Open versus arthroscopic triangular fibrocartilage repairs: a narrative review.

IF 1.6 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedic Reviews Pub Date : 2026-05-22 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.52965/001c.161813
Georges Sakhat, Moro Chahine, Raymonde Dahdouh, Elie Alam, Fouad Assaf, Johnny Saadeh, Antoine Saber, Carmen Al Haddad, Mohammad Badra, Ramzi Moucharafieh
{"title":"Open versus arthroscopic triangular fibrocartilage repairs: a narrative review.","authors":"Georges Sakhat, Moro Chahine, Raymonde Dahdouh, Elie Alam, Fouad Assaf, Johnny Saadeh, Antoine Saber, Carmen Al Haddad, Mohammad Badra, Ramzi Moucharafieh","doi":"10.52965/001c.161813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) stabilizes the distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) and transmits load across the wrist. While many injuries respond to conservative care, certain tear patterns require surgery. Open and arthroscopic repairs are both used, but the optimal approach is debated. Arthroscopy offers minimally invasive access, assessment of concomitant injuries, and faster early recovery, whereas open repair is traditionally preferred for complex or foveal tears. Despite comparable outcomes, the optimal technique remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This narrative review compares open and arthroscopic TFCC repair, focusing on indications, techniques, complications, and evolving strategies to guide clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A non-systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (2005-2025) was performed. Key studies on open and arthroscopic TFCC repair were reviewed and synthesized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both open and arthroscopic repairs yield similar mid-term patient-reported outcomes. Arthroscopic repair may permit earlier recovery and carries a slightly lower soft-tissue complication risk. Open repair offers direct visualization and is advantageous for complex or foveal lesions. No clear differences in DRUJ stability, functional scores, or return-to-activity times were identified, though available data remain limited. Complication profiles vary between techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Open and arthroscopic TFCC repairs provide reliable results, with neither demonstrating overall superiority. Technique selection should be individualized based on tear pattern, DRUJ stability, and patient factors. Advances in arthroscopy and biologic augmentation may enhance outcomes, but high-quality comparative studies are needed to define optimal management.</p>","PeriodicalId":19669,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Reviews","volume":"18 ","pages":"161813"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13198896/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.161813","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) stabilizes the distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) and transmits load across the wrist. While many injuries respond to conservative care, certain tear patterns require surgery. Open and arthroscopic repairs are both used, but the optimal approach is debated. Arthroscopy offers minimally invasive access, assessment of concomitant injuries, and faster early recovery, whereas open repair is traditionally preferred for complex or foveal tears. Despite comparable outcomes, the optimal technique remains uncertain.

Objectives: This narrative review compares open and arthroscopic TFCC repair, focusing on indications, techniques, complications, and evolving strategies to guide clinical decision-making.

Methods: A non-systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (2005-2025) was performed. Key studies on open and arthroscopic TFCC repair were reviewed and synthesized.

Results: Both open and arthroscopic repairs yield similar mid-term patient-reported outcomes. Arthroscopic repair may permit earlier recovery and carries a slightly lower soft-tissue complication risk. Open repair offers direct visualization and is advantageous for complex or foveal lesions. No clear differences in DRUJ stability, functional scores, or return-to-activity times were identified, though available data remain limited. Complication profiles vary between techniques.

Conclusion: Open and arthroscopic TFCC repairs provide reliable results, with neither demonstrating overall superiority. Technique selection should be individualized based on tear pattern, DRUJ stability, and patient factors. Advances in arthroscopy and biologic augmentation may enhance outcomes, but high-quality comparative studies are needed to define optimal management.

开放性与关节镜下三角形纤维软骨修复:一个叙述性的回顾。
背景:三角形纤维软骨复合体(TFCC)稳定远端尺桡关节(DRUJ)并传递整个手腕的负荷。虽然许多损伤对保守治疗有反应,但某些撕裂类型需要手术。开放和关节镜下修复均可使用,但最佳方法存在争议。关节镜提供了微创的通道,评估伴随损伤和更快的早期恢复,而传统上开放修复是复杂或中央凹撕裂的首选。尽管有类似的结果,但最佳技术仍然不确定。目的:这篇叙述性的综述比较了开放和关节镜下TFCC修复,重点是指征、技术、并发症和指导临床决策的发展策略。方法:对PubMed、Embase和Scopus(2005-2025)进行非系统检索。综述了开放性和关节镜下TFCC修复的关键研究成果。结果:开放和关节镜下修复产生相似的中期患者报告结果。关节镜下修复可使患者恢复得更早,并降低软组织并发症的风险。开放修复提供了直接的可视化,有利于复杂或中央凹病变。尽管可用的数据仍然有限,但在DRUJ稳定性、功能评分或恢复活动时间方面没有发现明显的差异。不同技术的并发症情况各不相同。结论:开放和关节镜下TFCC修复提供了可靠的结果,两者都没有显示出整体优势。技术选择应根据撕裂模式、药物稳定性和患者因素进行个体化。关节镜检查和生物增强技术的进步可能会提高治疗效果,但需要高质量的比较研究来确定最佳治疗方法。
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
Orthopedic Reviews
Orthopedic Reviews ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
122
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Reviews is an Open Access, online-only, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles concerned with any aspect of orthopedics, as well as diagnosis and treatment, trauma, surgical procedures, arthroscopy, sports medicine, rehabilitation, pediatric and geriatric orthopedics. All bone-related molecular and cell biology, genetics, pathophysiology and epidemiology papers are also welcome. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, reviews and case reports of general interest.
×
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