Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep 11;145(1):445.
doi: 10.1007/s00402-025-06038-w.

Long-term outcome of dorsal digital defect reconstruction using reverse-cross-finger flaps

Mohamed Esam Yasmin  1 , Adrian Sebald  2 , Andreas Arkudas  2 , Raymund E Horch  3
Affiliations

Long-term outcome of dorsal digital defect reconstruction using reverse-cross-finger flaps

Mohamed Esam Yasmin et al. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. .

Abstract

Purpose: Despite advances in microsurgical reconstruction, the reverse cross-finger flap (RCF) remains a reliable technique for dorsal finger defects. However, long-term outcome data are limited. This study evaluates the clinical and subjective long-term outcomes of patients treated with RCF reconstruction.

Methods: A retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent RCF for dorsal finger defects between 2003 and 2022. Nineteen patients (mean age 59.0 ± 20.1 years) were included in the follow-up (mean duration: 12.6 ± 6.1 years). Functional outcomes were assessed via range of motion (ROM), two-point discrimination, and cold intolerance. Subjective satisfaction and functional limitations were evaluated using the Quick-DASH and a custom survey. Complications and aesthetic results were also recorded.

Results: All flaps fully integrated. Complications were: 2 infections, 1 hematoma, and 1 partial flap necrosis requiring revision. Mean two-point discrimination was 7.6 mm (vs. 5.8 mm contralaterally; p < 0.05), and cold intolerance occurred in 9 cases. ROM showed no significant differences compared to the contralateral hand. Mild activity-related pain was reported by 6 patients, with no resting pain. Mean satisfaction scores were 8.1 (functional) and 7.7 (aesthetic). The mean Quick-DASH score was 5.1.

Conclusion: The RCF remains a safe, effective, and durable option for dorsal finger reconstruction. It offers reliable functional and aesthetic outcomes with low donor site morbidity and complication rates, supporting its continued role in modern hand surgery, particularly where microsurgical resources are limited.

Keywords: Donor site morbidity; Dorsal finger defects; Functional outcomes; Hand reconstruction; Reverse cross-finger flap.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Rau J et al (2025) Strahlresektion des Zeigefingers Über Den Palmaren Zugang. Operative Orthopädie und Traumatologie
    1. Cavalcanti Kussmaul A et al (2023) The treatment of closed finger and metacarpal fractures. Dtsch Arztebl Int 120(50):855–862 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Fejjal N et al (2008) Reversed cross finger subcutaneous flap: a rapid way to cover finger defects. Indian J Plast Surg 41(1):55–57 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Atasoy E (2016) The reverse cross finger flap. J Hand Surg Am 41(1):122–128 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Germann G et al (1997) The reverse pedicle heterodigital cross-finger Island flap. J Hand Surg Br 22(1):25–29 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources