Flap reconstruction versus dermal regeneration template for finger soft-tissue defects: comparative clinical outcomes
- 1Department of Hand Surgery, Deva Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey
- 2Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, NCR International Hospital, Mucahitler Neighborhood, No:56, 27090 Gaziantep, Şehitkamil Turkey
Abstract
Background: Finger soft-tissue defects require thin, pliable, and durable coverage that preserves tendon gliding and hand function. Flap reconstruction remains the standard approach, providing well-vascularized tissue and reliable single-stage coverage, but is associated with donor-site morbidity and technical complexity. These limitations have prompted the search for alternative reconstructive strategies. Dermal regeneration templates (DRTs) have emerged as a potential option; however, comparative data evaluating their functional performance in finger defects remain limited. This study aimed to compare DRT-based reconstruction with flap surgery using standardized clinical and functional outcomes.
Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted including 99 fingers from 89 patients with isolated finger soft-tissue defects treated between May 2020 and October 2022. Patients underwent either flap reconstruction (n = 47) or DRT-based reconstruction (n = 52). Functional and clinical outcomes, including total active motion (TAM), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, key pinch strength (KPS), scar quality (Vancouver Scar Scale, VSS), operative time, and complications, were evaluated. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess the independent effect of treatment modality. Additional patient-level sensitivity and cluster-adjusted analyses were conducted to account for potential within-patient correlation.
Results: Flap reconstruction resulted in significantly higher TAM (210.0 ± 26.0° vs. 192.2 ± 22.6°, p < 0.001) and lower QuickDASH scores (12.64 ± 8.41 vs. 21.77 ± 8.41, p < 0.001) compared with DRT. These differences remained significant after adjustment for confounders and remained robust in patient-level sensitivity and cluster-adjusted analyses. DRT-based reconstruction was associated with significantly shorter operative time (25 (15–40) vs. 60 (40–80) min, p < 0.001). Additional split-thickness skin grafting was required more frequently in the DRT group than in the flap group (78.8% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed between groups in KPS or major complication rates, while VSS showed a non-significant trend toward better scar quality in the DRT group. Treatment modality was not a significant predictor of major complications. Defect size was not independently associated with clinical outcomes.
Conclusions: Flap reconstruction provides superior functional outcomes in terms of joint motion and disability scores in finger soft-tissue defects, whereas the DRT product used in this cohort may represent a flap-harvest–sparing alternative with shorter operative time and favorable scar characteristics in selected cases. Treatment selection should be individualized based on functional demands and clinical priorities.
Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Related
- Comparative Analysis of Bilateral Stacked Flap and Hybrid Breast Reconstruction: Clinical Results and Patient-reported Outcomes.
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction With Lateral Meniscal Repair With and Without Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis: A Prospective Comparative Study of Functional and Rotational Outcomes
- Comparing Short-Term Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship of Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Custom Triflange Acetabular Implants Vs Standard Cage Reconstruction
- A retrospective comparative study comparing sensory outcomes of free arterialized forearm vs medial plantar venous flaps following finger pulp defect reconstruction.
- Distally Based Adipofascial Flaps for Reconstruction of Distal Lower-Extremity Defects: Clinical Outcomes and Reconstructive Considerations
BibTeX
@article{atilgan2026flap,
title = {{Flap reconstruction versus dermal regeneration template for finger soft-tissue defects: comparative clinical outcomes}},
author = {Numan Atilgan and İbrahim Halil Rizvanoglu},
journal = {Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1186/s13018-026-07280-7},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-026-07280-7},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Flap reconstruction versus dermal regeneration template for finger soft-tissue defects: comparative clinical outcomes
AU - Numan Atilgan
AU - İbrahim Halil Rizvanoglu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
JO - Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
DO - 10.1186/s13018-026-07280-7
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-026-07280-7
AB - Background: Finger soft-tissue defects require thin, pliable, and durable coverage that preserves tendon gliding and hand function. Flap reconstruction remains the standard approach, providing well-vascularized tissue and reliable single-stage coverage, but is associated with donor-site morbidity and technical complexity. These limitations have prompted the search for alternative reconstructive strategies. Dermal regeneration templates (DRTs) have emerged as a potential option; however, comparative data evaluating their functional performance in finger defects remain limited. This study aimed to compare DRT-based reconstruction with flap surgery using standardized clinical and functional outcomes. Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted including 99 fingers from 89 patients with isolated finger soft-tissue defects treated between May 2020 and October 2022. Patients underwent either flap reconstruction (n = 47) or DRT-based reconstruction (n = 52). Functional and clinical outcomes, including total active motion (TAM), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, key pinch strength (KPS), scar quality (Vancouver Scar Scale, VSS), operative time, and complications, were evaluated. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess the independent effect of treatment modality. Additional patient-level sensitivity and cluster-adjusted analyses were conducted to account for potential within-patient correlation. Results: Flap reconstruction resulted in significantly higher TAM (210.0 ± 26.0° vs. 192.2 ± 22.6°, p < 0.001) and lower QuickDASH scores (12.64 ± 8.41 vs. 21.77 ± 8.41, p < 0.001) compared with DRT. These differences remained significant after adjustment for confounders and remained robust in patient-level sensitivity and cluster-adjusted analyses. DRT-based reconstruction was associated with significantly shorter operative time (25 (15–40) vs. 60 (40–80) min, p < 0.001). Additional split-thickness skin grafting was required more frequently in the DRT group than in the flap group (78.8% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed between groups in KPS or major complication rates, while VSS showed a non-significant trend toward better scar quality in the DRT group. Treatment modality was not a significant predictor of major complications. Defect size was not independently associated with clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Flap reconstruction provides superior functional outcomes in terms of joint motion and disability scores in finger soft-tissue defects, whereas the DRT product used in this cohort may represent a flap-harvest–sparing alternative with shorter operative time and favorable scar characteristics in selected cases. Treatment selection should be individualized based on functional demands and clinical priorities. Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
SN - 1749-799X
ER -