital terciario: ¿hacemos un uso adecuado del término?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of patients diagnosed with 'catastrophic hand' by the plastic surgery department in a tertiary hospital in the period between 2000-2015, analyse the evolution of the use of the term 'catastrophic hand' and conduct a review of the literature with a view to proposing the optimal definition for said expression. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted a descriptive and retrospective study of patients diagnosed with 'catastrophic hand' who required hospital care by the plastic surgery department of a tertiary hospital in the period between 2000-2015. We conducted a literature review on the use of the term 'catastrophic hand' and we applied the classifications proposed in the publications consulted to our results. RESULTS: The number of 'catastrophic hand' diagnoses was 133. We observed a downward trend in the use of the term over the years. Applying classifications based on the impossibility of recovery of an acceptable hand (presence of three long fingers and thumb) by reconstructive procedures, only 9 out of 133 patients could be considered to have 'catastrophic hands', constituting 6.7% of the total cases. DISCUSSION: The term 'catastrophic hand' has different meanings, and this generates ambiguity. The use of a classification based on the possibility of obtaining an acceptable hand diminishes its use and improves the approach for such injuries. CONCLUSION: We advocate limiting the use of 'catastrophic hand' to cases that meet criteria of 'mutilated hand' and 'metacarpal hand' to avoid indiscriminate use of the term and optimise therapeutic management.