Traumatic Musculoskeletal Changes in Forearm and Hand after Emergency Vascular Anastomosis or Ligation

ABSTRACT

Whether the best option for the emergency treatment of major forearm artery lesions is anastomosis or ligation is still debated in the literature. The choice may be influenced by the resulting long-term musculoskeletal changes relating to vessel patency and the surgical procedure used. Fifty-three patients who had undergone emergency surgery involving arterial microanastomoses for lesions affecting one or more major forearm arteries (with a preserved distal circulation) were reassessed in terms of anastomosis patency at the end of a long-term follow-up, using arterial plethysmography, eco-color Doppler, and magnetic resonance angiography. In a subset of 40 patients, changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and lean mass of the affected limb were compared with the contralateral healthy limb and correlated with vessel patency and severity of trauma, using peripheral quantitative computed tomography and dual X-ray absorptiometry. Functional performance was also tested with a dynamometer by means of the hand-grip test. At long-term reassessment, 75% of the microanastomosed vessels were patent. BMD showed significant impairments at and around the site of the lesion (Δ: –6%, p < 0.001) and distally thereto (Δ: –3%, p < 0.05), which correlated with vessel occlusion and trauma severity. The fracture risk consequently also increased. There was evidence of a significant loss of lean mass (p < 0.01) and muscle strength in the affected limb, especially in cases of occlusion of a major vessel. Given the satisfactory outcome of the anastomotic procedures as opposed to the greater loss of bone mass, muscular mass, and strength in patients who had undergone arterial ligation, we suggest that anastomosis is always preferable to ligation, even in emergencies. Anastomosis enables overall limb function to be better preserved (both in the vicinity of the lesion and distally).

KEYWORDS

Major forearm artery injuries - arteries - anastomosis - ligation - musculoskeletal changes

REFERENCES

• 1 Johnson M, Ford M, Johansen K. Radial or ulnar artery laceration. Repair or ligate?.  Arch Surg. 1993;  128 (9) 971-974 discussion 974-975
• 2 Daoutis N, Gerostathopoulos N, Bouchlis G et al.. Results after repair of traumatic arterial damage in the forearm.  Microsurgery. 1992;  13(4) 175-177
• 3 Aftabuddin M, Islam N, Jafar M A, Haque E, Alimuzzaman M. Management of isolated radial or ulnar arteries at the forearm.  J Trauma. 1995;  38(1) 149-151
• 4 O'Shaughnessy M, O'Riordain D S, McCann J, O'Connor T P, Condon K C. Consequences of radial and ulnar artery ligation following trauma.  Br J Surg. 1991;  78(6) 735
• 5 Lee R E, Obeid F N, Horst H M, Bivins B A. Acute penetrating arterial injuries of the forearm. Ligation or repair?.  Am Surg. 1985;  51(6) 318-324
• 6 Hunt C A, Kingsley J R. Vascular injuries of the upper extremity.  South Med J. 2000;  93(5) 466-468
• 7 Bacakoğlu A, Ozkan M H, Coşkunol E, Ozdemir O, Ekin A. Multifactorial effects on the patency rates of forearm arterial repairs.  Microsurgery. 2001;  21(2) 37-42
• 8 Ballard J L, Bunt T J, Malone J M. Management of small artery vascular trauma.  Am J Surg. 1992;  164(4) 316-319
• 9 Menck J, Schreiber H W, Hertz T, Bürgel N. Angioarchitecture of the ulna and radius and their practical relevance.  Langenbecks Arch Chir. 1994;  379(2) 70-75
• 10 Yamaguchi K, Sweet F A, Bindra R, Morrey B F, Gelberman R H. The extraosseous and intraosseous arterial anatomy of the adult elbow.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;  79(11) 1653-1662
• 11 Haerle M, Tonagel F, Schaller H E. Collateral arterial pathways in the forearm.  Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;  26(3) 208-211
• 12 Bassetto F, Vanzetto P, Baraziol R, Vicari Sottosanti M C, Tiengo C. Severe volar wrist injury: analysis of results in 35 patients.  Riv Ital Chir Plastica. 2000;  32 161-164
• 13 Haerle M, Häfner H M, Dietz K, Schaller H E, Brunelli F. Vascular dominance in the forearm.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;  111(6) 1891-1898
• 14 Connell D A, Koulouris G, Thorn D A, Potter H G. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the hand.  Radiographics. 2002;  22(3) 583-599
• 15 Augat P, Reeb H, Claes L E. Prediction of fracture load at different skeletal sites by geometric properties of the cortical shell.  J Bone Miner Res. 1996;  11(9) 1356-1363
• 16 Niemeyer-Tysarczyk G. New noninvasive pQCT devices to determine bone structure.  J Jpn Soc Bone Morphom. 1997;  7 97-105
• 17 Louis O, Soykens S, Willnecker J, Van den Winkel P, Osteaux M. Cortical and total bone mineral content of the radius: accuracy of peripheral computed tomography.  Bone. 1996;  18(5) 467-472
• 18 Ferretti J L, Capozza R F, Cointry G R, Capiglioni R, Roldan E J, Zanchetta J R. Densitometric and tomographic analyses of musculoskeletal interactions in humans.  J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2000;  1(1) 31-34
• 19 Sergi G, Perissinotto E, Zucchetto M et al.. Upper limb bone mineral density and body composition measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography in right-handed adults: the role of the dominance effect.  J Endocrinol Invest. 2009;  32(4) 298-302
• 20 Haapasalo H, Kontulainen S, Sievanen H et al.. Exercise-induced bone gain is due to enlargement in bone size without a change in volumetric bone density: a peripheral quantitative computed tomography study of the upper arms of male tennis players.  Bone. 2000;  27 351-357
• 21 Heinonen A, Sievänen H, Kannus P, Oja P, Vuori I. Site-specific skeletal response to long-term weight training seems to be attributable to principal loading modality: a pQCT study of female weightlifters.  Calcif Tissue Int. 2002;  70(6) 469-474
• 22 Armstrong C A, Oldham J A. A comparison of dominant and non-dominant hand strengths.  J Hand Surg [Br]. 1999;  24(4) 421-425
• 23 Incel N A, Ceceli E, Durukan P B, Erdem H R, Yorgancioglu Z R. Grip strength: effect of hand dominance.  Singapore Med J. 2002;  43(5) 234-237
• 24 Cummings S R, Black D M, Nevitt M C The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group et al. Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures.  Lancet. 1993;  341(8837) 72-75