Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024
Reconstruction of an Early-Stage Scapholunate Advanced Collapse Wrist with the 3-Ligament Tenodesis Procedure: A Controversial Reappraisal.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dullemans Kasper N, van der Oest Mark J W, Hakkesteegt Stefanie N, Vermeulen Guus M, Zuidam J Michiel, Duraku Liron S, Feitz Reinier, Hand-Wrist Study Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that the 3-ligament tenodesis (3-LT) procedure is still sufficient-even in scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC) cases-to reduce pain and improve wrist function. The authors compared patient-reported outcomes of scapholunate interosseus ligament (SLIL) injury patients with SLAC, to SLIL injury patients treated with 3-LT, and then to patients who underwent proximal row carpectomy (PRC), as a control group.
METHODS: The authors included all patients with a traumatic SLIL injury and associated SLAC components treated with 3-LT and completed patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) questionnaires preoperatively and at 12-month follow-up. First, the authors compared matched patients with SLIL injury and SLIL injury with SLAC, stage 1 to 3, who received 3-LT. Second, the authors compared patients who received 3-LT with patients who underwent PRC, while having SLAC stage 2 or 3.
RESULTS: The authors compared 51 patients with SLAC to 95 patients with SLIL injury who had a 3-LT procedure, and 10 3-LT patients were compared with 18 patients undergoing PRC, given SLAC stage 2 or 3. In both analyses, the PRWE scores had significantly improved in all groups; however, no significant differences in PRWE were found between 3-LT in SLIL injury and SLIL injury with SLAC (6.9 points; 95% CI, -14.92 to 1.22; P = 0.096) and between 3-LT and PRC, given SLAC stage 2 or 3, 15.1 points (not enough power).
CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in PRWE between matched SLIL injury patients with or without degenerative changes treated with a 3-LT. Therefore, the 3-LT procedure seems to be a viable treatment option for patients with early-stage SLAC wrist.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
METHODS: The authors included all patients with a traumatic SLIL injury and associated SLAC components treated with 3-LT and completed patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) questionnaires preoperatively and at 12-month follow-up. First, the authors compared matched patients with SLIL injury and SLIL injury with SLAC, stage 1 to 3, who received 3-LT. Second, the authors compared patients who received 3-LT with patients who underwent PRC, while having SLAC stage 2 or 3.
RESULTS: The authors compared 51 patients with SLAC to 95 patients with SLIL injury who had a 3-LT procedure, and 10 3-LT patients were compared with 18 patients undergoing PRC, given SLAC stage 2 or 3. In both analyses, the PRWE scores had significantly improved in all groups; however, no significant differences in PRWE were found between 3-LT in SLIL injury and SLIL injury with SLAC (6.9 points; 95% CI, -14.92 to 1.22; P = 0.096) and between 3-LT and PRC, given SLAC stage 2 or 3, 15.1 points (not enough power).
CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in PRWE between matched SLIL injury patients with or without degenerative changes treated with a 3-LT. Therefore, the 3-LT procedure seems to be a viable treatment option for patients with early-stage SLAC wrist.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.