Total joint arthroplasty versus resection-interposition arthroplasty for thumb carpometacarpal arthritis: a randomized controlled trial.
Journal
Acta orthopaedica
ISSN: 1745-3682
Titre abrégé: Acta Orthop
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 101231512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 05 2023
03 05 2023
Historique:
received:
31
08
2022
medline:
8
5
2023
pubmed:
4
5
2023
entrez:
4
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Thumb carpometacarpal (TCMC) osteoarthritis is a common condition that causes pain and functional limitations. We compared the outcomes of 2 surgical procedures for TCMC osteoarthritis, the Epping resection-suspension arthroplasty and the double-mobility TCMC prosthesis, and focused on pain relief, functional outcomes, and patient quality of life. Over a 7-year period a randomized controlled trial including 183 cases of TCMC osteoarthritis was conducted comparing a double mobility TCMC prosthesis (Moovis, Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) with the Epping resection-suspension arthroplasty. Pre- and postoperative examinations included the range of motion (ROM), SFMcGill score, visual analogue scale (VAS), the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH), and the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). At the 6-week postoperative follow-up, significant differences were found in VAS: Epping median 4.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0-5.0) vs. TCMC prosthesis 2.0 (IQR 0.25-4.0), p = 0.03, effect size (area under the curve [AUC]) 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.73), in DASH score: Epping 61 (IQR 43-75) vs. TCMC prosthesis 45 (IQR 29-57), p < 0.001, AUC 0.69 (CI 0.61- 0.78), and in radial abduction: Epping 55 (IQR 50-60) vs. TCMC prosthesis 62 (IQR 60-70), p = 0.001, AUC 0.70 (CI 0.61-0.79). No significant group differences were found at the 6- and 12-months follow-up. During the follow-up period, 3 of 82 prostheses had to be revised but there was no revision in the Epping group. The double mobility TCMC prosthesis had superior outcomes compared with the Epping procedure at 6 weeks; however, there were no significant differences in outcomes at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The implant survival rate of 96% after 12 months was acceptable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Thumb carpometacarpal (TCMC) osteoarthritis is a common condition that causes pain and functional limitations. We compared the outcomes of 2 surgical procedures for TCMC osteoarthritis, the Epping resection-suspension arthroplasty and the double-mobility TCMC prosthesis, and focused on pain relief, functional outcomes, and patient quality of life.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Over a 7-year period a randomized controlled trial including 183 cases of TCMC osteoarthritis was conducted comparing a double mobility TCMC prosthesis (Moovis, Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) with the Epping resection-suspension arthroplasty. Pre- and postoperative examinations included the range of motion (ROM), SFMcGill score, visual analogue scale (VAS), the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH), and the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS).
RESULTS
At the 6-week postoperative follow-up, significant differences were found in VAS: Epping median 4.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0-5.0) vs. TCMC prosthesis 2.0 (IQR 0.25-4.0), p = 0.03, effect size (area under the curve [AUC]) 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.73), in DASH score: Epping 61 (IQR 43-75) vs. TCMC prosthesis 45 (IQR 29-57), p < 0.001, AUC 0.69 (CI 0.61- 0.78), and in radial abduction: Epping 55 (IQR 50-60) vs. TCMC prosthesis 62 (IQR 60-70), p = 0.001, AUC 0.70 (CI 0.61-0.79). No significant group differences were found at the 6- and 12-months follow-up. During the follow-up period, 3 of 82 prostheses had to be revised but there was no revision in the Epping group.
CONCLUSION
The double mobility TCMC prosthesis had superior outcomes compared with the Epping procedure at 6 weeks; however, there were no significant differences in outcomes at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The implant survival rate of 96% after 12 months was acceptable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37140370
doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.11919
pmc: PMC10158789
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
224-229Références
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2016;83(1):27-31
pubmed: 26936062
Am J Ind Med. 1996 Jun;29(6):602-8
pubmed: 8773720
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Oct;135(10):1475-84
pubmed: 26306854
Pain. 1975 Sep;1(3):277-299
pubmed: 1235985
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2001 May;33(3):171-5
pubmed: 11468894
J Hand Surg Am. 2018 Sep;43(9):844-852
pubmed: 29934082
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2019 Feb;44(2):151-158
pubmed: 30016903
J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Oct;33(8):1369-77
pubmed: 18929203
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820
Hand Surg. 2004 Jul;9(1):5-9
pubmed: 15368619
Psychol Med. 1988 Nov;18(4):1007-19
pubmed: 3078045
Ann Chir Main. 1986;5(1):67-73
pubmed: 3963909
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2013 Oct;38(8):839-43
pubmed: 23221185
Orthopedics. 2017 Jul 1;40(4):e681-e686
pubmed: 28481387
J Hand Surg Br. 2006 Dec;31(6):621-8
pubmed: 16928416
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 Feb;95(1):63-9
pubmed: 19251239
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015 May;40(4):338-50
pubmed: 25600851
Acta Orthop. 2013 Feb;84(1):98-105
pubmed: 23343372
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012 Sep;37(7):610-6
pubmed: 22791610
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 1983 Sep;15(3):168-76
pubmed: 6629152
J Hand Surg Am. 2003 Nov;28(6):917-25
pubmed: 14642506
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2002 Jan;34(1):49-58
pubmed: 11898056
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Jan;80(1):121-5
pubmed: 9460967
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022 Jun;142(6):987-996
pubmed: 33462739