Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27751779›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of hand surgery2016

Revision Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition for Trapeziometacarpal Arthritis: A Case-Control Investigation.

Anita Sadhu, Ryan P Calfee, Andre Guthrie, Lindley B Wall

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of hand surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anita SadhuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO.
Ryan P CalfeeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO.
Andre GuthrieDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO.
Lindley B WallDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO. Electronic address: camdene@wudosis.wustl.edu.

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in patient-reported and objective outcomes of revision ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) compared with primary LRTI.

methodsThis case-control investigation enrolled 10 patients who had undergone revision LRTI at a tertiary care center. All patients had previously undergone primary trapeziectomy with LRTI. Patients with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were eligible. All patients completed an in-office study evaluation. Controls (treated only with primary LRTI) were matched from our practice to reach a 1:2 case-control ratio. Outcome measures included Michigan Hand Questionnaire (primary outcome), Quick-Disability of the Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (QuickDASH) questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and improvement, and physical examination. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare patient groups.

resultsPatients who underwent revision LRTI reported significantly worse outcomes on all measured standardized questionnaires compared with primary patients. The Michigan Hand Questionnaire indicated worse overall outcomes (54 vs 79) as well as worse pain, appearance, and ability to complete activities of daily living. Compared with those who did not undergo revision LRTI, patients who did also reported more impairment (Quick-Disability of the Arm, Hand, and Shoulder, 47 vs 23), greater pain (VAS pain, 6.3 vs 1), and less improvement after surgery (VAS improvement, 2.7 vs 7.9). There was also a significantly higher rate of patient-reported depression in the revision LRTI group (50% vs 10% of patients treated with primary LRTI). We did not find a significant difference in objective outcomes of pinch strength, grip strength, and thumb palmar abduction between the 2 groups.

conclusionAfter revision LRTI, patient-reported outcomes indicate worse perceived function and greater pain than are expected following primary LRTI despite similar motion and strength. Revision surgery can be offered in the setting of persistent or recurrent symptoms, but patients should be counseled that improvement of symptoms is unpredictable. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansLigaments, ArticularMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritisOsteotomyPain MeasurementPlastic Surgery ProceduresPrognosisRange of Motion, ArticularReference ValuesReoperationBasal jointLRTIrevisionthumb arthritistrapeziometacarpal

Identifiers

PMID27751779
PMCPMC5138108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.