Syndactyly Repair: Comparison of Skin Graft and No Skin Graft Techniques
NCT ID: NCT01416090
Last Updated: 2019-08-20
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
14 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2004-07-31
2019-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Treatment of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Injuries. Clinical Efficiency of Syndactyly Treatment and Digital Compression
NCT02548260
Collagenase Injection vs Percutaneous Needle Aponeurotomy for Dupuytren's Disease
NCT03000114
Efficacy of Aponeurectomy on the 2-year Recurrence Rate of Dupuytren's Disease
NCT05067764
Triphalangeal Thumbs in the Pediatric Population: Long Term Outcomes Following Surgical Intervention
NCT01409980
Collagenase and Needle Aponeurotomy: Single Modality Versus Combination Treatment for Dupuytren's Disease
NCT01776892
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Full thickness skin grafts (FTSG) are usually utilized for this procedure and come at some cost. An additional incision, and therefore scar, is made in the groin or on the arm or hand itself. The skin graft itself usually has a slightly different color and further hyperpigments (2, 3, 4, 5) when placed on the hand and can have hair growth that would not normally be present between fingers. These create cosmetic issues as the patient gets older. In addition, skin graft is quite cumbersome to utilize in these tight areas and small fingers of small children. It definitely adds to the time under anesthesia because no method other than sewing with small sutures has been shown to be efficacious. Whereas the release of a simple syndactyly may take 30-60 minutes, the suturing of skin graft and the skin flaps usually takes one and half times that long in addition. Further, skin grafts require immobilization and special bandaging techniques to avoid graft loss. One final disadvantage of full thickness skin grafts is that they have been implicated in the occurrence of web creep, which is a post-operative scarring between fingers that decreases the amount of web space originally obtained (4,6). These will often require further surgical procedures (Percival \& Sykes).
Over the last 20 years, there has been resurgence in attempts to treat syndactyly without skin grafts (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 3, 6). All techniques include a significant defatting of the subcutaneous tissues all the way back to the web space in an effect to decrease circumference of the digits. Different dorsal metacarpal flaps have been described as well, including local island pedicle flaps that can be used for the web commissure (3, 9, 10, 11). In addition, it has been shown that leaving flaps slightly open, up to 2mm, for secondary intention healing creates good scars in children and no increased sign of web creep or flexion contracture (5). Combining all three of these techniques leads to the technical ability of syndactyly release without the need for skin grafts. Proven benefits have been the lack of the donor scar, lack of pigmented or hairy graft sites, and decreased operative time. However, the incidences of web creep, flexion or lateral contractures, reoperation rate and the final cosmetic result have not been proven to be better or worse, as no one has compared similar patients. All studies to date have been instead a review of results using their particular technique that does not require skin graft. If any comparisons have been made, it has been using historical data already published.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
CASE_CONTROL
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
6 Months
6 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Utah
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Douglas Hutchinson
M.D.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Douglas T Hutchinson, M.D.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Utah Orthopedic Center
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Utah Orthopedic Center
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
12534
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.