| Literature DB >> 27026990 |
Walter Gomes Pinheiro Junior1, Renan Moukbel Chaim2, Henrique Bella Freire de Carvalho2, Walter Manna Albertoni3, Flávio Faloppa4, João Baptista Gomes Dos Santos5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the results from a series of patients who underwent surgical treatment for rhizarthrosis using the technique of trapezium resection associated with interposition of yarn from the long abductor tendon of the thumb.Entities:
Keywords: Arthroplasty; Osteoarthritis; Thumb; Trapezium
Year: 2015 PMID: 27026990 PMCID: PMC4799165 DOI: 10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30180-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Bras Ortop ISSN: 2255-4971
General preoperative data on the patients with rhizarthrosis.
| Patient | Age | Sex | Color | Side op | Bilat | Dom side | Profession | Time with symptoms | Previous treatment | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 55 | F | NW | L | No | R | Housewife | 24 | A + O | III |
| 2 | 48 | F | W | L | Yes | R | Manicurist | 36 | A + O + I | III |
| 3 | 51 | F | W | L | Yes | R | Housewife | 36 | A + P | IV |
| 4 | 53 | F | W | R | Yes | R | Sociologist | 48 | A + P + I | III |
| 5 | 46 | F | NW | R | No | R | Housewife | 58 | A + P | III |
| 6 | 49 | F | W | L | No | R | Housewife | 24 | A + I | III |
| 7 | 68 | F | W | R | No | R | Seamstress | 36 | A + I + P + O | II |
| 8 | 78 | F | W | L | Yes | R | Housewife | 12 | A + O | IV |
| 9 | 54 | F | W | R | Yes | R | Retired | 15 | A + P | III |
| 10 | 65 | M | NW | L | No | R | Retired | 24 | A + I | III |
F = female; M = male; NW = nonwhite; W = white; Side op = side operated; Dom side = dominant side;
L = left; R = right; Time with symptoms in months; A = anti-inflammatory agents; O = orthosis;
I = infiltration with glucocorticoid; P = physiotherapy; Bilat = bilaterality.
Figure 1Excision of trapezium bone.
Figure 2Yarn from long abductor of the thumb.
Figure 3Postoperative radiograph in pos¬te¬roanterior view.
Evaluation of the modules of the DASH questionnaire before and after the operation.
| Patient | M1 before | M1 after | M2 before | M2 after | M3 before | M3 after |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 50 | 45.83 | 30 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 43.75 | 62.5 | 32.5 | 58.33 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 62.5 | 6.25 | 52.5 | 6.66 |
| 4 | 0 | 43.75 | 18.75 | 37.5 | 64.16 | 44.16 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 18.75 | 42.5 | 15.83 |
| 6 | 100 | 0 | 68.75 | 18.75 | 41.66 | 1.66 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49.16 | 0.83 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 62.5 | 18.75 | 42.5 | 1.66 |
| 9 | 0 | 50 | 100 | 50 | 63.33 | 49.16 |
| 10 | 68.75 | 0 | 62.5 | 18.75 | 37.5 | 15.83 |
| Mean | 16.88 | 9.37 | 56.88 | 28.12 | 43.66 | 22.41 |
M1 – module 1 of the questionnaire;
M2 – module 2 of the questionnaire;
M3 – module 3 of the questionnaire
Buck-Gramcko scores for the objective and subjective data at the end of the follow-up.
| Patient | PA | RA | PP | Pain | Strength | ADL | Dexterity | Cosmetic | Again | General assessment | Total | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 34 | Fair |
| 2 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 32 | Fair |
| 3 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 54 | Excellent |
| 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 37 | Fair |
| 5 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 40 | Good |
| 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 42 | Good |
| 7 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 47 | Good |
| 8 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 36 | Fair |
| 9 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 38 | Fair |
| 10 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 30 | Fair |
| Mean | 5.4 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 4.4 | 2.7 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 4.2 | 39 |
PA = palmar abduction; RA = radial abduction; ADL = activities of daily living;
Visual pain scale.
| Patient | Before operation | After operation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.5 | 2.8 |
| 2 | 10 | 7 |
| 3 | 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 7 | 3.1 |
| 5 | 7 | 3 |
| 6 | 7 | 0 |
| 7 | 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 7.2 | 0 |
| 9 | 10 | 3 |
| 10 | 8 | 1.5 |
| mean | 7.77 | 2.04 |
Overall assessment on the patients who were operated.
| Patient | PG | TTP | LP | 3PP | RA | PA | OP | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |
| 1 | 26.0 | 15.0 | 2.5 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | 28.0 | 42.0 | 28.0 | 42.0 | 10.0 | 9.0 |
| 2 | 26.0 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 30.0 | 44.0 | 40.0 | 42.0 | 10.0 | 9.0 |
| 3 | 16.0 | 8.0 | 3.5 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 12.0 | 3.5 | 10.0 | 34.0 | 38.0 | 34.0 | 40.0 | 9.0 | 8.0 |
| 4 | 18.0 | 12.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 2.5 | 7.0 | 34.0 | 40.0 | 32.0 | 42.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| 5 | 26.0 | 12.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 30.0 | 40.0 | 30.0 | 42.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 |
| 6 | 20.0 | 12.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | 3.5 | 6.0 | 38.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 42.0 | 10.0 | 8.0 |
| 7 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 30.0 | 44.0 | 30.0 | 42.0 | 9.0 | 6.0 |
| 8 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 15.0 | 35.0 | 18.0 | 25.0 | 8.0 | 6.0 |
| 9 | 12.0 | 16.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 3.5 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 35.0 | 40.0 | 32.0 | 40.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| 10 | 22.0 | 24.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 28.0 | 40.0 | 36.0 | 38.0 | 8.0 | 10.0 |
| Mean | 18.2 | 11.3 | 3.3 | 5.5 | 4.5 | 6.6 | 3.5 | 4.6 | 30.2 | 40.3 | 32.0 | 39.5 | 9.3 | 8.5 |
PG:nalm grip strength in kgf (kilograms-force); TTP: fingertip to thumb tip pinch strength in kgf; LP: lateral pinch strength in kgf; 3PP: three-point pinch strength in kgf; RA: radial abduction in degrees; PA: palmar abduction in degrees; OP: oppositio
Figure 4Indices for trapezial space and migration of the first metacarpal, at rest and under stress, for patients 1 to 10.
Figure 5Radiograph showing the method for measuring the trapezial space and the first metacarpal.
Figure 6Postoperative radiograph showing the migration of the metacarpal during maximum stress of lateral pinch.