Skip to main content
Log in

Functional and cosmetic outcome of single-digit ray amputation in hand

  • Original Article
  • Published:
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess patient satisfaction, functional and cosmetic outcomes of single-digit ray amputation in hand and identify factors that might affect the outcome.

Methods

Forty-five patients who underwent ray amputation were evaluated, 37 males and eight females whose mean age was 36.6 years ranging between 15 and 67 years. Twenty-eight patients had dominant hand involvement. Twenty-one patients underwent primary ray amputation, and 24 patients had secondary ray amputation. Eight out of the 23 patients with central digit injuries underwent transposition. Grip strength, pinch strength, tactile sensibility and functional evaluation using Result Assessment Scale (RAS) and DASH score were analysed. Cosmetic assessment was performed using visual analogue scale (VAS) for cosmesis.

Results

Median time of assessment after surgery was 20 months. Average loss of grip strength and pinch strength was found to be 43.3 and 33.6%, respectively. Average RAS score was 3.75. Median DASH score was 23.4. Eighty-three percentage of patients had excellent or good cosmesis on the VAS. Transposition causes significant increase in DASH scores for central digit ray amputations but was cosmetically superior. Middle finger ray amputation had the maximum loss of grip strength, and index finger ray amputation had greater loss of pinch strength. Affection of neighbouring digits caused greater grip and pinch loss, and a higher DASH score. Primary ray resection decreased the total disability and eliminated the costs of a second procedure.

Conclusion

Following ray amputation, one can predict an approximate 43.3% loss of grip strength and 33.6% loss of pinch strength. The patients can be counselled regarding the expected time off from work, amount of disability and complications after a single-digit ray amputation. Majority of the patients can return to the same occupation after a period of dedicated hand therapy.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic, Level III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peimer CA, Wheeler DR, Barrett A, Goldschmidt PG (1999) Hand function following single ray amputation. J Hand Surg Am 24A:1245–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mahoney JH, Phalen GS, Frackelton WH (1947) Amputation of the index ray. Surgery 21(6):911–918

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bunnell S (1931) Physiological reconstruction of a thumb after total loss. Surg Gynecol Obstet 52:245–248

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bunnell S (1924) Reconstructive surgery of the hand. Surg Gynecol Obstet 39:259–274

    Google Scholar 

  5. Swanson AB, Goran-Hagert G, De Groot Swanson G (1984) Evaluation of impairment of hand function. In: Hunter JM, Schneider LH, Mackin EJ, Callahan AD (eds) Rehabilitation of the hand, 2nd edn. St. Louis, The CV Mosby Co, pp 101–132

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carrol RE (1959) Transposition of index finger to replace the middle finger. Clin Orthop 15:27–34

    Google Scholar 

  7. Iselin F, Peze W (1988) Ray centralization without bone fixation for amputation of the middle finger. J Hand Surg Br 13B:97–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Calandruccio JH (2007) Amputations of the hand. In: Canale ST, Beaty JH (eds) Campbell’s operative orthopaedics, 11th edn. Mosby Inc, Philadelphia, pp 685–690

    Google Scholar 

  9. Colen L, Bunkis J, Gorden L, Walton R (1985) Functional assessment of ray transfer for central digit loss. J Hand Surg Am 10A(2):232–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jester A, Harth A, Wind G, Germann G, Sauerbier M (2005) DASH questionnaire, determining functional activity profiles in patients with upper extremity disorders. J Hand Surg Br 30B(1):23–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Choughri H (2005) Results of secondary single ray resection without transposition of an adjacent digit. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 15:300–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sood MK, Elliot D (2000) Amputation of the middle ray in the primary treatment of severe injuries of the central hand. Plast Reconstr Surg 106(1):115–118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Puhaindran ME, Healey JH, Athanasian EA (2010) Single ray amputation for tumors of the hand. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(5):1390–1395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murray JF, Carman W, MacKenzie JK (1977) Transmetacarpal amputation of the index finger: a clinical assessment of hand strength and complications. J Hand Surg Am 2A:471–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. K. Narayanakurup.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest for the authors to declare.

Ethical approval

Institutional ethical committee approval was obtained for the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhat, A.K., Acharya, A.M., Narayanakurup, J.K. et al. Functional and cosmetic outcome of single-digit ray amputation in hand. Musculoskelet Surg 101, 275–281 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-017-0484-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-017-0484-x

Keywords

Navigation