Faster recovery from basal thumb arthroplasty with bone tunnel creation .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2014;2(22):13 J Hand Surg Am. 2014 Sep;39(9):1692-879 women aged 40 years and older diagnosed with severe stage IV osteoarthritis (OA) were randomly assigned to undergo ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) of the basal thumb joint using either the Burton-Pellegrini (BP) or the Weilby technique. The BP technique uses a bone tunnel at the base of the thumb, while the Weilby technique does not. The purpose of this study was to compare the short- and long-term pain and physical function outcomes of both techniques. Findings suggested the BP technique prompted faster recovery than the Weilby technique, with better clinical outcome at 3 months. Outcome at 12 months was not significantly different between groups.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
4/4
Aleatorización
3/4
Medición de resultados
4/4
Inclusión / exclusión
4/4
Descripción de la terapia
4/4
Estadísticas
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
Major impairment can ensue in patients suffering from osteoarthritis (OA) at the base of the thumb, particularly in patients with stage IV OA, due to further cartilage and ligament damage in addition to metacarpal subluxation. Ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) has been speculated to provide effective treatment of stage IV OA. Several techniques using different tendon grafts can be performed, such as the Burton-Pellegrini (BP) (bone tunnel) and the Weilby (without bone tunnel) techniques, but comparative studies are limited. This study aimed to compare pain, physical function, and complication outcomes between the two techniques.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
In the treatment of basal thumb osteoarthritis, how does arthroplasty with and without the use of a bone tunnel at the base of the first metacarpal compare in women with stage IV osteoarthritis at 12 months postoperative?
- Within-group comparisons of preoperative measurements at 3 and 12 months demonstrated significant improvement in both groups for PRWHE-pain (p<0.001), PRQHE-activities (p<0.001), PRWHE-total (p<0.001) and DASH (p<0.003).
- Patients in the bone tunnel group experienced significantly superior PRWHE-pain (p=0.02) and PRWHE-total (p=0.03) score compared with the no bone tunnel group, but PRWHE-activities (p=0.10) and DASH (p=0.08) did not differ significantly between groups at 3 months postoperative.
- Pain and physical function outcomes measured using PRWHE and DASH were not significantly different between groups at 12 months postoperative (p>0.05).
- Carpometacarpal extension was significantly superior in the no bone tunnel group than the bone tunnel group at 12 months postoperative (p=0.001).
- All other range of motion measurements, grip strength, complications, patient satisfaction, time to return to work/activities, and proximal migration outcomes did not differ significantly between groups at 3 and 12 months postoperative (all p>0.05).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
Pain and physical function outcomes were significantly improved at 3 and 12 months postoperative regardless of arthroplasty technique, however patients in the bone tunnel group achieved significantly superior PRWHE-pain and PRWHE-total scores than patients in the no bone tunnel group at 3 months postoperatively. The no bone tunnel group experienced significantly greater carpometacarpal extension compared with the bone tunnel group at 12 months postoperatively.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
Results from this study indicate a preference towards the Burton-Pellegrini (bone tunnel) technique to the Wieilby technique (no bone tunnel) in the treatment of stage IV osteoarthritis because of its superior pain and physical function outcomes in the short term, suggesting faster recovery can be achieved with the use of a bone tunnel. This study included a relatively homogeneous study group of women with IV osteoarthritis, so these results should not be assumed for the male population or less severe grades of osteoarthritis.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
