ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2026
Short-term Complication Rate in Single- Versus Dual-Mobility Thumb Carpometacarpal Joint Arthroplasty.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Surgical therapy of conservatively exhausted rhizarthrosis - total joint replacement or resection arthroplasty? A systematic review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Differences in recovery time between trapeziectomy and carpometacarpal joint replacement: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-mobility carpometacarpal (CMC) joint arthroplasty shows good long-term outcomes but has a dislocation risk of 5% to 8%. Newer dual-mobility designs aim to reduce this risk. This study compares the early outcomes and complications of single-mobility Arpe (Zimmer Biomet) versus dual-mobility Touch (Kerimedical) CMC joint prostheses.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent CMC joint arthroplasty at our hospital from August 2018 to December 2022 by a single surgeon. We were able to obtain follow-up information on all included patients. The Arpe prosthesis was used between August 2018 and December 2020 (168 prostheses in 150 patients), while the Touch prosthesis was used from January 2021 onward (184 prostheses in 168 patients).
resultsMean age was 64 years in both groups. Mean follow-up was 26 months for the Arpe group and 31 months for the Touch group. The Arpe group had a 6.5% complication rate, including 7 dislocations (4.2%), 2 trapezial fractures (1.2%), 1 cup loosening (0.6%), and 1 revision for heterotopic ossification (0.6%). In the Touch group, the complication rate was 2.7%, with 1 dislocation (0.5%), 1 impingement on heterotopic ossification (0.5%), 2 cases of cup loosening (1.1%), and 1 symptomatic scaphotrapeziotrapezoid osteoarthritis (0.5%). All complications occurred within the first postoperative year. Implant survival rates were 96% for the Arpe group at 26 months and 97% for the Touch group at 31 months. Dual-mobility prostheses demonstrated significantly fewer dislocations (
conclusionThese findings support the use of dual-mobility prostheses to reduce dislocation rate in CMC joint arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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.