SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Conservative and surgical treatment of wrist osteoarthritis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2026. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWrist osteoarthritis leads to pain and functional impairment. Despite conservative treatment options, surgery remains a central therapeutic component. In Germany, the number of patients rose from over 472,000 cases in 2018 to more than 580,000 in 2024. This review examines the most common surgical treatment approaches, focusing on Proximal Row Carpectomy (PRC) and Four-Corner Fusion (4CF), discussing indications, contraindications and potential complications.
methodsA systematic and narrative literature review was conducted on treatment options for wrist osteoarthritis. The systematic review focusing on PRC and 4CF followed PRISMA guidelines and included searches in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase. Included were RCTs, systematic reviews and meta-analyses from January 2010 to May 2025 that compared both procedures in terms of pain, range of motion, grip strength, function, complication rates and reoperation rates.
resultsEight studies were included. Both procedures significantly reduced pain and improved function. PRC showed advantages in range of motion and lower complication rates, while 4CF was associated with higher grip strength. Partial arthrodesis (e.g., scaphotrapeziotrapezoid (STT) arthrodesis or radioscapholunate (RSL)) arthrodesis may be selectively used but are linked to higher nonunion rates. Total wrist arthrodesis or wrist arthroplasty may be considered in case of contraindications and individual situations.
conclusionPRC and 4CF are established motion-preserving procedures for wrist osteoarthritis, providing reliable pain relief and functional improvement, with current evidence favoring PRC in terms of range of motion and complication profile. Given the absence of high-quality comparative trials, procedure selection should be individualized, balancing disease severity, carpal stability requirements, and patient-specific functional demands.
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.