Pinder E M, Chee K G, Hayton M, Murali S R, Talwalkar S C, Trail I A
Upper Limb Unit, Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, United Kingdom.
J Wrist Surg. 2018 Feb;7(1):18-23. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1603320. Epub 2017 May 15.
This study aims to report the 5-year survivorship of revision wrist arthroplasties and to report midterm clinical and radiological results. All patients receiving a revision wrist arthroplasty in our unit between January 1, 1997 and October 31, 2010 were identified, and clinical notes retrospectively analyzed for Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (quickDASH), Patient Evaluation Method (PEM), Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), the range of movement, and visual analog score (VAS). In cases where patient review had not occurred within the past year, they were invited for assessment, and this data was included in the analysis. Plain radiographs were analyzed for loosening of each component. The 5-year survival was plotted using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Of the 19 patients identified, 1 was lost to follow-up and therefore excluded from all analyses. Mean age at revision wrist arthroplasty was 55.8 years and the mean time from primary to revision wrist arthroplasty was 6.7 years. At revision arthroplasty, 7 patients received the Biaxial implant (DePuy, Inc., Warsaw, IN) and 11 received the Universal II implant (Integra, Inc., Plainsboro, NJ). The 5-year implant revision survivorship was 83%. Depending on the variable of interest, clinical data were available for either three, four or five patients. At final follow-up (mean: 10.4 years), mean visual analog score was 2.9, mean quickDASH 57, mean PEM 49, mean PRWE 61, and mean arc of flexion/extension was 26 degrees. Radiological data were available for 12 patients, with evidence of gross loosening present in around 60% of the carpal components and 50% of the radial components at mean 6.7 years. Revision wrist replacement implant survival is acceptable, but the majority of the surviving implants are radiologically loose. It is not clear at this time whether they are better or worse than a fusion after a failed primary wrist arthroplasty. It is reasonable to offer revision wrist arthroplasty in selective cases, but regular clinical and radiological follow-up is recommended.
本研究旨在报告翻修腕关节置换术的5年生存率,并报告中期临床和影像学结果。 确定了1997年1月1日至2010年10月31日期间在本单位接受翻修腕关节置换术的所有患者,并对临床记录进行回顾性分析,以评估上肢、肩部和手部功能障碍快速评估量表(quickDASH)、患者评估方法(PEM)、患者自评腕关节评估(PRWE)、活动范围和视觉模拟评分(VAS)。对于过去一年未进行患者复查的病例,邀请他们进行评估,并将这些数据纳入分析。对X线平片进行分析,以评估每个组件的松动情况。采用Kaplan-Meier分析绘制5年生存率曲线。 在确定的19例患者中,1例失访,因此被排除在所有分析之外。翻修腕关节置换术时的平均年龄为55.8岁,初次腕关节置换术至翻修腕关节置换术的平均时间为6.7年。在翻修关节置换术时,7例患者接受了双轴植入物(DePuy公司,印第安纳州华沙),11例患者接受了通用II型植入物(Integra公司,新泽西州普林斯顿平原boro)。植入物的5年翻修生存率为83%。根据感兴趣的变量,有三、四或五例患者可获得临床数据。在最终随访时(平均:10.4年),平均视觉模拟评分为2.9,平均quickDASH为57,平均PEM为49,平均PRWE为61,平均屈伸弧度为26度。有12例患者可获得影像学数据,平均6.7年时,约60%的腕骨组件和50%的桡骨组件出现明显松动迹象。 翻修腕关节置换植入物的生存率是可以接受的,但大多数存活的植入物在影像学上表现为松动。目前尚不清楚它们在初次腕关节置换失败后是否比融合术更好或更差。 在选择性病例中进行翻修腕关节置换术是合理的,但建议进行定期的临床和影像学随访。