Home > DARE Reviews > Surgical management of primary thumb...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

Surgical management of primary thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Review published: 2011.

Bibliographic details: Vermeulen GM, Slijper H, Feitz R, Hovius SE, Moojen TM, Selles RW.  Surgical management of primary thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Journal of Hand Surgery. American volume 2011; 36(1): 157-169. [PubMed: 21193136]

Abstract

The aim of this article is to provide an updated systematic review on the 8 most commonly used surgical procedures to treat trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. A thorough literature search was performed using predetermined criteria. A total of 35 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Nine of these 35 articles were not included in previous systematic reviews. Systematic evaluation demonstrated the following: (1) there is no evidence that trapeziectomy or trapeziectomy with tendon interposition is superior to any of the other techniques. However, when interposition is performed, autologous tissue interposition seems to be preferable. (2) Trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction or trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) is not superior to any of the other techniques. However, follow-up in the studies with a higher level of evidence was relatively short (12 mo); therefore, long-term benefits could not be assessed. In addition, trapeziectomy with LRTI seems associated with a higher complication rate. (3) Because the studies on thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthrodesis were of less methodological quality and had inconsistent outcomes, we are not able to conclude whether CMC arthrodesis is superior to any other technique. Therefore, high-level randomized trials comparing CMC arthrodesis with other procedures are needed. Nevertheless, findings in the newly included studies did show that nonunion rates in the literature are on average 8% to 21% and, complications and repeat surgeries are more frequent following CMC arthrodesis. (4) A study on joint replacement showed that total joint prosthesis might have better short-term results compared to trapeziectomy with LRTI. However, high-level randomized trials comparing total joint prosthesis with other procedures are needed. In addition, there is no evidence that the Artelon spacer is superior to trapeziectomy with LRTI. We conclude that, at this time, no surgical procedure is proven to be superior to another. However, based on good results of CMC arthrodesis and total joint prostheses, we postulate that there could be differences between the various surgical procedures. Therefore randomized clinical trials of CMC arthrodesis and total joint prostheses compared to trapeziectomy with long follow-up (>1 y) are warranted.

Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...