Clinical Effectiveness of Free Upper Arm Medial Flap in Repairing Skin and Soft Tissue Defects of the Dorsum of the Hand

Abstract

Objective. To study the effectiveness of medial upper arm free flap in repairing skin and soft tissue (SST) defects of the dorsum of the hand. Methods. 10 patients with SST defects on the dorsum of the hand who underwent free upper arm medial flap repair in our hospital from March 2017 to August 2018 were included in the study. Hand function, flap survival rate, wound healing, donor wound recovery, and the level of pain in the injured area were recorded before the operation, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively. Results. The highest score in hand function was seen at the 6-month postoperative interval, followed by that at the 1-month postoperative interval. The lowest score in hand function was the preoperative score ( P < 0.05 ). All flaps were still surviving 6 months postoperatively. Recovery of the function of the donor muscle, the elbow joint, as well as wound healing, all progressed well. 6 months postoperatively, 3 patients developed numbness and stiffness of the hand, but the symptoms were relieved following treatment. Compared to the preoperative scores, the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at the injured site 1 month and 6 months postoperatively were significantly decreased, with the 6-month postoperative score being lower than the 1-month postoperative score ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. The free upper arm medial flap is a good alternative for repairing skin and soft tissue defects of the dorsum of the hand with exposed phalanges, an approach that merits widespread promotion and clinical application.

Retracted: Clinical Effectiveness of Free Upper Arm Medial Flap in Repairing Skin and Soft Tissue Defects of the Dorsum of the Hand

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”

“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”