Treatment of chronic scapholunate instability: Results with three-ligament tenodesis vs. scapholunate and intercarpal ligamentoplasty.

In this retrospective case control/comparison study, we compared the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients with chronic scapholunate dissociation treated with three-ligament tenodesis (3 LT) versus scapholunate and intercarpal ligamentoplasty (SLICL). Twenty patients with a mean age of 43 years were treated with the 3 LT procedure and 26 patients with a mean age of 44 years with the SLICL procedure. All patients had chronic reducible scapholunate dissociation without chondral lesions. The two groups of patients were operated on by senior surgeons, at the same facility, over two different time periods. All patients were evaluated (pain, motion, strength, function, X-rays) with a mean follow-up of 28 months (12-49) in the 3 LT group and 36 months (12-54) in the SLICL group. In the both groups, we found a significant improvement in pain levels, grip strength and functional scores (DASH and PRWE). The SLICL group had significantly less pain and greater grip strength than the 3 LT group. Patients in the SLICL group had a greater improvement in their DASH and PRWE Scores. The mean range of motion in flexion-extension was 82° (102° preoperative) in the 3 LT group and 113° (115° preoperative) in the SLICL group. In the 3 LT, there was no significant improvement in the mean static and dynamic scapholunate gaps (3.6 and 4.8 mm postoperatively versus 3.9 and 4.9 mm preoperatively), or the scapholunate angle (75° versus 72°). In the SLICL group, the mean static and dynamic gaps improved significantly (2.3 and 3.0 mm postoperatively versus 3.2 and 4.6 mm preoperatively), as did the scapholunate angle (62° versus 73°). In the 3 LT group, 4 patients developed osteoarthritis. In conclusion, the SLICL procedure for scapholunate ligament reconstruction led to better clinical and early radiological results than the 3 LT technique.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 SFCM. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.