| Autor: |
Reigstad O; Orthopaedic Department, Martina Hansens Hospital, Baerum, Norway.; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway., Holm-Glad T; Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway., Korslund J; Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway., Grimsgaard C; Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway., Thorkildsen R; Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway., Røkkum M; Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. |
| Abstrakt: |
Background: Wrist arthroplasties have not achieved clinical outcomes comparable to those of shoulders and knees, being offered low-demand patients due to a high failure rate. In the 90s, there were no wrist arthroplasties available for high-demand patients. An experimental setup for the development of a new wrist arthroplasty intended for all wrist patients were done. A long-term final follow-up to evaluate the performance of the experimental arthroplasty was performed. Methods: A novel uncemented modular wrist prosthesis with conical threaded fixation, metal-on-metal coupling and ball-and-socket articulation was developed. In an experimental study, eight patients (7 men, 53 years of age) were operated between 2001 and 2003, to treat non-inflammatory primary or secondary osteoarthritis. Published mid-term results (7-9 years) demonstrated satisfactory function, but two arthroplasties were converted to arthrodesis due to infection. Results: At final follow-up 15-20 years after primary surgery, the remaining six patients still had a wrist arthroplasty (in three the original) in situ. The clinical results were good. Low pain (median = 0), Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QDASH median 11) and Patient Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE median = 14) scores were reported. Wrist active range of motion (AROM) was 64% and grip strength 86% compared to the opposite side. None regretted choosing arthroplasty knowing the outcome. Conclusions: Despite technical errors and the implementation of an incomplete prototype, this new concept for arthroplasty has demonstrated promising long-term fixation, a stable articulation with good range of motion, satisfactory function and pain reduction in high-demand patients. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic). |
