ReviewHand (New York, N.Y.)2026
A Comparative Analysis of Surgical Treatment for First Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review 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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFirst carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (CMC1-OA) is a common degenerative condition causing pain, functional loss, and reduced grip strength. While trapeziectomy remains the standard surgical treatment, reconstructive procedures and implant arthroplasties are increasingly used. However, differences in postoperative recovery between these approaches remain unclear. This study provides an indirect pooled comparison of reconstructive, non-reconstructive, and dual-mobility implant procedures for CMC1-OA.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical treatment of CMC1-OA were included. Procedures were categorized as reconstructive, non-reconstructive, or dual-mobility implants. Outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, hand grip, tip pinch, lateral pinch, and complications at 3- and 12-month follow-up.
resultsSeven RCTs comprising 409 hands were included. At 3 months, dual-mobility implants demonstrated the greatest reduction in VAS pain scores (Δ = 6.05), compared with reconstructive (Δ = 3.52) and non-reconstructive procedures (Δ = 2.86). Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores improved across all groups, most prominently in implant procedures (Δ = 29.48 at 3 months; Δ = 35.35 at 12 months). Strength outcomes varied between groups, though implants demonstrated the greatest improvement in lateral pinch strength at 12 months. Complication rates differed between reconstructive (20.61%), implant (24.49%), and non-reconstructive procedures (51.61%), though only 1 study reported complications in the non-reconstructive group.
conclusionAlthough 12-month pain and functional outcomes were comparable, dual-mobility implants demonstrated greater early improvements in pain, function, and lateral pinch strength. These findings suggest that differences may exist between surgical approaches for CMC1-OA.
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.