BACKGROUND: Dorsal capsulodesis and triscaphe arthrodesis are possible treatment modalities for patients with scapholunate dissociation. In light of overlapping indications for either operation for patients with carpal instability, it is important to compare the postoperative results. METHODS: From 1998 until 2002, we operated on 87 patients suffering from scapholunate dissociation. 52 patients were treated by dorsal capsulodesis after R. Berger and 35 patients were treated by triscaphe arthrodesis as published by Watson. Of these 87 patients, we managed to follow-up 77 patients (47 dorsal capsulodesis und 30 triscaphe arthrodesis) with a physical examination, X-ray of the wrists and Krimmer Score. RESULTS: In terms of grip-strength, range of motion, functional outcome (Krimmer Score), duration of the operation and hospitalisation, the dorsal capsulodesis group performed better (p < 0.05) than the triscaphe arthrodesis group at the time of follow-up. At follow-up, pain reduction was significant in both groups (p < 0.05). Krimmer Score (functional outcome) and the rate of complication was clearly better for the dorsal capsulodesis group as compared to the triscaphe arthrodesis group. CONCLUSION: In case of non-static scapholunate dissociation, dorsal capsulodesis should be the first choice treatment. In case of a young manually working man with static scapholunate dissociation, it should be a case-to-case decision whether performing a triscaphe arthrodesis or a dorsal capsulodesis. With this investigation we wanted to discuss and demonstrate the difficulties with the differential-indication for the two operations. Generally speaking the postoperative results did not depend on the type of scapholunate dissociation (dynamic versus static) but rather on the chosen surgical procedure.
BACKGROUND: Dorsal capsulodesis and triscaphe arthrodesis are possible treatment modalities for patients with scapholunate dissociation. In light of overlapping indications for either operation for patients with carpal instability, it is important to compare the postoperative results. METHODS: From 1998 until 2002, we operated on 87 patients suffering from scapholunate dissociation. 52 patients were treated by dorsal capsulodesis after R. Berger and 35 patients were treated by triscaphe arthrodesis as published by Watson. Of these 87 patients, we managed to follow-up 77 patients (47 dorsal capsulodesis und 30 triscaphe arthrodesis) with a physical examination, X-ray of the wrists and Krimmer Score. RESULTS: In terms of grip-strength, range of motion, functional outcome (Krimmer Score), duration of the operation and hospitalisation, the dorsal capsulodesis group performed better (p < 0.05) than the triscaphe arthrodesis group at the time of follow-up. At follow-up, pain reduction was significant in both groups (p < 0.05). Krimmer Score (functional outcome) and the rate of complication was clearly better for the dorsal capsulodesis group as compared to the triscaphe arthrodesis group. CONCLUSION: In case of non-static scapholunate dissociation, dorsal capsulodesis should be the first choice treatment. In case of a young manually working man with static scapholunate dissociation, it should be a case-to-case decision whether performing a triscaphe arthrodesis or a dorsal capsulodesis. With this investigation we wanted to discuss and demonstrate the difficulties with the differential-indication for the two operations. Generally speaking the postoperative results did not depend on the type of scapholunate dissociation (dynamic versus static) but rather on the chosen surgical procedure.