Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
J Hand Surg Am. 2024 Jul;49(7):633-638. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.01.011. Epub 2024 Feb 27.
Although proximal row carpectomy (PRC) has increasingly been shown to have superior features to four-corner fusion (4CF), individual surgeons may remain convinced of the superiority of one procedure based on personal experience and individual biases. Hence, we sought to perform an updated meta-analysis with some of the largest studies to date to compare outcomes and complications between these procedures in the treatment of scapholunate advanced collapse and scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse wrists.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried for articles on PRC and 4CF performed for scapholunate advanced collapse and scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse wrist. Primary outcomes included wrist range of motion; grip strength; outcome measures, including Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores, Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation, and visual analog scale pain scores; and surgical complications.
Sixty-one studies reported on 3,174 wrists, of which 54% were treated with PRC and 46% were treated with 4CF. The weighted mean follow-up was 61 months (range, 12-216 months). Meta-analysis comparing PRC and 4CF demonstrated that PRC had significantly greater postoperative extension; ulnar deviation; postoperative improvement in extension, flexion, ulnar deviation; and visual analog scale score. No comparisons showed significant differences in grip strength. The percentage of wrists requiring arthrodesis was 5.2% for PRC and 11% for 4CF. There was an 8.9% (57/640 wrists) 4CF nonunion rate and 2.2% (17/789) hardware removal rate after 4CF.
In the treatment of scapholunate advanced collapse and scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse wrists, PRC results in better outcomes and a lower complication rate compared to 4CF.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
尽管近端腕骨切除术(PRC)在各方面已逐渐显示出优于四角融合术(4CF)的优势,但由于个人经验和个人偏见的原因,个别外科医生可能仍然认为其中一种手术更具优势。因此,我们旨在进行一项更新的荟萃分析,其中包括一些迄今为止最大的研究,以比较这两种手术治疗月骨周围腕骨不稳定和舟状骨骨不连伴月骨周围骨关节炎腕关节的结果和并发症。
按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目进行系统评价和荟萃分析。通过 PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 检索有关 PRC 和 4CF 治疗月骨周围腕骨不稳定和舟状骨骨不连伴月骨周围骨关节炎腕关节的文章。主要结局指标包括腕关节活动范围;握力;包括上肢功能障碍问卷(DASH)和快速上肢功能障碍问卷(QuickDASH)评分、患者报告的腕关节和手评估(PRWHE)和视觉模拟评分(VAS)在内的结局测量;以及手术并发症。
61 项研究报告了 3174 个腕关节,其中 54%采用 PRC 治疗,46%采用 4CF 治疗。加权平均随访时间为 61 个月(范围,12-216 个月)。比较 PRC 和 4CF 的荟萃分析显示,PRC 术后伸展度、尺偏度显著增加;术后伸展、屈曲、尺偏度均有明显改善;VAS 评分也明显降低。握力比较无显著差异。PRC 组需要融合的腕关节比例为 5.2%,4CF 组为 11%。4CF 组非愈合率为 8.9%(57/640 腕),4CF 组内固定取出率为 2.2%(17/789 腕)。
在治疗月骨周围腕骨不稳定和舟状骨骨不连伴月骨周围骨关节炎腕关节时,PRC 与 4CF 相比,结果更好,并发症发生率更低。
研究类型/证据水平:治疗性 IV 级。