This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ranney, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Lennox, W. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ranney, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Lennox, W. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 60, Issue 3 328-334, Copyright © 1978 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

The protective value of a neurovascular island pedicle transfer in hands partially anesthetic due to ulnar denervation in leprosy

DA Ranney and WM Lennox

Neurovascular skin island transfers were performed with the prime objective of protecting vulnerable anesthetic areas on the hands of patients with leprosy. After an average follow-up of eight years on sixteen patients, all had long-lasting protective benefits without further loss of tissue consequent to injury. At follow-up, two-point discrimination was less than ten millimeters in only one patient, more than twenty millimeters in ten, and indeterminate in five. Sensory misreference persisted in fourteen patients. Axon sprouting was evident in six but only over short distances (four to eight millimeters beyond the island). Compared with the intact side of the donor finger, nine of the sixteen transfers had lost some sensitivity but sensation was rated normal in one, nearly normal in six, and protective only in nine. The loss of sensation in the donor finger was less than expected and was not a problem. Scar contracture occurred in two donor and five recipient fingers, but this could be attributed to placement of the incision too far anteriorly, and hence was an unavoidable complication. Restoration of protective sensation to the ulnar border of the hand, whatever the cause of anesthesia, is considered extremely worth while.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?