Clinical outcome comparison of suture button suspensionplasty versus trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition in patients with carpometacarpal joint arthritis: a systematic review of direct comparison studies.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Wildan Latief, Riky Setyawan, Winona Andrari Mardhitiyani
{"title":"Clinical outcome comparison of suture button suspensionplasty versus trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition in patients with carpometacarpal joint arthritis: a systematic review of direct comparison studies.","authors":"Wildan Latief, Riky Setyawan, Winona Andrari Mardhitiyani","doi":"10.2340/jphs.v61.44912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Trapeziectomy nowadays is predominantly done with Ligament Reconstruction and Tendon Interposition (LRTI) or Suture Button Suspensionplasty (SBS). This article is intended to highlight comparison between SBS and trapeziectomy with LRTI through direct comparison evidence.</p><p><strong>Material and method: </strong>The LRTI technique involves the removal of the diseased trapezium bone and creating suspension through the use of flexor carpi radialis tendon, while SBS stabilize the metacarpal base by suspending the first metacarpal bone. The record screening process of this systematic and meta-analysis was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. QuickDASH, post-operative strength, visual analog scale were set as the primary outcomes, while the adverse event reported and miscellaneous findings worth mentioning per study were set as the secondary outcomes.  Results: Of the 102 records screened, 1 Randomized Control Trial (RCTs) and 1 Cohorts, consisting of 188 cases were included in the analysis. Both modalities showed comparable, non-significant difference in efficacy (alleviating pain associated with basal joint arthritis, improving strength and function of the affected thumb, in the long term) at the endpoint of the follow-up. Both procedures also showcased excellent safety and long-term functional profile. However, SBS displayed an advantage in post-operative recovery aspect as well as the biomechanical aspect compared to LRTI.  Conclusions: Both LRTI & SBS demonstrated non-inferiority to each other, hence clinical judgment might be more based on the preference and tolerability of the patient, as well as the experience of the center. Further prospective, comparative study might be needed to truly erect the superiority of one of the procedures to another.</p>","PeriodicalId":16847,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery","volume":"61 ","pages":"12-16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v61.44912","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Trapeziectomy nowadays is predominantly done with Ligament Reconstruction and Tendon Interposition (LRTI) or Suture Button Suspensionplasty (SBS). This article is intended to highlight comparison between SBS and trapeziectomy with LRTI through direct comparison evidence.

Material and method: The LRTI technique involves the removal of the diseased trapezium bone and creating suspension through the use of flexor carpi radialis tendon, while SBS stabilize the metacarpal base by suspending the first metacarpal bone. The record screening process of this systematic and meta-analysis was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. QuickDASH, post-operative strength, visual analog scale were set as the primary outcomes, while the adverse event reported and miscellaneous findings worth mentioning per study were set as the secondary outcomes.  Results: Of the 102 records screened, 1 Randomized Control Trial (RCTs) and 1 Cohorts, consisting of 188 cases were included in the analysis. Both modalities showed comparable, non-significant difference in efficacy (alleviating pain associated with basal joint arthritis, improving strength and function of the affected thumb, in the long term) at the endpoint of the follow-up. Both procedures also showcased excellent safety and long-term functional profile. However, SBS displayed an advantage in post-operative recovery aspect as well as the biomechanical aspect compared to LRTI.  Conclusions: Both LRTI & SBS demonstrated non-inferiority to each other, hence clinical judgment might be more based on the preference and tolerability of the patient, as well as the experience of the center. Further prospective, comparative study might be needed to truly erect the superiority of one of the procedures to another.

缝合扣悬吊成形术与梯形切除术合并韧带重建和肌腱间置治疗腕掌关节关节炎的临床结果比较:直接比较研究的系统回顾。
简介:目前梯形切除术主要采用韧带重建和肌腱间置(LRTI)或缝合扣悬吊成形术(SBS)。本文旨在通过直接比较证据强调SBS与LRTI梯形切除术的比较。材料和方法:LRTI技术包括通过桡侧腕屈肌腱去除患病的斜方骨并制造悬吊,而SBS通过悬吊第一掌骨来稳定掌骨基部。本系统分析和荟萃分析的记录筛选过程符合系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目。以QuickDASH、术后强度、视觉模拟量表为主要结局,以各研究报告的不良事件及各项值得注意的发现为次要结局。结果:在筛选的102份记录中,纳入1份随机对照试验(RCTs)和1个队列,共188例纳入分析。在随访结束时,两种方式在疗效(缓解与基底关节关节炎相关的疼痛,长期改善受影响拇指的力量和功能)方面显示出可比性,无显著差异。这两种方法也显示出良好的安全性和长期功能概况。然而,与LRTI相比,SBS在术后恢复和生物力学方面表现出优势。结论:LRTI与SBS均表现出非劣效性,临床判断应更多地基于患者的偏好和耐受性,以及中心的经验。可能需要进一步的前瞻性比较研究,以真正确立一种程序相对于另一种程序的优越性。
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
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
108
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of the Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery is to serve as an international forum for plastic surgery, hand surgery and related research. Interest is focused on original articles on basic research and clinical evaluation. The scope of the journal comprises: • Articles concerning operative methods and follow-up studies • Research articles on subjects related to plastic and hand surgery • Articles on cranio-maxillofacial surgery, including cleft lip and palate surgery. Extended issues are published occasionally, dealing with special topics such as microvascular surgery, craniofacial surgery, or burns. Supplements, usually doctoral theses, may also be published. The journal is published for the Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica society and sponsored by the Key Foundation, Sweden. The journal was previously published as Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery.
×
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