The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Pediatr.
Sec. Pediatric Orthopedics
Volume 13 - 2025 |
doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1536872
Radiographic features of Wu et al. type A2 congenital thumb duplication and implications for management: new subtypes and surgical strategies
Provisionally accepted- 1 Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
- 2 First Affiliated Hospital, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Region, China
- 3 Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Region, China
- 4 The First People's Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan Province, China
- 5 Giannina Gaslini Institute (IRCCS), Genoa, Liguria, Italy
This study aimed to assess the radiographic features of patients diagnosed with congenital thumb duplication (CTD) type A2 based on the Wu et al. classification, describe the different subtypes of duplications and propose a classification system that permits identifying various surgical strategies.We evaluated 665 patients (680 thumbs) diagnosed with type A2 CTDs by examining the alignment of the interphalangeal (IP) and metacarpophalangeal (MP) joints of the primary thumb on posteroanterior (PA) radiographs. The classification system has four types: Type I (no deviation); Type II (ulnar deviation); Type III (hypertrophic epiphysis); and Type IV (convergent). Types I-IV were compared to Hung et al.'s system Type A-D (Hypoplastic, Ulnar Deviation, Divergent, and Convergent).Of the 680 fingers, 436 (64.1%) were determined to be Wassel type IV while 244 (35.9%) were classified as Wassel type VII. All of the 436 fingers could be categorized according to the subtypes of the Hung et al. system; in particular, 369 (84.6%) were identified as type B, 52 (11.9%) as type D, and 15 cases (3.4%) as type C. The proposed classification system worked effectively for all CTDs (n=680). 494 cases were classified as type II (72.6%), while 75 cases were classified as type I (11.0%). The remaining 111 cases were further classified as either type IV (9.3%) or type III (7.1%). The Wu et al. systems showed excellent intra-rater (0.881) and interrater (0.873) reliability compared to the Hung et al. systems (0.842 and 0.823, respectively).The proposed radiographic pathoanatomical system has the potential to improve communication and guide optimal procedure selection for different subtypes of CTD depending on the attachment of the extra digit to the main thumb and the alignment of the interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints of the primary thumb (Wu et al.
Keywords: congenital thumb duplication, Wu et al. classification, Anatomy, interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joint alignment, Surgery
Received: 20 Dec 2024; Accepted: 03 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Wu, Liao, Li, Xu, Zhao, Li, Liu, Zhi, Lin, Tu, Shu, Li, Li, Canavese, Xu and Liu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Jianping Wu, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Yuquan Li, Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530007, Guangxi Zhuang Region, China
Fulong Xu, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Hai Zhao, The First People's Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan Province, China
Chenyang Li, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Region, China
Yanhan Liu, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Honghong Lin, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Zhehui Tu, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Lili Shu, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
HongWen Xu, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
YuanZhong Liu, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.