近端排骨切除术与四角关节固定术:一项回顾性比较研究。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery Pub Date : 2024-05-20 DOI:10.2340/jphs.v59.18338
Richard Chan, Justine Goursat, Mathilde Payen, Matthieu Lalevée, Kamel Guelmi
{"title":"近端排骨切除术与四角关节固定术:一项回顾性比较研究。","authors":"Richard Chan, Justine Goursat, Mathilde Payen, Matthieu Lalevée, Kamel Guelmi","doi":"10.2340/jphs.v59.18338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Four-corner arthrodesis with scaphoid excision (FCA) and proximal row carpal resection (PRC) are frequently performed in wrists with post-traumatic Scaphoid Non- Union Advanced Collapse (SNAC)/Scapho-Lunate Advanced Collapse (SLAC) osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective cohort study included all patients who had PRC or FCA between January 1st, 2009 and January 1st, 2019 and who were followed up. Follow-up included: mobility (radial deviation, ulnar deviation, flexion, extension), strength (grip test, pinch test), function (QuickDash, patient-rated wrist evaluation [PRWE]), subjective mobility, and global satisfaction scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 25 patients included, 11 had PRC and 14 had FCA with a mean follow-up of 69.5 months [12-132]. Radial deviation was 18° versus 14° (p = 0.7), ulnar deviation was 21° versus 22° (p = 0.15), flexion was 39° versus 30° (p = 0.32), extension was 32.5° versus 29.5° (p = 0.09), grip test compared to the controlateral side was 72% versus 62% (p = 0.53), Quick Dash score was 12.5 versus 17.6 (p = 0.84), PRWE was 18.7 versus 17.6 (p = 0.38), subjective mobility was 7.8 versus 7.5 (p = 0.23), and satisfaction score was 8.7 versus 9 (p = 0.76), respectively, in the FCA group and the PRC group. Re-operation rates were 14% patients in the FCA group and 0% in the PRC group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found no significant difference between FCA and PRC on strength, mobility, and function in patients with post-traumatic SLAC or SNAC stage II wrist arthritis. Both FCA and PRC seem to be reliable surgical techniques with good outcomes with more revision in the FCA group.</p>","PeriodicalId":16847,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proximal row carpectomy versus four-corner arthrodesis: a retrospective comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Richard Chan, Justine Goursat, Mathilde Payen, Matthieu Lalevée, Kamel Guelmi\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/jphs.v59.18338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Four-corner arthrodesis with scaphoid excision (FCA) and proximal row carpal resection (PRC) are frequently performed in wrists with post-traumatic Scaphoid Non- Union Advanced Collapse (SNAC)/Scapho-Lunate Advanced Collapse (SLAC) osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective cohort study included all patients who had PRC or FCA between January 1st, 2009 and January 1st, 2019 and who were followed up. Follow-up included: mobility (radial deviation, ulnar deviation, flexion, extension), strength (grip test, pinch test), function (QuickDash, patient-rated wrist evaluation [PRWE]), subjective mobility, and global satisfaction scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 25 patients included, 11 had PRC and 14 had FCA with a mean follow-up of 69.5 months [12-132]. Radial deviation was 18° versus 14° (p = 0.7), ulnar deviation was 21° versus 22° (p = 0.15), flexion was 39° versus 30° (p = 0.32), extension was 32.5° versus 29.5° (p = 0.09), grip test compared to the controlateral side was 72% versus 62% (p = 0.53), Quick Dash score was 12.5 versus 17.6 (p = 0.84), PRWE was 18.7 versus 17.6 (p = 0.38), subjective mobility was 7.8 versus 7.5 (p = 0.23), and satisfaction score was 8.7 versus 9 (p = 0.76), respectively, in the FCA group and the PRC group. Re-operation rates were 14% patients in the FCA group and 0% in the PRC group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found no significant difference between FCA and PRC on strength, mobility, and function in patients with post-traumatic SLAC or SNAC stage II wrist arthritis. Both FCA and PRC seem to be reliable surgical techniques with good outcomes with more revision in the FCA group.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v59.18338\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v59.18338","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肩胛骨非联合晚期塌陷(SNAC)/肩胛-月骨晚期塌陷(SLAC)骨关节炎患者的腕关节经常需要进行肩胛骨切除四角关节固定术(FCA)和腕关节近端行切除术(PRC)。本研究旨在比较这两种手术的临床效果:这项单中心回顾性队列研究纳入了2009年1月1日至2019年1月1日期间接受PRC或FCA手术并接受随访的所有患者。随访内容包括:活动度(桡侧偏移、尺侧偏移、屈曲、伸展)、力量(握力测试、捏力测试)、功能(QuickDash、患者评定的腕部评估[PRWE])、主观活动度和总体满意度评分:在纳入的 25 名患者中,11 人患有 PRC,14 人患有 FCA,平均随访时间为 69.5 个月 [12-132]。桡偏差为18°对14°(P = 0.7),尺偏差为21°对22°(P = 0.15),屈曲为39°对30°(P = 0.32),伸展为32.5°对29.5°(P = 0.09),与对照侧相比,握力测试为72%对62%(P = 0.53),快速冲刺评分(Quick Dash)为0.5分。FCA组和PRC组的快速冲刺评分分别为12.5分和17.6分(P = 0.84),PRWE分别为18.7分和17.6分(P = 0.38),主观活动度分别为7.8分和7.5分(P = 0.23),满意度分别为8.7分和9分(P = 0.76)。FCA组和PRC组患者的再次手术率分别为14%和0%:本研究发现,FCA 和 PRC 对创伤后 SLAC 或 SNAC II 期腕关节炎患者的力量、活动度和功能没有明显差异。FCA和PRC似乎都是可靠的手术技术,疗效良好,但FCA组的翻修率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Proximal row carpectomy versus four-corner arthrodesis: a retrospective comparative study.

Background: Four-corner arthrodesis with scaphoid excision (FCA) and proximal row carpal resection (PRC) are frequently performed in wrists with post-traumatic Scaphoid Non- Union Advanced Collapse (SNAC)/Scapho-Lunate Advanced Collapse (SLAC) osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of these two procedures.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study included all patients who had PRC or FCA between January 1st, 2009 and January 1st, 2019 and who were followed up. Follow-up included: mobility (radial deviation, ulnar deviation, flexion, extension), strength (grip test, pinch test), function (QuickDash, patient-rated wrist evaluation [PRWE]), subjective mobility, and global satisfaction scores.

Results: Among 25 patients included, 11 had PRC and 14 had FCA with a mean follow-up of 69.5 months [12-132]. Radial deviation was 18° versus 14° (p = 0.7), ulnar deviation was 21° versus 22° (p = 0.15), flexion was 39° versus 30° (p = 0.32), extension was 32.5° versus 29.5° (p = 0.09), grip test compared to the controlateral side was 72% versus 62% (p = 0.53), Quick Dash score was 12.5 versus 17.6 (p = 0.84), PRWE was 18.7 versus 17.6 (p = 0.38), subjective mobility was 7.8 versus 7.5 (p = 0.23), and satisfaction score was 8.7 versus 9 (p = 0.76), respectively, in the FCA group and the PRC group. Re-operation rates were 14% patients in the FCA group and 0% in the PRC group.

Conclusion: This study found no significant difference between FCA and PRC on strength, mobility, and function in patients with post-traumatic SLAC or SNAC stage II wrist arthritis. Both FCA and PRC seem to be reliable surgical techniques with good outcomes with more revision in the FCA group.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
108
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of the Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery is to serve as an international forum for plastic surgery, hand surgery and related research. Interest is focused on original articles on basic research and clinical evaluation. The scope of the journal comprises: • Articles concerning operative methods and follow-up studies • Research articles on subjects related to plastic and hand surgery • Articles on cranio-maxillofacial surgery, including cleft lip and palate surgery. Extended issues are published occasionally, dealing with special topics such as microvascular surgery, craniofacial surgery, or burns. Supplements, usually doctoral theses, may also be published. The journal is published for the Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica society and sponsored by the Key Foundation, Sweden. The journal was previously published as Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of nerve block and spinal anesthesia in second toe pulp free flap surgery for fingertip reconstruction. Spring-assisted posterior vault expansion in children over 2 years of age with craniosynostosis. Efficacy and safety of volar locking plate versus cast immobilization for distal radius fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Experimental study of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of random-pattern flap blood supply in the early postoperative stage in rats. Clinical efficacy of Ni-Ti memory alloy four-corner arthrodesis concentrator in the treatment of scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse: a follow-up of over 10 years.
×
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