↓ Skip to main content

Surgery for Dupuytren's contracture of the fingers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Surgery for Dupuytren's contracture of the fingers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010143.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy N Rodrigues, Giles W Becker, Cathy Ball, Weiya Zhang, Henk Giele, Jonathan Hobby, Anna L Pratt, Tim Davis

Abstract

Dupuytren's disease is a benign fibroproliferative disorder that causes the fingers to be drawn into the palm via formation of new tissue under the glabrous skin of the hand. This disorder causes functional limitations, but it can be treated through a variety of surgical techniques. As a chronic condition, it tends to recur. To assess the benefits and harms of different surgical procedures for treatment of Dupuytren's contracture of the index, middle, ring and little fingers. We initially searched the following databases on 17 September 2012, then re-searched them on 10 March 2014 and on 20 May 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, the British Nursing Index and Archive (BNI), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE-In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, ProQuest (ABI/INFORM Global and Dissertations & Theses), the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov. We reviewed the reference lists of short-listed articles to identify additional suitable studies. We included randomised clinical trials and controlled clinical trials in which groups received surgical intervention for Dupuytren's disease of the index, middle, ring or little finger versus control, or versus another intervention (surgical or otherwise). We excluded the thumb, as cords form on the radial aspect of the thumb and thus are not readily accessible in terms of angular deformity. Furthermore, thumb disease is rare. A minimum of two review authors independently reviewed search results to select studies for inclusion by using pre-specified criteria, assessed risk of bias of included studies and extracted data from included studies.We grouped outcomes into the following categories: (1) hand function, (2) other patient-reported outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, pain), (3) early objective outcomes (e.g. correction of angular deformity), (4) late objective outcomes (e.g. recurrence) and (5) adverse effects. We included 14 articles describing 13 studies, comprising 11 single-centre studies and two multi-centre studies. These studies involved 944 hands of 940 participants; of these, 93 participants were reported twice in separate articles describing early and late outcomes of one trial. Three papers reported the outcomes of two trials comparing different procedures. One trial compared needle fasciotomy versus fasciectomy (125 hands, 121 participants), and the other compared interposition firebreak skin grafting versus z-plasty closure of fasciectomy (79 participants). The other 11 studies reported trials of technical refinements of procedures or rehabilitation adjuncts. Of these, three investigated effects of postoperative splinting on surgical outcomes.Ten studies (11 articles) were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of varying methodological quality; one was a controlled clinical trial. Trial design was unclear in two studies awaiting classification. All trials had high or unclear risk of at least one type of bias. High risks of performance and detection bias were particularly common. We downgraded the quality of evidence (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation - GRADE) of outcomes to low because of concerns about risk of bias and imprecision.Outcomes measured varied between studies. Five articles assessed recurrence; two defined this as reappearance of palpable disease and two as deterioration in angular deformity; one did not explicitly define recurrence.Hand function on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Scale (scores between 0 and 100, with higher scores indicating greater impairment) was 5 points lower after needle fasciotomy than after fasciectomy at five weeks. Patient satisfaction was better after fasciotomy at six weeks, but the magnitude of effect was not specified. Fasciectomy improved contractures more effectively in severe disease: Mean percentage reduction in total passive extension deficit at six weeks for Tubiana grades I and II was 11% lower after needle fasciotomy than after fasciectomy, whereas for grades III and IV disease, it was 29% and 32% lower.Paraesthesia (defined as subjective tingling sensation without objective evidence of altered sensation) was more common than needle fasciotomy at one week after fasciectomy (228/1000 vs 67/1000), but reporting of complications was variable.By five years, satisfaction (on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher scores showing greater satisfaction) was 2.1/10 points higher in the fasciectomy group than in the fasciotomy group, and recurrence was greater after fasciotomy (849/1000 vs 209/1000). Firebreak skin grafting did not improve outcomes more than fasciectomy alone, although this procedure took longer to perform.One trial investigated four weeks of day and night splinting followed by two months of night splinting after surgery. The other two trials investigated three months of night splinting after surgery, but participants in 'no splint' groups with early deterioration at one week were issued a splint for use. All three studies demonstrated no benefit from splinting. The two trials investigating postoperative night splinting were suitable for meta-analysis, which demonstrated no benefit from splinting: Mean DASH score in the splint groups was 1.15 points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.32 to 4.62) than in the no splint groups. Mean total active extension in the splint groups was 2.21 degrees greater (95% CI -3.59 to 8.01 degrees) than in the no splint groups. Mean total active flexion in the splint groups was 8.42 degrees less (95% CI 1.78 to 15.07 degrees) than in the no splint groups. Currently, insufficient evidence is available to show the relative superiority of different surgical procedures (needle fasciotomy vs fasciectomy, or interposition firebreak skin grafting vs z-plasty closure of fasciectomy). Low-quality evidence suggests that postoperative splinting may not improve outcomes and may impair outcomes by reducing active flexion. Further trials on this topic are urgently required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Unknown 114 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 25%
Unspecified 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Postgraduate 14 12%
Researcher 11 9%
Other 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 52%
Unspecified 23 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Psychology 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 13 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,138,166
of 13,288,820 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,939
of 10,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,442
of 355,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#130
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,288,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.