Differences between trapeziometacarpal arthrodesis and trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction for the treatment of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
K Chen, Y Shun, W Xiang
{"title":"Differences between trapeziometacarpal arthrodesis and trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction for the treatment of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"K Chen, Y Shun, W Xiang","doi":"10.52628/89.3.11618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The optimal management of trapeziometacarpal (TMC) osteoarthritis remains controversial. This meta-analysis assessed the subjective and objective outcomes of trapeziometacarpal arthrodesis (TMA) versus trapeziec-tomy with ligament reconstruction (LRTI). The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of science data-bases were searched from inception to June 30, 2022. Keywords included \"trapeziometacarpal osteoarthrosis\", \"trapeziometacarpal arthrodesis\" and \"trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction\". Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) including patients treated for TMC osteoarthritis were included. The subjective outcomes visual analogue scale (VAS) , Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE), Disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) scores, Kapanji scores, objective outcomes total interphalangeal (IP) and metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint motion, palmar abduction, grip strength, tip, key pinch strength and complications were extracted. The methodological quality of each was assessed in- dependently. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative trials. From the 5 included studies (2 RCTs, 3 CCTs), 208 cases were divided into TMA group (n = 107) and LRTI group (n =101) groups. Compared with the TMA group, PRWHE, tip pinch strength and palmar abduction was better in the LRTI group. There was no statistical difference in DASH score, VAS, kapandji score, grip strength, key pinch strength, total IP joint motion, total MCP joint motion and complications. The LRTI group had more obvious advantages in term of PRWHE, tip pinch strength and palmar abduction. Moreover, there was no statistical difference in DASH score, VAS, kapandji score, grip strength, key pinch strength, total IP joint and total MCP joint motion and complications. Therefore, we concluded LRTI was more recommendable for more management of TMC osteoarthritis. Certainly, high-quality studies are required in long-term follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52628/89.3.11618","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The optimal management of trapeziometacarpal (TMC) osteoarthritis remains controversial. This meta-analysis assessed the subjective and objective outcomes of trapeziometacarpal arthrodesis (TMA) versus trapeziec-tomy with ligament reconstruction (LRTI). The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of science data-bases were searched from inception to June 30, 2022. Keywords included "trapeziometacarpal osteoarthrosis", "trapeziometacarpal arthrodesis" and "trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction". Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) including patients treated for TMC osteoarthritis were included. The subjective outcomes visual analogue scale (VAS) , Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE), Disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) scores, Kapanji scores, objective outcomes total interphalangeal (IP) and metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint motion, palmar abduction, grip strength, tip, key pinch strength and complications were extracted. The methodological quality of each was assessed in- dependently. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative trials. From the 5 included studies (2 RCTs, 3 CCTs), 208 cases were divided into TMA group (n = 107) and LRTI group (n =101) groups. Compared with the TMA group, PRWHE, tip pinch strength and palmar abduction was better in the LRTI group. There was no statistical difference in DASH score, VAS, kapandji score, grip strength, key pinch strength, total IP joint motion, total MCP joint motion and complications. The LRTI group had more obvious advantages in term of PRWHE, tip pinch strength and palmar abduction. Moreover, there was no statistical difference in DASH score, VAS, kapandji score, grip strength, key pinch strength, total IP joint and total MCP joint motion and complications. Therefore, we concluded LRTI was more recommendable for more management of TMC osteoarthritis. Certainly, high-quality studies are required in long-term follow-up.

斜方腕关节融合术和斜方切开韧带重建治疗斜方腕骨关节炎的差异:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
斜方腕骨关节炎的最佳治疗方法仍然存在争议。该荟萃分析评估了斜方腕关节融合术(TMA)与斜方骨切开韧带重建术(LRTI)的主观和客观结果。从成立到2022年6月30日,检索了PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Embase、Web of science数据库。关键词包括“斜方腕骨关节病”、“斜方腕关节融合术”和“斜方截骨韧带重建术”。随机对照试验(RCTs)和对照临床试验(CCTs)包括接受TMC骨关节炎治疗的患者。提取主观结果视觉模拟量表(VAS)、患者评定的手腕和手部评估(PRWHE)、手臂、肩膀和手部残疾(DASH)评分、Kapanji评分、客观结果指间和掌指关节总运动、手掌外展、握力、尖端、按键握力和并发症。对每种方法的方法学质量进行了独立评估。对比较试验进行荟萃分析。在纳入的5项研究中(2项随机对照试验,3项CCTs),208例患者被分为TMA组(n=107)和LRTI组(n=101)。与TMA组相比,LRTI组的PRWHE、尖端握力和手掌外展能力更好。DASH评分、VAS评分、kapandji评分、握力、按键握力、总IP关节运动、总MCP关节运动及并发症无统计学差异。LRTI组在PRWHE、尖端握力和掌侧外展方面具有更明显的优势。此外,DASH评分、VAS评分、kapandji评分、握力、按键握力、总IP关节和总MCP关节运动及并发症无统计学差异。因此,我们得出结论,LRTI更适合用于TMC骨关节炎的更多治疗。当然,长期随访需要高质量的研究。
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
Acta orthopaedica Belgica
Acta orthopaedica Belgica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信