The Journal of Hand Surgery will contain at least 2 clinically relevant articles selected by the editor to be offered for CME in each issue. For CME credit, the participant must read the articles in print or online and correctly answer all related questions through an online examination. The questions on the test are designed to make the reader think and will occasionally require the reader to go back and scrutinize the article for details.The JHS CME Activity fee of $15.00 includes the exam questions/answers only and does not include access to the JHS articles referenced. Statement of Need:This CME activity was developed by the JHS editors as a convenient education tool to help increase or affirm reader's knowledge. The overall goal of the activity is for participants to evaluate the appropriateness of clinical data and apply it to their practice and the provision of patient care.Accreditation: The American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.AMA PRA Credit Designation: The ASSH designates this Journal-Based CME activity for a maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Creditsä. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.ASSH Disclaimer: The material presented in this CME activity is made available by the ASSH for educational purposes only. This material is not intended to represent the only methods or the best procedures appropriate for the medical situation(s) discussed, but rather it is intended to present an approach, view, statement, or opinion of the authors that may be helpful, or of interest, to other practitioners. Examinees agree to participate in this medical education activity, sponsored by the ASSH, with full knowledge and awareness that they waive any claim they may have against the ASSH for reliance on any information presented. The approval of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is required for procedures and drugs that are considered experimental. Instrumentation systems discussed or reviewed during this educational activity may not yet have received FDA approval.

No abstract

Introduction The incidence of high-pressure injection injuries of the hand is low. Although the occurrence is rare, the precarious progression of the injury exacts prompt surgical evaluation in order to avoid complications and amputation. The current study was devised in order to make comparisons to the current data, in addition to supplementing the literature with observations regarding clinical course and management. Methods A multisurgeon, retrospective chart review from a single institution was performed. Inclusion criteria included cases involving a high-pressure injection injury to the hand that underwent surgical management. Patient demographics, injury details, and hospital course were all reviewed and recorded. Results This retrospective review identified 20 cases meeting criteria, all of which involved males. The average age at time of injury was 39.7 years (range, 21–71 years). The incidence of injection injuries over a 10-year time period was 2.1 cases per year. The nondominant hand was injured in 11 cases (63%). The most common site of injury was the index finger with 11 recorded incidents (55%). Other reported locations included the metacarpal (40%) and small finger (5%). Occupational data included 10 construction workers, 5 painters, and 2 cleaning crew members, and 3 had nonmanual occupations. Paint was the most commonly injected substance with 17 reported cases (85%). On average, the delay until surgery was observed to be 21.9 hours (n = 16). Only 1 patient underwent surgery at 6 hours after surgery. The average number of procedures performed was 1.8 (range, 1–4). Hospitalization duration was on average 3.9 days (range, 1–9 days), and the average follow-up length was 69 days (range, 7–112 days). There were no identified cases that necessitated amputation. Conclusions This form of injury most commonly affects male, middle-aged laborers. Our study found very low amputation rates when compared with the current literature, despite observing longer delays to surgery according to current recommendations. Limited comparisons can be made from data regarding clinical course and management because of the small sample size of the current study and the limited published data. This indicates a need for further exploration and collection of data involving parameters such as clinical course and management.

Introduction Physiologic microsurgical procedures to treat lymphedema include vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) and lymphovenous bypass (LVB). The purpose of this study was to assess 30‐day outcomes of VLNT and LVB using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Methods NSQIP was queried (2012–2018) for lymphatic procedures for upper extremity lymphedema after mastectomy. Prophylactic lymphatic procedures and those for lower extremity lymphedema were excluded. Outcomes were assessed for three groups: LVB, VLNT, and patients who had procedures simultaneously (VLNA+LVB). Primary outcomes measured were operative time, 30‐day morbidities, and hospital length of stay. Results The study included 199 patients who had LVB (n = 43), VLNT (n = 145), or VLNT+LVB (n = 11). There was no difference in co‐morbidities between the groups (p = 0.26). 30‐day complication rates including unplanned reoperation (6.9% VLNT vs. 2.3% LVB) and readmission (0.69% VLNT vs. none in LVB) were not statistically significant (p = 0.54). Surgical site infection, wound complications, deep vein thromboembolism, and cardiac arrest was also similar among the three groups. Postoperative length of stay for VLNT (2.5 days± 2.3), LVB (1.9 days± 1.9), and VLNT+LVB (2.8 days± 0.3) did not differ significantly (p = 0.20). Operative time for LVB (305.4 min ± 186.7), VLNT (254 min ± 164.4), and VLNT+LVB (295.3 min ± 43.2) was not significantly different (p = 0.21). Conclusions Our analysis of the NSQIP data revealed that VLNT and LVB are procedures with no significant difference in perioperative morbidity. Our results support that choice of VLNT versus LVB can be justifiably made per the surgeon's preference and experience as the operations have similar complication rates.