Trapeziectomy versus Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Comparison of Health Utility Outcomes Collected by the UK Hand Registry.

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY
George J M Hourston, Will N Matthews, Rumina Begum, Adrian J Chojnowski
{"title":"Trapeziectomy versus Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Comparison of Health Utility Outcomes Collected by the UK Hand Registry.","authors":"George J M Hourston, Will N Matthews, Rumina Begum, Adrian J Chojnowski","doi":"10.1142/S2424835526500062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> We aimed to evaluate the difference in health utility outcome measures between trapeziectomy and total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the surgical management of basal thumb osteoarthritis (BTOA). <b>Methods:</b> Data obtained from the UK Hand Registry for all trapeziectomies (± ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition) and total joint arthroplasties for BTOA, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) EQ5D and PEM part 2 scores, at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively. EQ5D scores were converted to index values, and PEM part 2 scores were calculated to allow comparison with baseline scores and to generate delta values at each time point. Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> tests were used to determine statistical differences. <b>Results:</b> A total of 948 procedures identified (710 trapeziectomy; 238 TJA), 76% female. More PROMs were collected for trapeziectomy patients at all timepoints (267 EQ5D and 262 PEM-2 at baseline; 27 EQ5D and 26 PEM-2 at 2 years) than for TJA patients (98 EQ5D and 111 PEM-2 at baseline; 8 EQ5D and 18 PEM-2 at 2 years). PEM-2 was significantly improved in the TJA group at 3 months (<i>p</i> = 0.047) and 6 months (<i>p</i> = 0.012); there was no significant difference at subsequent follow-up (1 year, <i>p</i> = 0.611; 2 years, <i>p</i> = 0.438). There was no significant difference in EQ5D identified between trapeziectomy and TJA at any time point (3 months, <i>p</i> = 0.056; 6 months, <i>p</i> = 0.059; 1 year, <i>p</i> = 0.222; 2 years, <i>p</i> = 0.250). <b>Conclusions:</b> TJA appears to offer a faster return of hand function, as measured by PEM-2, when compared with trapeziectomy, though this clinical improvement is not sustained beyond 6 months from this registry data. We identified no significant difference in EQ5D between the two procedures at any time point, though both groups improved from baseline. Greater engagement with the UKHR from surgeons and patients might help to reduce attrition and improve longer-term outcomes reporting. <b>Level of Evidence:</b> Level III (Therapeutic).</p>","PeriodicalId":51689,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","volume":" ","pages":"49-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835526500062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We aimed to evaluate the difference in health utility outcome measures between trapeziectomy and total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the surgical management of basal thumb osteoarthritis (BTOA). Methods: Data obtained from the UK Hand Registry for all trapeziectomies (± ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition) and total joint arthroplasties for BTOA, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) EQ5D and PEM part 2 scores, at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively. EQ5D scores were converted to index values, and PEM part 2 scores were calculated to allow comparison with baseline scores and to generate delta values at each time point. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine statistical differences. Results: A total of 948 procedures identified (710 trapeziectomy; 238 TJA), 76% female. More PROMs were collected for trapeziectomy patients at all timepoints (267 EQ5D and 262 PEM-2 at baseline; 27 EQ5D and 26 PEM-2 at 2 years) than for TJA patients (98 EQ5D and 111 PEM-2 at baseline; 8 EQ5D and 18 PEM-2 at 2 years). PEM-2 was significantly improved in the TJA group at 3 months (p = 0.047) and 6 months (p = 0.012); there was no significant difference at subsequent follow-up (1 year, p = 0.611; 2 years, p = 0.438). There was no significant difference in EQ5D identified between trapeziectomy and TJA at any time point (3 months, p = 0.056; 6 months, p = 0.059; 1 year, p = 0.222; 2 years, p = 0.250). Conclusions: TJA appears to offer a faster return of hand function, as measured by PEM-2, when compared with trapeziectomy, though this clinical improvement is not sustained beyond 6 months from this registry data. We identified no significant difference in EQ5D between the two procedures at any time point, though both groups improved from baseline. Greater engagement with the UKHR from surgeons and patients might help to reduce attrition and improve longer-term outcomes reporting. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

梯形切除术与全关节置换术:英国手部登记处收集的健康效用结果的比较
背景:我们的目的是评估在手术治疗拇指基底骨关节炎(BTOA)时,寰椎切除术和全关节置换术(TJA)在健康效用指标上的差异。方法:从英国手部登记处获得的数据,包括基线、术后3个月、6个月、1年和2年患者报告的结局测量(PROMs) EQ5D和PEM part 2评分,包括所有梯形切除术(±韧带重建和肌腱介入)和BTOA全关节置换术。将EQ5D评分转换为指标值,计算PEM part 2评分,以便与基线评分进行比较,并在每个时间点生成增量值。使用Mann-Whitney U检验来确定统计差异。结果:共确定948例手术(710例梯形切除术;238例TJA), 76%为女性。梯形切除术患者在所有时间点收集的prom(基线时为267例EQ5D和262例PEM-2; 2年后为27例EQ5D和26例PEM-2)均多于TJA患者(基线时为98例EQ5D和111例PEM-2; 2年后为8例EQ5D和18例PEM-2)。TJA组患者在3个月(p = 0.047)和6个月(p = 0.012)时PEM-2明显改善;随访1年,p = 0.611; 2年,p = 0.438,差异无统计学意义。在任何时间点(3个月,p = 0.056; 6个月,p = 0.059; 1年,p = 0.222; 2年,p = 0.250),椎体切除术与TJA患者的EQ5D均无显著差异。结论:与梯形切除术相比,TJA似乎提供了更快的手部功能恢复,通过PEM-2测量,尽管这种临床改善不能持续超过6个月。我们发现两种手术在任何时间点的EQ5D均无显著差异,尽管两组均较基线有所改善。外科医生和患者更多地参与UKHR可能有助于减少人员流失,改善长期结果报告。证据等级:III级(治疗性)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
304
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书