Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Reply

Is Reconstruction Preserving the First Ray or First Two Rays Better than Full Transmetatarsal Amputation in Diabetic Foot?

Hong, Joon Pio (Jp), M.D., Ph.D., M.M.M.; Suh, Young Chul, M.D.; Kushida-Contreras, Beatriz Hatse, M.D.; Suh, HyunSuk Peter, M.D., Ph.D.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: June 2019 - Volume 143 - Issue 6 - p 1315e–1316e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005668
Letters
Free

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to Dr. Hong, Department of Plastic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, 388-1 Poongnap-dong Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Republic of Korea, joonphong@amc.seoul.kr, Twitter: @Jp_Joonpio_Hong, Facebook: joon.p.hong, Instagram: @jp_111

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sir:

We would like to thank Drs. Fu and Chen for their interest and comments regarding our article, “Is Reconstruction Preserving the First Ray or First Two Rays Better than Full Transmetatarsal Amputation in Diabetic Foot?”1. We agree that the patient population can be small when looking from a statistical perspective. However, having a diabetic foot with transmetatarsal amputation that is indicated for reconstruction is not frequently seen. Furthermore, our approach to maximal limb salvage, including what toe digits may be preserved, makes the incidence for transmetatarsal amputation and reconstruction far less. It is hoped that as the cases accumulate over the following years, we will be able to provide a sufficient number of cases to support the conclusion. The same can be said for follow-up. The longer the follow-up, the more likely we will have a conclusive result. We hope to continue this study for a longer period of time, despite the poor survival in the diabetic patient population. In addition, because of the rarity and difficulty of this reconstruction, there are many limits and properties we do not know that need further clarification.

However, the purpose of this study was to demonstrate a long-asked question: “Are transmetatarsal amputation and reconstruction worth sacrificing remnant viable tissues, including toes?” In the world of clinical reconstruction, there is currently no guide on the approach, and we hope to show that reconstruction may be feasible in these difficult diabetic feet. In addition, as reconstructive surgeons, we have to be aware of the orthoplastic concept, wherein soft-tissue coverage has to combine with ideal functional bone reconstruction. In this respect, this question can be considered important in the future direction of diabetic foot reconstruction.

As Drs. Fu and Chen state, there are many limitations to the article, as this article starts to address questions new to the field of reconstruction. Diabetic foot remains a very challenging and difficult field of reconstruction. We hope that our article will ignite further debate and studies in diabetic foot reconstruction.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.

Joon Pio (Jp) Hong, M.D., Ph.D., M.M.M.

Young Chul Suh, M.D.

Beatriz Hatse Kushida-Contreras, M.D.

HyunSuk Peter Suh, M.D., Ph.D.

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Asan Medical Center

University of Ulsan College of Medicine

Seoul, Korea

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCE

1. Suh Y, Kushida-Contreras B, Suk H, et al. Is reconstruction preserving the first ray or first two rays better than full transmetatarsal amputation in diabetic foot? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:294–305.
Back to Top | Article Outline

GUIDELINES

Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.

Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/.

We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.

©2019American Society of Plastic Surgeons