Literature DB >> 16473687

A comparative study of ulnar-shortening osteotomy by the freehand technique versus the Rayhack technique.

T M Sunil1, Thomas W Wolff, Luis R Scheker, Steven J McCabe, Amit Gupta.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the results of ulnar shortening by the traditional freehand method with those achieved by the Rayhack technique.
METHODS: A historical cohort of 95 patients (97 ulnas) who had ulnar shortening for the treatment of ulnar-impaction syndrome was evaluated. Forty-three patients (45 ulnas) were treated by the freehand technique and 52 patients (52 ulnas) by the Rayhack technique. Both groups were well matched in terms of age, gender, prior history of trauma, and associated injuries. The following variables were compared: duration of surgery, relief of pain, return to work, postoperative complications, time elapsed between surgery and return to work, union of the osteotomy, collinear alignment of the ulnar shaft, and alignment of the plate against the bone. These variables were compared by using the independent-groups t test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact test, as appropriate.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis of the compared parameters: duration of surgery, relief of pain, return to work, postoperative complications, time elapsed between surgery and return to work, and union of the osteotomy, showed that none was significant. There were no cases of malalignment of the ulnar shaft or malalignment of the plate against bone in either group. Our calculations show that one would need a cohort of at least 300 patients in each group to show meaningful differences between the groups provided the same proportions held true.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a trend toward a higher incidence of nonunion in patients who had the freehand technique although we were unable to show a statistical difference. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16473687     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2005.09.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hand Surg Am        ISSN: 0363-5023            Impact factor:   2.230


  8 in total

1.  Ulnar Shortening Osteotomy: Are Complications Under Reported?

Authors:  Samuel K L Chan; T Singh; R Pinder; S Tan; M A Craigen
Journal:  J Hand Microsurg       Date:  2015-09-23

2.  Effect of preservation of corticoperiosteal attachment on bone healing at osteotomy sites after ulna-shortening osteotomy.

Authors:  Yoshitaka Hamada; Koichi Sairyo; Naohito Hibino; Anna Kobayashi; Ryosuke Sato
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2015-03

3.  Subcapital ulnar shortening osteotomy.

Authors:  Mark Henry
Journal:  J Hand Microsurg       Date:  2010-01-08

4.  Nonunion and Reoperation After Ulna Shortening Osteotomy.

Authors:  Svenna H W L Verhiel; Sezai Özkan; Kyle R Eberlin; Neal C Chen
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2019-03-08

5.  Distal Metaphyseal Osteotomy Allows for Greater Ulnar Shortening Compared to Diaphyseal Osteotomy for Ulnar Impaction Syndrome: A Biomechanical Study.

Authors:  T David Luo; Michael De Gregorio; Andrey Zuskov; Mario Khalil; Zhongyu Li; Fiesky A Nuñez; Fiesky A Nuñez
Journal:  J Wrist Surg       Date:  2019-08-28

6.  Mid-term results following ulna shortening osteotomy.

Authors:  Duretti T Fufa; Michele G Carlson; Ryan P Calfee; Nandita Sriram; Richard H Gelberman; Andrew J Weiland
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2013-11-14

7.  Distal metaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy: technique, pearls, and outcomes.

Authors:  Joseph S Khouri; Warren C Hammert
Journal:  J Wrist Surg       Date:  2014-08

8.  Tips and tricks to achieve osteotomy healing and prevent refracture after ulnar shortening osteotomy.

Authors:  Jong Woo Kang; Soo Min Cha; Sang-Gyun Kim; In Cheul Choi; Dong Hun Suh; Jong Woong Park
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 2.359

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.