Complications of prosthesis versus trapeziectomy in trapeziometacarpal joint arthritis: A systematic review

Abstract

Objective

Thumb osteoarthritis is a frequent pathology, mainly affecting the elderly. The surgical treatment initially described and having proved its worth is total trapeziectomy. Since the advent of trapeziometacarpal prostheses, several studies showed the non-inferiority of this technique on clinical criteria, with superiority in bone sparing, although neither technique demonstrated overall superiority. We therefore examined the specific complications of each surgical technique by analyzing their nature and prevalence through a review of the literature to compare them on these new parameters.

Methods

Seventy-four of the 320 articles reviewed were included, 38 of which concerned trapeziectomy, and 36 concerned prostheses, for a total of 4,865 patients. They were original studies, involving adults undergoing trapeziometacarpal arthroplasty or trapeziectomy, published after 2015, reporting at least one well-described complication.

Results

6.13% of trapeziectomies presented severe complications (in particular thumb collapse and metacarpophalangeal hyperextension), 3.31% moderate complications and 1.90% minor complications, leading to a 2.0% revision rate. 23.88% of prostheses had severe complications (loosening, dislocation and wear), 5.06% moderate complications and 1.36% minor complications, leading to a 12.8% revision rate. In addition, we analyzed more recent prosthesis designs separately, and found lower prevalence of severe complications (16.56%) and revision surgery (4.3%).

Conclusion

Revision surgery for trapeziometacarpal prostheses is usually only a standard trapeziectomy with the same follow-up as first-line trapeziectomy, whereas revision surgery for trapeziectomies is much more complex and the results are uncertain. For this reason, we would reserve total trapeziectomy for revision surgeries and patients with low functional demand for whom a second surgery is not desirable. Further studies could confirm this attitude, especially focusing on the latest generation of dual mobility implants.

Level of evidence

1.