Limited intercarpal fusion versus proximal row carpectomy in the treatment of SLAC or SNAC wrist, results after 3.5 years
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Limited intercarpal fusion versus proximal row carpectomy in the treatment of SLAC or SNAC wrist, results after 3.5 years. / Gvozdenovic, Robert; Schioedt, Martina Agerskov; Solgaard, Lars; Vadstrup, Lars Soelberg; Soee, Niels Henrik.
I: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, Bind 18, Nr. 1, 681, 2023.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Limited intercarpal fusion versus proximal row carpectomy in the treatment of SLAC or SNAC wrist, results after 3.5 years
AU - Gvozdenovic, Robert
AU - Schioedt, Martina Agerskov
AU - Solgaard, Lars
AU - Vadstrup, Lars Soelberg
AU - Soee, Niels Henrik
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023, BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - The present study compares the postoperative clinical, radiological, and patient-reported functional results between the surgical procedures Proximal Row Carpectomy and Limited Carpal Fusion, in the treatment of SLAC and SNAC conditions of the wrist. 15 Proximal Row Carpectomy patients and 45 Limited Carpal Fusion patients were included in the study. Postoperative outcomes were assessed and compared for pain at load, range of motion, grip strength, Quick-DASH, and satisfaction. A radiological assessment was performed at the follow-up. The Proximal Row Carpectomy patients had a mean age of 60 years (range 31–77) and a mean follow-up of 42 months. The Limited Carpal Fusion patients had a mean age of 58 years (range 35–76) and a mean follow-up of 41 months. The patients treated with Limited Carpal Fusion performed significantly better regarding pain, radial-ulnar motion, and the Quick-DASH (p = 0.002, p = 0.003, and p = 0.002), respectively. The grip strength difference between the treatment groups was stratified for gender and was found significantly better for men in the LCF-treated patients, but not different for women (p = 0.03, p = 0.26), respectively. Differences in flexion–extension between the groups were insignificant (p = 0.525). A higher conversion rate to total wrist fusion was observed in the patients treated with the Proximal Row Carpectomy. All the Proximal Row Carpectomy patients had osteoarthritis at follow-up, whereas it was seen in 19% of the Limited Carpal Fusion patients. The patient-reported satisfaction was substantially better for the Limited Carpal Fusion patients. In conclusion, among patients treated for SNAC and SLAC wrist conditions, besides the findings of flexion–extension, and grip strength which were found without difference for women the findings are in favour of Limited Carpal Fusion compared to Proximal Row Carpectomy. Further, preferably prospective studies are needed to confirm or reject our findings. Level of evidence: Retrospective, comparative cohort study, level III.
AB - The present study compares the postoperative clinical, radiological, and patient-reported functional results between the surgical procedures Proximal Row Carpectomy and Limited Carpal Fusion, in the treatment of SLAC and SNAC conditions of the wrist. 15 Proximal Row Carpectomy patients and 45 Limited Carpal Fusion patients were included in the study. Postoperative outcomes were assessed and compared for pain at load, range of motion, grip strength, Quick-DASH, and satisfaction. A radiological assessment was performed at the follow-up. The Proximal Row Carpectomy patients had a mean age of 60 years (range 31–77) and a mean follow-up of 42 months. The Limited Carpal Fusion patients had a mean age of 58 years (range 35–76) and a mean follow-up of 41 months. The patients treated with Limited Carpal Fusion performed significantly better regarding pain, radial-ulnar motion, and the Quick-DASH (p = 0.002, p = 0.003, and p = 0.002), respectively. The grip strength difference between the treatment groups was stratified for gender and was found significantly better for men in the LCF-treated patients, but not different for women (p = 0.03, p = 0.26), respectively. Differences in flexion–extension between the groups were insignificant (p = 0.525). A higher conversion rate to total wrist fusion was observed in the patients treated with the Proximal Row Carpectomy. All the Proximal Row Carpectomy patients had osteoarthritis at follow-up, whereas it was seen in 19% of the Limited Carpal Fusion patients. The patient-reported satisfaction was substantially better for the Limited Carpal Fusion patients. In conclusion, among patients treated for SNAC and SLAC wrist conditions, besides the findings of flexion–extension, and grip strength which were found without difference for women the findings are in favour of Limited Carpal Fusion compared to Proximal Row Carpectomy. Further, preferably prospective studies are needed to confirm or reject our findings. Level of evidence: Retrospective, comparative cohort study, level III.
KW - Limited intercarpal arthrodesis
KW - Midcarpal fusion
KW - Proximal row carpectomy
KW - SLAC
KW - SNAC
U2 - 10.1186/s13018-023-04177-7
DO - 10.1186/s13018-023-04177-7
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 37705034
AN - SCOPUS:85171132924
VL - 18
JO - Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
JF - Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
SN - 1749-799X
IS - 1
M1 - 681
ER -
ID: 374048520