Journal of plastic surgery and hand surgery · 2016
Trapeziectomy or revision into a cemented polyethylene cup in failed trapeziometacarpal total joint arthroplasty.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Knak Jens, Hansen Torben B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Total joint replacement as treatment of osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint may lead to excellent short-term results, but also with a high risk of failure of the trapezium component. The aim of this study was to compare revision using trapeziectomy with a revision into a cemented trapezium cup.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients with a mean follow-up time of 47 months were included in a case control study with 17 hands revised with a cemented cup and 21 trapeziectomy.
RESULTS: At follow-up, no significant difference was found in self-reported outcome, with pain at rest or activity and in grip strength comparing patients revised using trapeziectomy with patients revised with insertion of a new cup. There was, however, a high risk of re-revision in patients treated with insertion of a new cup and at the follow-up 4/17 cups had been re-revised and 5/17 cups had radiological signs of implant loosening.
CONCLUSION: IT was found that trapeziectomy should be the standard salvage procedure after a failed trapezium implant and revision of cup loosening with a cemented cup has an unacceptable failure rate.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients with a mean follow-up time of 47 months were included in a case control study with 17 hands revised with a cemented cup and 21 trapeziectomy.
RESULTS: At follow-up, no significant difference was found in self-reported outcome, with pain at rest or activity and in grip strength comparing patients revised using trapeziectomy with patients revised with insertion of a new cup. There was, however, a high risk of re-revision in patients treated with insertion of a new cup and at the follow-up 4/17 cups had been re-revised and 5/17 cups had radiological signs of implant loosening.
CONCLUSION: IT was found that trapeziectomy should be the standard salvage procedure after a failed trapezium implant and revision of cup loosening with a cemented cup has an unacceptable failure rate.