Does Proximal Row Carpectomy Improve Union in Wrist Arthrodesis? A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background Some surgeons advocate for concomitant proximal row carpectomy (PRC) with total wrist arthrodesis (TWA), though there are limited data to support or oppose this view. Questions/Purposes Does concomitant PRC improve rates of union, revision, hardware loosening, hardware failure, and hardware removal in TWA? Patients and Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TWA with and without concomitant PRC between January 2008 and December 2018 was undertaken. Patients were included if they underwent TWA using a dorsal spanning plate. Patients were excluded if they underwent partial wrist arthrodesis, revision TWA, or TWA with nondorsal spanning plate fixation. Results A total of 183 wrists in 180 patients were included in the study, 96 (52.5%) in the TWA only and 87 (47.5%) in the TWA + PRC groups. Median clinical and radiographic follow-up was 18.0 months (3.0–133.0 months) in the TWA + PRC group and 18.5 months (2.0–126.0 months) in the TWA only group (p = 0.907). No difference in nonunion (TWA + PRC: 13/87 [14.9%], TWA only: 18/96 [18.8%], odds ratio: 0.76, p = 0.494), revision (TWA + PRC: 5/87 [5.75%], TWA only: 8/96 [8.33%], hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73, p = 0.586), loosening (TWA + PRC: 4/87 [4.60%], TWA only: 6/96 [6.25%], HR: 0.74, p = 0.646), failure (TWA + PRC: 5/87 [5.75%], TWA only: 4/96 [4.17%], HR: 1.55, p = 0.530), and removal (TWA + PRC: 12/87 [13.8%], TWA only: 16/96 [16.7%], HR: 0.84, p = 0.634) were identified. Conclusion Concomitant PRC might not improve rates of union or diminish complications in patient undergoing TWA. The role of PRC and the rationale for its use in TWA need to be individualized and discussed with patients prior to surgery. Level of Evidence This is a Level IV, therapeutic study.

Medial femoral trochlea flap reconstruction versus proximal row carpectomy for Kienböck’s disease: a morphometric comparison

Surgical options for advanced Kienböck’s disease include proximal row carpectomy or lunate reconstruction with a medial femoral trochlea osteochondral flap. This study compares morphology of the proximal capitate and the medial femoral trochlear surfaces to the proximal lunate using three-dimensional geometric morphometric analysis. Virtual articular surfaces were extracted from MRI studies of ten healthy volunteers. Distances between corresponding points on the proximal lunate and proximal capitate or medial femoral trochlear surfaces were measured. In seven subjects, mean inter-surface distance for the medial femoral trochlea–proximal lunate pair was significantly lower than the proximal capitate–proximal lunate pairing. In three subjects, mean proximal capitate–proximal lunate distance was significantly lower. We conclude that the medial femoral trochlear flap was anatomically closer to the shape of the proximal lunate in the majority of the examined subjects. However, we found that in three out of ten cases, the proximal capitate was a better match.

Opioid Prescribing for Proximal Row Carpectomy versus Four-Corner Arthrodesis

Background Proximal row carpectomy (PRC) and four-corner arthrodesis (4-CA) represent motion-sparing procedures for addressing degenerative wrist pathologies. While both procedures demonstrate comparable functional outcomes, postoperative pain presents a surgical challenge that often necessitates the use of opioids. Objectives The aim of this study was to (1) compare opioid prescribing patterns surrounding PRC and 4-CA, (2) identify risk factors predisposing patients to increased perioperative and prolonged postoperative opioids, and (3) examine the association between opioids and perioperative health care utilization. Patients and Methods PearlDiver Patients Records Database was used to retrospectively identify patients undergoing primary PRC and 4-CA between 2010 and 2018. Patient demographics, comorbidities, prescription drug usage, and perioperative health care utilization were evaluated. Perioperative opioid prescriptions and post-operative opioid prescriptions were recorded. Logistic regression analysis evaluated the association of patient risk factors. Results There was no significant difference in perioperative (PRC [odds ratio {OR}: 0.84, p = 0.788]; 4-CA [OR: 0.75, p = 0.658]) or prolonged postoperative opioid prescriptions (PRC [OR: 0.95, p = 0.927]; 4-CA [OR: 0.99, p = 0.990]) between PRC and 4-CA. Chronic back pain and use of benzodiazepines or anticonvulsants were associated with increased risks of prolonged postoperative opioids. Prolonged postoperative opioids presented increased risks of emergency department visits (OR: 2.09, p = 0.019) and hospital readmissions (OR: 10.2, p = 0.003). Conclusion No significant differences exist in the prescription of opioids for PRC versus 4-CA. Both procedures have high amounts of prolonged postoperative opioid use, which is associated with increased risks of emergency department visits and hospital readmissions. Level of Evidence This is a level III, retrospective comparative study.

Proximal Row Carpectomy with Total Scapoidectomy vs. Conventional Carpal Resection for ReMotion Total Wrist Arthroplasty

High complication rates in total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) still lead to controversy in the medical literature, and novel methods for complication reduction are warranted. In the present retrospective cohort study, we compare the outcomes of the proximal row carpectomy (PRC) method including total scaphoidectomy (n = 22) to the manufacturer’s conventional carpal resection (CCR) technique, which retains the distal pole of the scaphoid (n = 25), for ReMotion prosthesis implantation in non-rheumatoid patients. Mean follow-up was 65.8 ± 19.8 and 80.0 ± 28.7 months, respectively. Pre- and postoperative clinical assessment included wrist flexion-extension and radial-ulnar deviation; Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores; and pain via visual analogue scale. At final follow-up, grip strength and satisfaction were evaluated. All complications, re-operations, and revision surgeries were noted. Clinical complications were significantly lower in the PRC group (p = 0.010). Radial impaction was detected as the most frequent complication in the CCR group (n = 10), while no PRC patients suffered from this complication (p = 0.0008). Clinical assessment, grip strength measurements, and the log rank test evaluating the re-operation as well as revision function showed no significant difference. All functional parameters significantly improved compared to preoperative values in both cohorts. In conclusion, we strongly recommend PRC for ReMotion prosthesis implantation.