ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2023
Outcomes of Revision of Interposition Implant Trapeziometacarpal Arthroplasty.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplant arthroplasties for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis are often associated with high complication and revision surgery rates. There are no previous studies reporting revision outcomes of failed interposition implant arthroplasty.
methodsA patient register search was done for all implant arthroplasties performed for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis during a 10-year period in a single hand surgical unit. Altogether, 32 patients had primary interposition implant arthroplasty (Artelon 22, Pyrosphere 6, Ortosphere 2, and Pyrodisk 2), and 19 of these patients had revision surgery with 23 revision procedures performed. In all, 15 of the revised 19 patients were reexamined clinically (Connolly-Rath score, Quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand, patient evaluation measure, the visual analog score for pain, thumb range of motion and strength measurements) and radiographically.
resultsThe indication for revision surgery was pain alone or implant dislocation accompanied by pain in all cases. Thirteen of the revised 15 patients reported functional deficit and pain after revision. There was no statistically significant difference in the revision outcomes between patients operated on primarily with the Artelon implant versus pyrocarbon/ceramic implants. Compared to previous studies on revision surgery and primary trapeziometacarpal arthroplasty, our results showed slightly higher pain and poorer functional scores.
conclusionsInterposition implant arthroplasty may yield high revision rates. The results after revision surgery may be worse than previously described, and there may also be a tendency for worse results than those of primary arthroplasty. Interposition implant arthroplasty should always be thoroughly contemplated.
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.