Clinical Significance of Arthroscopic Debridement, Trapeziectomy, and Joint Replacement for Basilar Thumb Joint Arthritis: A Meta-analysis of Pain Score Improvements.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Acta orthopaedica Belgica Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.52628/90.2.12744
K Ghayyad, N Sarli, N Golovachev, A Bachoura, D Hirsch, A R Kachooei
{"title":"Clinical Significance of Arthroscopic Debridement, Trapeziectomy, and Joint Replacement for Basilar Thumb Joint Arthritis: A Meta-analysis of Pain Score Improvements.","authors":"K Ghayyad, N Sarli, N Golovachev, A Bachoura, D Hirsch, A R Kachooei","doi":"10.52628/90.2.12744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A meta-analysis was conducted comparing the impact of Arthroscopic debridement (AD), trapeziectomy (TRAP), and joint replacement (JR) on the change in pain scores on patients with Basilar thumb joint arthritis (BTJA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four databases were searched for studies presenting pain outcomes following surgical intervention for BTJA. Pain scores were reported using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and compared against the pre-established threshold for Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of 1.65.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies with 763 patients treated with AD(n=102, 13%), TRAP(n=428, 56%), and JR(n=233, 31%) between 2010 and 2023 with a mean follow-up period of 38 ± 28 months were included. There were 25 groups including 4 AD, 14 TRAP, and 7 JR. The mean difference between pre- and post-operative VAS pain was 4.9 ± 2 for all groups. Meta-analysis demonstrated a mean delta VAS of 3.6 (95%CI 1.79-5.38, for AD, 5.1(95%CI, 4.20-6.02) for TRAP and 6.8(95%CI, 5.93-7.97) for JR. ANOVA showed a significant difference between groups (P=0.016). Post-Hoc testing showed a significant difference between AD and JR (P=0.014). A significant improvement in pain scores, surpassing the MCID threshold, was obtained in all surgical interventions. Change in pain score was 2.6 times MCID for AD, 2.9 times for TRAP, and 3.6 times for JR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All interventions showed significant improvement in pain. Variability in treatment options and improvement depends on patient selection and surgeon's preference. This data can be used to counsel patients regarding the expected pain relief. However, longevity, and long-term outcomes warrant further study.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","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/10.52628/90.2.12744","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

Introduction: A meta-analysis was conducted comparing the impact of Arthroscopic debridement (AD), trapeziectomy (TRAP), and joint replacement (JR) on the change in pain scores on patients with Basilar thumb joint arthritis (BTJA).

Methods: Four databases were searched for studies presenting pain outcomes following surgical intervention for BTJA. Pain scores were reported using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and compared against the pre-established threshold for Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of 1.65.

Results: Eighteen studies with 763 patients treated with AD(n=102, 13%), TRAP(n=428, 56%), and JR(n=233, 31%) between 2010 and 2023 with a mean follow-up period of 38 ± 28 months were included. There were 25 groups including 4 AD, 14 TRAP, and 7 JR. The mean difference between pre- and post-operative VAS pain was 4.9 ± 2 for all groups. Meta-analysis demonstrated a mean delta VAS of 3.6 (95%CI 1.79-5.38, for AD, 5.1(95%CI, 4.20-6.02) for TRAP and 6.8(95%CI, 5.93-7.97) for JR. ANOVA showed a significant difference between groups (P=0.016). Post-Hoc testing showed a significant difference between AD and JR (P=0.014). A significant improvement in pain scores, surpassing the MCID threshold, was obtained in all surgical interventions. Change in pain score was 2.6 times MCID for AD, 2.9 times for TRAP, and 3.6 times for JR.

Conclusions: All interventions showed significant improvement in pain. Variability in treatment options and improvement depends on patient selection and surgeon's preference. This data can be used to counsel patients regarding the expected pain relief. However, longevity, and long-term outcomes warrant further study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关节镜下拇指基底关节炎清创术、梯形切除术和关节置换术的临床意义:疼痛评分改善的 Meta 分析。
简介一项荟萃分析比较了关节镜清创术(AD)、梯形切除术(TRAP)和关节置换术(JR)对基底拇指关节炎(BTJA)患者疼痛评分变化的影响:方法:检索了四个数据库,以了解对拇指关节炎(BTJA)进行手术治疗后疼痛结果的研究。采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)报告疼痛评分,并与预先设定的最小临床意义差异(MCID)阈值 1.65 进行比较:18项研究纳入了2010年至2023年间接受AD(n=102,13%)、TRAP(n=428,56%)和JR(n=233,31%)治疗的763名患者,平均随访时间为38±28个月。共分为 25 组,包括 4 组 AD、14 组 TRAP 和 7 组 JR。所有组别术前和术后 VAS 疼痛的平均差异为 4.9 ± 2。Meta 分析表明,AD 组的 VAS 平均值为 3.6(95%CI,1.79-5.38),TRAP 组为 5.1(95%CI,4.20-6.02),JR 组为 6.8(95%CI,5.93-7.97)。方差分析显示组间差异显著(P=0.016)。事后检验显示,AD 和 JR 之间存在明显差异(P=0.014)。在所有手术干预中,疼痛评分均有明显改善,超过了 MCID 临界值。AD的疼痛评分变化是MCID的2.6倍,TRAP是2.9倍,JR是3.6倍:结论:所有干预措施都能明显改善疼痛。治疗方案和改善效果的差异取决于患者的选择和外科医生的偏好。这些数据可用于向患者提供有关预期疼痛缓解的建议。不过,对治疗的持久性和长期效果还需要进一步研究。
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 去求助
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
期刊最新文献
3D quantitative CT study to assess rotator cuff muscle fatty infiltration. Alkaptonuric Ochronosis: A case-based review. Chronic regional pain syndrome following calcaneal fractures: what causes it and how may Vitamin C aid? Clinical Significance of Arthroscopic Debridement, Trapeziectomy, and Joint Replacement for Basilar Thumb Joint Arthritis: A Meta-analysis of Pain Score Improvements. Cost analysis of total knee arthroplasty surgeries in Turkey.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1