Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Clinical Effectiveness of Collagenase Injection (Xiaflex®) and Palmar Fasciectomy in the Management of Dupuytren's Contracture.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Plastic surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-13 DOI:10.1177/22925503231161066
Achilles Thoma, Jessica Murphy, Lucas Gallo, Bimpe Ayeni, Lehana Thabane
{"title":"Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Clinical Effectiveness of Collagenase Injection (Xiaflex<sup>®</sup>) and Palmar Fasciectomy in the Management of Dupuytren's Contracture.","authors":"Achilles Thoma, Jessica Murphy, Lucas Gallo, Bimpe Ayeni, Lehana Thabane","doi":"10.1177/22925503231161066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Limited palmar fasciectomy (LPF) and collagenase injection (CI) are the most common procedures to manage symptoms of Dupuytren's Disease. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to directly compare patient outcomes 12 months following CI and LPF. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty-two patients with Dupuytren's Disease were randomized to either LPF or CI. The primary outcome was health state measured by the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were health status (The Health Utility Index-3), function (The Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main and The Southampton Dupuytren's Scoring Scheme), and range of motion (ROM) of treated digits. Measurements were collected at baseline and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-procedure. <b>Results:</b> Thirteen patients were randomized to the LPF and eight patients to the CI group. Most patients (85.7%) were male; the average age of the sample was 65.3 years. No statistically significant difference in the MHQ (mean difference [MD]: -12.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -30.0, 5.2)), SDSS (.9 (-4.0, 5.8)), URAM (-.9 (-14.4, 12.6)) or HUI-3 (-.04, -.2, .2)) was found between groups 12-months post-operatively. There was no statistically significant difference in 12-month loss of extension between groups at the MCP (-16.9 (-35.4, 1.7) or PIP (-2.9 (-22.9, 17.1) joints. Three CI patients and 1 LPF patient developed a contracture in the same digit requiring surgery. <b>Conclusion:</b> Results should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size. Available data suggests both techniques are reasonable for managing Dupuytren's Disease. Considerations for future RCTs are provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":20206,"journal":{"name":"Plastic surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11489938/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503231161066","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Limited palmar fasciectomy (LPF) and collagenase injection (CI) are the most common procedures to manage symptoms of Dupuytren's Disease. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to directly compare patient outcomes 12 months following CI and LPF. Methods: Twenty-two patients with Dupuytren's Disease were randomized to either LPF or CI. The primary outcome was health state measured by the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were health status (The Health Utility Index-3), function (The Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main and The Southampton Dupuytren's Scoring Scheme), and range of motion (ROM) of treated digits. Measurements were collected at baseline and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-procedure. Results: Thirteen patients were randomized to the LPF and eight patients to the CI group. Most patients (85.7%) were male; the average age of the sample was 65.3 years. No statistically significant difference in the MHQ (mean difference [MD]: -12.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -30.0, 5.2)), SDSS (.9 (-4.0, 5.8)), URAM (-.9 (-14.4, 12.6)) or HUI-3 (-.04, -.2, .2)) was found between groups 12-months post-operatively. There was no statistically significant difference in 12-month loss of extension between groups at the MCP (-16.9 (-35.4, 1.7) or PIP (-2.9 (-22.9, 17.1) joints. Three CI patients and 1 LPF patient developed a contracture in the same digit requiring surgery. Conclusion: Results should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size. Available data suggests both techniques are reasonable for managing Dupuytren's Disease. Considerations for future RCTs are provided.

比较胶原酶注射液(Xiaflex®)和掌筋膜切除术治疗杜普依特伦挛缩症临床疗效的随机对照试验
引言:有限的掌筋膜切除术(LPF)和胶原酶注射(CI)是治疗Dupuytren's病症状最常见的方法。这项随机对照试验(RCT)旨在直接比较CI和LPF后12个月的患者结果。方法:将22例Dupuytren's病患者随机分为LPF组或CI组。主要结果是通过密歇根手部问卷测量健康状况。次要结果是健康状况(健康实用指数-3)、功能(主要情感风湿病单位和南安普顿-杜普伊特伦评分方案)和治疗手指的活动范围(ROM)。在基线和术后1、3、6和12个月收集测量值。结果:13名患者被随机分配到LPF组,8名患者被分配到CI组。大多数患者(85.7%)为男性;样本的平均年龄为65.3岁。术后12个月,各组间的MHQ(平均差异[MD]:−12.4(95%置信区间[CI]:−30.0,5.2))、SDSS(.9(−4.0,5.8))、URAM(−.9(−14.4,12.6))或HUI-3(−.04,−.2,.2))无统计学显著差异。在MCP(−16.9(−35.4,1.7)或PIP(−2.9(−22.9,17.1)关节处,两组之间的12个月伸展损失没有统计学上的显著差异。三名CI患者和一名LPF患者在同一手指出现挛缩,需要手术治疗。结论:鉴于样本量较小,应谨慎解读结果。现有数据表明,这两种技术对于治疗杜普伊特伦病是合理的。提供了未来随机对照试验的注意事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Plastic surgery
Plastic surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Plastic Surgery (Chirurgie Plastique) is the official journal of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Group for the Advancement of Microsurgery, and the Canadian Society for Surgery of the Hand. It serves as a major venue for Canadian research, society guidelines, and continuing medical education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信