Journal of wrist surgery · 2022
Pyrocardan Implant Arthroplasty for Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis of the Thumb: A Comparative Study with a Historical Control Group.
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.
Jørgensen Rasmus Wejnold, Anderson Kiran Annette, Odgaard Anders, Jensen Claus Hjorth
Аннотация
Background New and improved surgical techniques are warranted to treat osteoarthritis of the thumb carpometacarpal joint (CMC-1). The Pyrocardan implant yields striking results but only few series exist, making the evidence scarce. Purpose The aim of this study was to conduct a prospective series using the Pyrocardan implant. Methods We compared the outcomes to a matched historical control group of patients operated on with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition. The hypothesis was that the Pyrocardan implant would yield better patient-reported outcomes as well as the procedure would be safe and effective in relieving symptoms of CMC-1 osteoarthritis. In total, 30 patients were included in the prospective series. These 30 patients were compared, in a 1:3 design, to a matched historical group. Results Results were promising with visual analogue scale scores of 0.7 (rest) and 2.1 (function), key-pinch score of 5.1 kg, and shortened Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score of 14.3 after 1 year when using the Pyrocardan implant. The revision rate was 10%. We found no evidence of subsidence of the thumb. We found no differences in patient-reported outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions In conclusion, the Pyrocardan implant is a viable option in the treatment of CMC-1 osteoarthritis but with a significant revision rate. When comparing the Pyrocardan implant to a historical control group, we failed to find any differences in patient-reported outcomes. Level of Evidence IV - case series.