0
Scientific Articles   |    
Ligament Reconstruction with or without Tendon Interposition to Treat Primary Thumb Carpometacarpal OsteoarthritisA Prospective Randomized Study
Gabriele Kriegs-Au, MD1; Gert Petje, MD2; Eva Fojtl, MD2; Rudolf Ganger, MD2; Ingrid Zachs, MD3
1 City Medical Center, Bauernmarkt 1/16, A-1010 Vienna, Austria. E-mail address: cmc@aon.at
2 Department of Pediatric Orthopaedics (G.P. and R.G.) and I. Department of General Orthopaedics (E.F.), Orthopaedic Hospital Speising, Speisinger Strasse 109, A-1134 Vienna, Austria
3 Department of Orthopaedics, Herz-Jesu-Hospital, Baumgasse 20A, A-1030 Vienna, Austria
View Disclosures and Other Information
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this work. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.
Investigation performed at the I. Department of General Orthopaedics, Orthopaedic Hospital Speising, Vienna, Austria

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004 Feb 01;86(2):209-218
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: Trapezial excision with ligament reconstruction and trapezial excision with ligament reconstruction combined with tendon interposition have proven to be highly effective techniques for treating primary osteoarthritis of the thumb carpometacarpal joint. To determine whether tendon interposition and proximal migration of the thumb metacarpal affect the objective and subjective outcomes, we compared the long-term outcomes of these two procedures performed in similar patient groups.

Methods: Forty-three patients (fifty-two thumbs) were randomized to undergo either trapezial excision with ligament reconstruction or the same procedure combined with tendon interposition. Fifteen patients treated with ligament reconstruction (group I) and sixteen patients treated with the same procedure with concomitant tendon interposition (group II) were evaluated after a mean follow-up period of 48.2 months. The outcomes were assessed with the Buck-Gramcko score, with the total score calculated on the basis of the objective and subjective results. The ability to perform activities requiring use of the thumb and to return to work was analyzed as well. Radiographs were evaluated to determine the amount of proximal metacarpal migration at rest and under stress.

Results: Postoperatively, the mean total Buck-Gramcko score was rated as excellent in group I and as good in group II (p = 0.036). Group I had significantly better mean scores for palmar and radial abduction, cosmetic appearance, and willingness to undergo the surgery again under similar circumstances (p < 0.05). The mean scores for tip-pinch strength and the mean subjective scores for pain, strength, daily function, dexterity, and overall satisfaction did not differ significantly between the groups. Both groups had satisfactory results with regard to their performance of activities of daily living and their ability to return to work. With the numbers available, the amount of proximal metacarpal migration, at rest and under stress, did not differ significantly between the groups.

Conclusions: Tendon interposition does not affect the outcome after the ligament reconstruction for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the thumb carpometacarpal joint. Furthermore, proximal migration of the thumb metacarpal does not appear to influence the functional outcome.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level I-1a (randomized controlled trial [significant difference]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Gabriele Kriegs-Au
    Posted on August 11, 2004
    Dr. Kriegs-Au responds:
    City Medical Center, Vienna, Austria

    To the Editor:

    I appreciate the kind comments of Dr. Mason about our work, and I wish to both clarify and respond to his objections regarding the conclusion of our long-term study as well as to his questions about our system of data collection.

    Our review of the literature of the past twenty years showed that the majority of authors have analyzed their results of ligament reconstruction, with or without tendon interposition, to treat osteoarthritis of the basal joint of the thumb on the basis of different assessment criteria. We therefore selected a standardized and well- established scoring system (1) to facilitate the comparisons with results of previous studies on surgical procedures for the treatment of osteoarthritis which have included the same assessment criteria, (2) to provide a quantitative measure that facilitates the comparisons between our patient groups, and (3) to facilitate the reproducibility of research data. The measurement instrument as described by Buck-Gramcko in 1994 is a standardized scoring system which is currently available to evaluate the overall operative outcome of surgical options for the treatment of the osteoarthritic trapeziometacarpal joint by producing a sum of points that can be easily rated as an excellent, good, fair, or poor surgical outcome. I admit that the Buck-Gramcko score has its limitations concerning the question about the daily function and the determination of the tip-pinch strength to the contralateral side. These shortcomings, however, were offset in our study by additionally analyzing the functional performance of ten tasks of daily living, by determining the postoperative employment status and activity levels, and by measuring the preoperative and postoperative tip-pinch strength values in our patients. Overall, however, the Buck-Gramcko score is an established scoring system with a high degree of patient-orientation which is well-balanced in its approach to collect and assess a considerable number of objective and subjective data.

    According to the guidelines of the original Buck-Gramcko method of assessment, the overall operative outcome is solely evaluated on the basis of the grade of the total score. The grade of the total score and the mean total score are two different categories which were analyzed separately in our study. Our results of the grade of the total score, as you can see in Table IV of our article, did not differ significantly after ligament reconstruction and after the same procedure combined with tendon interposition.

    The calculation of the mean total score, however, is not an integral part of the original Buck-Gramcko scoring system. In spite of this fact, we additionally did this analysis with the purpose to compare our result after ligament reconstruction with the outcome which was published by Mentzel et al.1 who calculated the mean total score as well. It is interesting, however, that this analysis resulted in a significant difference (51.3 points after ligament reconstruction versus 44.6 points after additional tendon interposition) between our two groups with the numbers of patients available. Yet, in evaluating this analysis, it is imperative to keep in mind that only a small number of patients were included in each treatment group and based on this relatively limited statistical power, we did not want to jump to conclusions.

    Despite the significant differences which with the numbers available were observed between our groups in some categories, this did not have an apparent effect on our results concerning the grade of the total score which, according to the original Buck-Gramcko method of evaluation, in fact assessed the surgical outcomes after ligament reconstruction and the same procedure with tendon interposition. In consideration of our assessment together with the fact that we noted no further significant diffferences between the two groups with regard to the additional measurements (presented in Table III and in Figure 3 of our article), we have drawn the conclusion that tendon interposition does not affect the long-term objective and subjective outcomes of ligament reconstruction for treatment of advanced osteoarthritis of the thumb carpometacarpal joint.

    Reference:

    1. Mentzel M, Ebinger T, Heckmann E, Merk SE, Kinzl L, Wachter NJ. [Results of basal joint arthrosis treatment-comparison of Epping ligament reconstruction with trapeziectomy alone]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2001;33:176- 80.German.

    Will T Mason
    Posted on June 10, 2004
    Ligament Reconstruction With or Wiithout Tendon Interposition for Primary Thumb Carpometacarpal Oste
    Dorset County Hospital, Dorchester, UK

    To the Editor:

    Kriegs-Au et al. are to be congratulated for publishing one of the few well-designed prospective randomised trial on this topic. However, I would like to point out that their data do not support their conclusion that tendon interposition does not affect the long-term objective and subjective outcomes of ligament reconstruction for treatment of advanced osteoarthritis of the thumb metacarpophalangeal joint.

    They clearly demonstrate a significant difference in the Buck-Gramcko scores between the two groups. This is accounted for by increased thumb mobility, better cosmetic appearance and greater willingness to undergo surgery again found in the patients who had ligament reconstruction only. The other components of the Buck-Gramcko score (pain, subjective strength, function, dexterity, overall assessment of the surgical outcome and tip pinch strength) were not significantly different between the two groups.

    I would consider these latter indices much more important in assessing the outcome of surgery for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Did the authors agree with this and therefore disregarded the overall Buck -Gramcko score in drawing their conclusion? If so, then this scoring system would appear to be an inappropriate method of assessing the outcome of these procedures.

    Will Mason

    Gabriele Kriegs-Au
    Posted on April 22, 2004
    Dr. Kriegs-Au and colleagues respond:
    City Medical Center, Bauernmarkt 1, A-1010 Vienna, Austria

    To the Editor:

    We are pleased that our article, comparing the long-term outcomes of trapezial excision with ligament reconstruction and the same procedure combined with tendon interposition, has raised the interest of Drs. Kuschner and Dr. Lane.

    We believe the technique of ligament reconstruction creates a strong stabilizing ligament which suspends the first metacarpal. It effectively minimizes metacarpal subsidence caused by the loss of bony support after trapezial excision, keeps the opposing articular surfaces apart, and prevents subluxation, thereby providing stability to the basal joint of the thumb.

    The strip of the tendon used in the Epping-Noack technique to establish the ligamentous suspension is firmly blocked within the canal in the first metacarpal base with trapezial fragments to counteract the tendency of proximal migration. We agree that some proximal metacarpal migration occurs even after trapeziectomy coupled with ligament reconstruction. It is of interest, however, that, after a considerable percentage loss of the arthroplasty space noted in both our patient groups during the first postoperative year, the proximal migration of the thumb metacarpal was less progressive by the four-year follow-up assessment.

    The observation that progressive metacarpal subsidence documented during the early postoperative period diminished over time and the excellent patient outcomes achieved on the Buck-Gramcko score suggest that ligament reconstruction has contributed to the suspension of the first metacarpal base, the preservation of the arthroplasty space, and the stability to the first carpometacarpal joint in an optimal way.

    The authors of previous reports on trapeziectomy without ligament reconstruction demonstrated preservation of an arthroplasty space in their patients at a mean of one year postoperatively as well (1-3). The short-term results suggest that vascular ingrowth may fill the trapezial void to form a fibrous tissue spacer. The literature, however, currently lacks the answer to the question of how fibrous tissue behaves within the trapezial void in the long term. It might act as an autologous gliding layer between the first metacarpal and the scaphoid which might protect the articular surfaces against attritional changes and abutment over time.

    According to our statistical analyses, the height of the arthroplasty space does not seem to be a decisive factor in postoperative pain, thumb strength or function after ligament reconstruction. Despite this statistical conclusion, which is of course limited by the small number of patients enrolled in our study, we think it is of utmost importance to preserve an arthroplasty space once the diseased trapezium has been excised and to prevent bony contact between the articular surfaces. The scenario of progressive metacarpal subsidence and instability of the trapeziometacarpal joint after trapeziectomy alone might be abutment and/or subluxation over time. The long-term consequences for the patient, we fear, might be severe pain and serious functional impairment. At present, due to the lack of long-term results on simple trapeziectomy, we favor the procedure of ligament reconstruction, but we welcome additional randomized long-term studies recruiting large numbers of patients and applying methodological criteria similar to those used in our recent paper to determine the effectiveness of trapeziectomy alone on the surgical outcome. We do agree that a technically easier procedure is to be preferred over other more complex surgical options if its benefits can be clearly supported by reliable and reproducible long-term data.

    Gabriele Kriegs-Au, MD, Gert Petje, MD, Eva Fojtl, MD, Rudolf Ganger, MD, and Ingrid Zachs, MD.

    Corresponding author: Gabriele Kriegs-Au, MD, City Medical Center, Bauernmarkt 1/16, A-1010 Vienna, Austria; E-Mail address: sandra.brezina@gmx.at

    References

    1. Belcher HJ, Nicholl JE. A comparison of trapeziectomy with and without ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition. J Hand Surg [Br]. 2000;25:350-6.

    2. Downing ND, Davis TR. Trapezial space height after trapeziectomy: meachnism of formation and benefits. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2001;26:862-8.

    3. Davis TR, Brady O, Barton NJ, Lunn PG, Burke FD. Trapeziectomy alone, with tendon interposition or with ligament reconstruction? J Hand Surg [Br]. 1997;22:689-94.

    Stuart H. Kuschner
    Posted on February 23, 2004
    Treatment of Thumb Carpo-Metacarpal Instability
    NULL

    To the Editor:

    Kriegs-Au et al., in their article entitled “Ligament Reconstruction with or without Tendon Interposition to Treat Primary Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis,” (2004;86:209-218) concluded that the degree of proximal migration of the thumb metacarpal may have no effect on postoperative thumb strength, function, and pain. At final follow-up, there was proximal migration of the thumb metacarpal compared to both the preoperative visit and the initial postoperative visit. Since this does not appear to affect ultimate outcome, we would be interested in learning the author’s opinion regarding the role and utility of ligament reconstruction. Why not trapezial resection alone (without ligament reconstruction or tendon interposition)?

    Stuart H. Kuschner, M.D. 9001 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 email: shkuschner@yahoo.com

    Charles S. Lane, M.D. 9001 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211

    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    12/26/2012
    Louisiana - Ochsner Health System
    04/17/2013
    Michigan - Confidential
    01/02/2013
    Pennsylvania - The Orthopaedic & Rehabilitation Institute at Allegheny General Hospital
    03/26/2013
    TX - The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston