Search

Background: Type B ulnar polydactyly is one of the most commonly encountered congenital hand differences and can be treated with ligation or excision. The purpose of this study was to determine what factors families consider in selecting treatment for their child with type B ulnar polydactyly., Methods: We reviewed treatment outcomes and administered a survey by telephone to parents of children with type B ulnar polydactyly treated at a pediatric hospital between 2015 and 2020. We assessed satisfaction, reasons for choosing treatment, and post-management complications., Results: The families of 70 of the 156 consecutive treated patients were successfully contacted and agreed to participate (45% response rate). The mean follow-up was 27 months. Twenty-eight chose in-office suture ligation and 42 chose excision. Rapid treatment was prioritized by those who opted for in-office ligation ( P = .044). The complication rate for suture ligation was significantly higher than excision ( P < .0001), with the most common complication being a residual remnant (nubbin or neuroma stump) (64%). Respondents with residual remnant reported significantly less satisfaction with the appearance of their child's hand ( P < .001) and with treatment outcomes ( P = .028) compared to those without residual remnants., Conclusions: Factors considered by parents in choosing type of treatment for type B ulnar polydactyly vary and may be significantly influenced by the surgeon. Although the majority of parents remain extremely satisfied with their child's outcome regardless of management type, time to treatment plays a determinative role in parents opting for ligation rather than excision in the operating room., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Type B ulnar polydactyly is a common congenital hand difference and can be treated with either ligation or surgical excision. There is a paucity of literature, however, evaluating long-term patient reported outcomes of these treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes after ligation and excision for the management of type B ulnar polydactyly., Methods: We created a database of patients who underwent treatment for type B ulnar polydactyly at a single pediatric health system from 2005 to 2014. We administered the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pediatric Upper Extremity survey to patients through telephone and assessed for their satisfaction., Results: We successfully collected outcomes from 69 of 173 eligible patients treated in infancy (40% response rate). The mean follow-up was 11.1±2.5 years, and the average age of the participant at the time of the survey was 11.7±2.6 years of age. Twenty-four patients were treated with in-office ligation and 45 underwent formal surgical excision. Ten patients who were initially treated with ligation required future treatment with surgery because of symptomatic neuroma stump or persistent polydactyly (42%). Patients who were treated with surgical excision rated significantly higher satisfaction with their treatment than those who underwent ligation (P=0.003). Patients in both cohorts rated similar satisfaction with the esthetic appearance of their hand (P=0.07). There was no significant difference in PROMIS-rated hand function between the ligation and surgical cohort (P=0.765) and treated adolescents PROMIS scores were not statistically different than age-matched controls without polydactyly., Conclusion: While ligation and surgical excision result in similar function and esthetics, patient satisfaction is higher after surgery. Furthermore, a significant number of patients fail ligation and ultimately undergo surgery for symptomatic neuroma or persistent polydactyly. Counseling parents of patients with type B ulnar polydactyly should include these considerations to assist them in selecting the best treatment for their child., Level of Evidence: Level III., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)