Introduction Micro-or macroreplantation is classified depending on the level of amputation, distal or proximal to the wrist. This study was performed to review our experience in macroreplantation of the upper extremity with special attention to technical considerations and outcomes. Materials and methods Between January 1990 and December 2010, 11 patients with a complete amputation of the upper extremity proximal to the wrist were referred for replantations to our department. The patients, one woman and ten men, had a mean age of 43.4 ± 18.2 years (range 19-76 years). There were two elbow, two proximal forearm, four mid-forearm, and three distal forearm amputations. The mechanism of injury was crush in four, crush-avulsion in five and guillotine amputation in two patients. The Chen classification was used to assess the postoperative outcomes. The mean follow-up after macroreplantation was 7.5 ± 6.3 years (range 2-21 years). Results All but one were successfully replanted and regained limb function: Chen I in four cases (36 %), Chen II in three cases (27 %), Chen III in two cases (18 %), and Chen IV in one patient (9 %). We discuss the steps of the macroreplantation technique, the need to minimize ischemic time and the risk of ischemia reperfusion injuries. Conclusion Thanks to improvements in technique, the indications for limb preservation after amputation can be expanded. However, because of their rarity, replantations should be performed at specialist replantation centers. Level of evidence: Level IV

The 6-hour paradigm for surgical treatment of open injuries should be re-evaluated in the era of systematic use of antiseptic solutions and systemic antibiotics. The current study investigates prospectively the impact of timing of surgery on the outcome of open hand injuries. The prospective evaluation included adult patients presenting with open hand injuries between 1 September 2009 and 30 June 2010 to the emergency department of the University Hospital of Berne, Switzerland. Multiple trauma, bilateral hand injuries, bite injuries, and infections were excluded. All patients underwent a standardised treatment protocol with antiseptic solution, sterile dressing, antibiotic prophylaxis, and surgical treatment upon admission. Demographic data, injury details, and delay from trauma to therapy were recorded. Microbiology was gained at surgery. Outcome measurements included infections, complications, pain, and function (clinically, DASH, Mayo score). From 116 patients (mean age 43 years) six patients suffered an infection (5.2%). The observed infections were statistically not associated with delay to surgery, treatment protocol, or to injury complexity. Neither complications, pain, nor functional outcome were statistically associated with delay to surgery, wound disinfection, or administration of antibiotics. In conclusion, early or late timing of surgical treatment of open hand injuries did not show any impact on outcome (infections, complications, pain, function) in this prospective single-centre patient evaluation.

Delayed surgical treatment (6-24 h) of open hand injuries did not increase infection or revision rates in open non-devascularizing hand injuries.