Background: Antegrade homodigital neurovascular island flaps (AHIFs) are a heterogeneous group of pedicled flaps used for reconstruction of traumatic digital detipping injuries. While numerous single-center studies have documented their use, there are no large or multicentre studies validating their efficacy, applicability, and functional outcomes. We performed a systematic review of the contemporary literature to establish the safety and functional outcomes of this technique. Methods: Electronic searches were performed using PubMED, Embase, and MEDLINE from inception date to October 2020, with further studies identified from study reference lists and independent searches. Relevant studies reported on complications and functional outcomes of the AHIFs, as used for digital detipping injuries. Data were then extracted and analyzed. Results: Twenty-seven studies published between 1974 and 2019 yielded 744 patients. Four studies provided incomplete epidemiologic data, resulting in a total of 559 patients with 584 digital injuries. Index and middle fingers were most frequently involved. Mean final 2-point discrimination (2-PD) was 4.9 mm static and 5.1 mm dynamic, with dynamic 2-PD reported in 2 studies. Mean total active motion of the digit was 200.3°. Mean time to return to work was 6.7 weeks in 10 studies. Flap survivorship was found to be 99.6% in 23 studies. Cold intolerance was the most common complication at 18%, followed by pain and hypersensitivity. Conclusions: Antegrade homodigital neurovascular island flaps provide a safe and effective method of treating distal finger amputations, yielding satisfactory functional outcomes across all ages. Further studies comparing outcomes between the AHIFs and other reconstructive modalities would be useful.

Background Within recent decades the use of various surgical solutions to prevent bleeding, ward off infection or decrease post‐operative pain has become common‐place in orthopaedic procedures. However, little work has been done to determine the effects that these solutions have on the tensile strength of various sutures, particularly those that are used for deep closures, which are often absorbable in nature. Whilst numerous authors have attempted to reach conclusions regarding the nature of these effects, a consensus has yet to be reached and this paper is designed with the aim to contribute to the current literature on the subject and improve surgical practice. Methods This in‐vitro study incubated three different surgical sutures in five commonly used surgical solutions at 37°C for 30 min, prior to applying a constant increase in force to determine the effects these solutions have on tensile strength. A control set was included. Results No significant difference was found in the tensile strength of Vicryl and PDS‐II sutures, whilst Monocryl incubated in chlorhexidine exhibited a borderline significant increase in tensile strength. Conclusions Common surgical solutions used on orthopaedic procedures can impact on the tensile strength of suture materials; however, further research is required on the subject.