Cross-finger Flap to the Thumb: Quest for an Alternate DonorFunding No financial disclosure to be made by any of the authors.
Background Distal thumb injuries are managed by multiple local and regional flaps. The cross-finger flap (CFF) is one versatile flap used to cover such defects. The donor finger to the thumb is classically described to be the index finger (IF). However, with the index finger being the second most important finger, it causes further debilitation of the already injured hand. Our aim was to find an alternate donor finger to spare the index finger.
Methods and Materials A prospective observational study was conducted on 10 patients with distal thumb injuries who were admitted between November 2018 and July 2019. Ring finger (RF) was used as donor for CFF in all the cases. The subjects were assessed for first web space angle, Kapandji score, total range of movement (TRM) of long fingers, and global hand function using Michigan hand outcome questionnaire (MHQ) after flap division.
Results There was no first web contracture and TRM of IF remained unaffected. However, TRM of RF was significantly reduced. But this being a relatively unimportant finger, there was no significant reduction in global hand function, as evaluated by the MHQ score.
Conclusion The ring finger is a good alternative for index finger as donor for CFF to the thumb, because it provides adequate tissue along with comfortable positioning and easy maintenance of local hygiene. Moreover, it preserves global hand function by sparing the IF.
13 July 2020 (online)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India
- 1 Lee KK. Thumb Reconstruction WPA. In: Green’s Operative Hand Surgery 6th Edition. 6th ed. 1839-1852
- 2 Karthikeyan GR. Versatility and modifications of CFF in hand surgery.pdf. Int J Sci Stud 2017; 5 (06) 35-46
- 3 David A, Kappel JGB. The cross finger flap HC 1985 Kappel.pdf. Hand Clin 1985; 1 (04) 677-683
- 4 Vedder NB, Friedrich JB. Thumb reconstruction: Non-microsurgical techniques. In: Peter (Editor in Chief) CN, James (Volume Editor) C. eds. Plastic Surgery Volume 6. 4th ed. 2018: 305-306
- 5 Smith P. Reconstruction. In: Smith P. ed. Lister’s The Hand: Diagnosis and Indications. 4th ed. Churchil Livingston; 2002: 145-146
- 6 Koch H, Kielnhofer A, Hubmer M, Scharnagl E. Donor site morbidity in cross-finger flaps. Br J Plast Surg 2005; 58 (08) 1131-1135
- 7 Paterson P, Titley OG, Nancarrow JD. Donor finger morbidity in cross-finger flaps. Injury 2000; 31 (04) 215-218
- 8 Atasoy E. The reverse cross finger flap. J Hand Surg Am 2016; 41 (01) 122-128
- 9 Ghoraba SM, Mahmoud WH. Outcome of thumb reconstruction using the first dorsal metacarpal artery island flap. World J Plast Surg 2018; 7 (02) 151-158
- 10 Kenney RJ, Hammert WC. Physical examination of the hand. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39 (11) 2324-2334, quiz 2334
- 11 Shauver MJ, Chung KC. The Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire (MHQ) after 15 years of field trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (05) 779e-787e
- 12 Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, et al. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surgery 1998;23A; 575–587
- 13 Woon CYL, Lee JYL, Teoh LC. Resurfacing hemipulp losses of the thumb: the cross finger flap revisited: indications, technical refinements, outcomes, and long-term neurosensory recovery. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 61 (04) 385-391
- 14 Mutaf M, Sensöz O, Ustüner ET. A new design of the cross-finger flap: the C-ring flap. Br J Plast Surg 1993; 46 (02) 97-104