scholarly journals The use of dynamic radiographs in trapeziometacarpal joint arthrodesis for accurate range of motion evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Dormitorio ◽  
Yasunori Hattori ◽  
Kiminori Yukata ◽  
Sotetsu Sakamoto ◽  
Kazuteru Doi
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Trapeziometacarpal Joint

Normal range-of-motion of trapeziometacarpal joint

2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 297-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.-N. Goubier ◽  
L. Devun ◽  
D. Mitton ◽  
F. Lavaste ◽  
E. Papadogeorgou
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Normal Range ◽  
Trapeziometacarpal Joint

Dorsoradial Ligament Reconstruction in Trapeziometacarpal Joint Arthritis

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472110289
Author(s):  
Piyabuth Kittithamvongs ◽  
Chairoj Uerpairojkit ◽  
Saksri Wangtanabadeekul ◽  
Navapong Anantavorasakul ◽  
Kanchai Malungpaishrope ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Reconstruction Technique ◽  
Preoperative Period ◽  
Joint Stability ◽  
Trapeziometacarpal Joint ◽  
Visual Analog Pain Score ◽  
Stress Examination ◽  
Joint Arthritis

Background The main purpose of the study is to present the alternative novel surgical technique in treating patients with trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint arthritis using dorsoradial ligament (DRL) reconstruction technique and report the clinical outcomes. Methods Patients who were diagnosed with TMC joint arthritis and underwent DRL reconstruction were evaluated. Visual analog pain score; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) score; grip, tip pinch, tripod pinch, and key pinch strengths along with range of motion of the thumb; and Kapandji score were recorded in the preoperative period and at follow-up. Stress examination was also performed under a fluoroscope. Results Eleven patients were included in the study. Median follow-up time was 13 months. At follow-up, postoperative visual analog scale and QuickDASH score improved in all patients. Grip, tip pinch, tripod pinch, and key pinch strengths also improved. The range of motion and Kapandji score were slightly improved compared with the preoperative period except for the thumb metacarpophalangeal flexion. Two patients had numbness at the thumb and spontaneously recovered after 3 months. Conclusions According to recent evidence which proposed the importance of DRL in TMC joint stability, our DRL reconstruction technique may be an alternative treatment in treating patients presented with TMC joint arthritis. Further study with a longer follow-up period is needed.

Motion Analysis of the Trapeziometacarpal Joint Using Three-dimensional Computed Tomography

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 78-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetsuya Kimura ◽  
Hiroaki Takai ◽  
Tatsuo Azuma ◽  
Koichi Sairyo
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Ct Images ◽  
Metacarpal Bone ◽  
Joint Surface ◽  
3D Ct ◽  
Trapeziometacarpal Joint ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Contact Surfaces

Background: Zancolli theorized that the first metacarpal bone axially rotates on the semispheroidal part of the trapezium, which is controlled by ligaments. This study used three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) to describe the motion of the first metacarpal bone on the trapezium. Methods: 3D-CT images were taken of the left hand of 30 healthy volunteers (mean age [Formula: see text] years, 15 men and 15 women). They were divided into five groups: radial abduction, retroposition, adduction, palmar abduction, and opposition. The range of motion of radial abduction and palmar abduction of the trapeziometacarpal joint was measured from the first metacarpal bone to the second metacarpal bone. The range of motion of pronation was measured following Cheema's method. The main contacts of the joint surface of trapezium and the first metacarpal bone were determined on the 3D-CT images. Results: Pronation of the trapeziometacarpal joint was [Formula: see text] in radial abduction, [Formula: see text] in retroposition, [Formula: see text] in adduction, [Formula: see text] in palmar abduction, and [Formula: see text] in opposition. Radial abduction was [Formula: see text] in radial abduction, [Formula: see text] in retroposition, [Formula: see text] in adduction, [Formula: see text] in palmar abduction, and [Formula: see text] in opposition. Palmar abduction was [Formula: see text] in radial abduction, [Formula: see text] in retroposition, [Formula: see text] in adduction, [Formula: see text] in palmar abduction, and [Formula: see text] in opposition. The contact surfaces of the trapezium and the first metacarpal bone were dorsal and ulnar in radial abduction, radial and ulnar in retroposition, and volar-ulnar and volarradial in opposition, respectively, while they were both central in adduction and both radial in palmar abduction. Conclusions: The range of motion of the trapeziometacarpal joint was 44° for radial abduction/adduction, 48° for palmar abduction/adduction, and 57° for pronation/supination. The varying contact surfaces of the trapezium and the first metacarpal bone enabled a wide range of motion.

Trapezium anatomy as a radiographic reference for optimal cup orientation in total trapeziometacarpal joint arthroplasty

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (9) ◽  
pp. 939-943 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Duerinckx ◽  
P. Caekebeke
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Total Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Articular Surface ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Trapeziometacarpal Joint ◽  
Implant Position ◽  
Component Loosening

In trapeziometacarpal arthroplasty, correct implant position may be necessary to prevent complications such as dislocation, component loosening and premature wear. The metacarpal stem more easily fits anatomically. However, the cup in the trapezium is not anatomical and guidelines for its orientation are not uniformly defined. We determined the centre of the range of motion of the trapeziometacarpal joint in 30 healthy patients on postero–anterior and lateral radiographs and its relationship to the proximal articular surface of the trapezium. Our study suggests that in thumb carpo-metacarpal total joint arthroplasty, the prosthetic cup in the trapezium should be placed parallel to the proximal articular surface of the trapezium and combined with a metacarpal neck with 7° palmar offset. This should optimize arthroplasty ranges of motion and may minimize the risk of postoperative complications. Our study provides a reference for the surgeon to check correct cup alignment intra-operatively with fluoroscopy.

Impairment Tutorial: Recurrent Radioculpathy: Recurrent Radioculpathy and Apportionment

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Disk Herniation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Recurrent Injury ◽  
Injury Model ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Spinal Region

Abstract Recurrent radiculopathy is evaluated by a different approach in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, compared to that in the Fourth Edition. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, specifies several occasions on which the range-of-motion (ROM), not the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method, is used to rate spinal impairments. For example, the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, clarifies that ROM is used only for radiculopathy caused by a recurrent injury, including when there is new (recurrent) disk herniation or a recurrent injury in the same spinal region. In the AMA Guides, Fourth Edition, radiculopathy was rated using the Injury Model, which is termed the DRE method in the Fifth Edition. Also, in the Fourth Edition, for the lumbar spine all radiculopathies resulted in the same impairment (10% whole person permanent impairment), based on that edition's philosophy that radiculopathy is not quantifiable and, once present, is permanent. A rating of recurrent radiculopathy suggests the presence of a previous impairment rating and may require apportionment, which is the process of allocating causation among two or more factors that caused or significantly contributed to an injury and resulting impairment. A case example shows the divergent results following evaluation using the Injury Model (Fourth Edition) and the ROM Method (Fifth Edition) and concludes that revisions to the latter for rating permanent impairments of the spine often will lead to different results compared to using the Fourth Edition.

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Osteosynthesis of Combined Injuries of the Capitellum humeri and the Radial Head

Swiss Surgery ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 275-282
Author(s):  
Ott ◽  
Rikli ◽  
Babst
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Radial Head ◽  
Performance Score ◽  
Anatomische Rekonstruktion ◽  
Mayo Elbow Performance Score ◽  
Capitulum Humeri ◽  
Combined Injuries

Einleitung: Kombinierte Verletzungen des Capitulum humeri und des Radiusköpfchens sind selten. Meist sind neben den osteocartilaginären Schäden am Gelenk auch Verletzungen der Kollateralbänder assoziiert. Behandlungsempfehlungen für diese seltenen schwerwiegenden Ellenbogenverletzungen fehlen. Studientyp: In einer retrospektiven Analyse werden fünf Fälle untersucht, bei denen die osteocartilaginären Verletzungen des Capitulum humeri durch den gleichen Zugang, der zur Versorgung des Radiusköpfchens verwendet wurde, versorgt wurden. Die Osteosynthese erfolgte mit Mini-Titanimplantaten z.T. kombiniert mit resorbierbaren Pins. Patienten und Methode: Zwischen 1996-1999 wurden fünf Patienten (vier Männer, eine Frau) mit einer Kombinationsverletzung von Radiuskopf und Capitulum humeri operativ stabilisiert. Das Durchschnittsalter beträgt 34 Jahre (31-40 Jahre). Alle Frakturen wurden über einen direkten radialen Zugang mittels 1.5mm oder 2.0mm Zugschrauben, zum Teil mit resorbierbaren Pins stabilisiert. Anschliessend wurden die Patienten radiologisch und klinisch gemäss dem Mayo-elbow-performance Score beurteilt. Resultate: Alle Patienten konnten persönlich durch einen nicht in die Initialtherapie involvierten Untersucher nach durchschnittlich 12.8 Monaten (8-24 Monate) nachuntersucht werden. 4/5 Patienten konnten bezüglich ihrer subjektiven Einschätzung befragt werden. Radiologische Zeichen einer Nekrose des Capitulum humeri oder Arthrosezeichen fanden sich nicht. Bei drei Patienten fanden sich periartikuläre Verkalkungen. Der range of motion beträgt durchschnittlich 124 Grad (Extension 5-30 Grad, Flexion 110-145 Grad) in drei von fünf Fällen waren Sekundäreingriffe zu Mobilitätsverbesserung nötig. Der Mayo-elbow-performance Score beträgt im Mittel 85 Punkte (range 70-100 Punkte). Schlussfolgerung: Die direkte Verschraubung mit Miniimplantaten zum Teil in Kombination mit resorbierbaren Pins ermöglicht eine stabile anatomische Rekonstruktion des Capitulum humeri durch den gleichen Zugang wie er für die Stabilisierung des Radiusköpfchens notwendig ist. Die transartikuläre Fixation der kleinen Schalenfragmente des Capitulum humeri erlaubt eine sichere interfragmentäre Kompression und damit eine frühfunktionelle Rehabilitation. Sekundäreingriffe zur Verbesserung der Gelenkbeweglichkeit waren in drei von fünf Fällen nötig.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document