ArticleActa orthopaedica2019
Revision of trapeziometacarpal arthroplasty: risk factors, procedures and outcomes.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Revision Thumb CMC Arthroplasty.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Determinants of patient satisfaction 5 years after dual-mobility trapeziometacarpal joint implant arthroplasty.The Journal of hand surgery, European volume · 2026Article
- CMC Arthroplasty for Treatment of the Painful and Arthritic Thumb: A Review of Surgical Treatment Options with Preferred Technique.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Review
- Cost-Utility Analysis of Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition Versus Suture Suspension Arthroplasty for Thumb Osteoarthritis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Reoperation Rate Following Thumb Basal Joint Arthroplasty: A Minimum Follow-Up Period of 5 Years.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Readmission and Reoperation Following Carpometacarpal Arthroplasty.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2023Article
- Outcomes of Revision of Interposition Implant Trapeziometacarpal Arthroplasty.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Trapeziectomy with Ligament Reconstruction and Tendon Interposition versus Trapeziometacarpal Joint Replacement for Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of wrist surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Substantial Increase in the Incidence of Surgery for Osteoarthritis of the Base of the Thumb Between 1997 and 2019 in Finland.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - Revision surgery after trapeziometacarpal arthroplasty is sometimes required. Varying revision rates and outcomes have been reported in rather small patient series. Data on risk factors for revision surgery, on the final outcome of revision, and possible factors affecting the outcome of revision are also limited. We evaluated these factors in 50 patients. Patients and methods - From 1,142 trapeziometacarpal arthroplasties performed during a 10-year period, 50 patients with 65 revision surgeries were retrospectively identified and invited to participate in a follow-up study involving subjective, objective, and radiologic evaluation. The revision rate, risk factors for revision, and factors affecting the outcome of revision were analyzed. Results - The revision rate was 5%. Scaphometacarpal impingement was the most common reason for revision surgery. Patient age ≤ 55 years was a risk factor with a revision rate of 9% in this age group, whereas an operation on both thumbs during the follow-up period was a negative risk factor for revision surgery. There was no difference in revision risk between ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition with or without a bone tunnel. 9 patients had multiple revision procedures and their final outcome did not differ significantly from patients revised only once. Most of the patients felt subjectively that they had benefited from revision surgery and the subjective outcome measures (QuickDash and pain VAS) and the Conolly score were in the same range as previously described for revision trapeziometacarpal arthroplasty. Interpretation - Age ≤ 55 years is a risk factor for revision surgery. The type of primary surgery does not affect the risk of revision surgery and multiple revision procedures do not result in worse outcomes than cases revised only once. Mechanical pain caused by contact between the metacarpal and scaphoid is the most common indication for revision surgery. In general, patients seem to benefit from revision surgery for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.