Anita Sadhu1, Ryan P Calfee1, Andre Guthrie1, Lindley B Wall2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO. Electronic address: camdene@wudosis.wustl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in patient-reported and objective outcomes of revision ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) compared with primary LRTI. METHODS: This case-control investigation enrolled 10 patients who had undergone revision LRTI at a tertiary care center. All patients had previously undergone primary trapeziectomy with LRTI. Patients with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were eligible. All patients completed an in-office study evaluation. Controls (treated only with primary LRTI) were matched from our practice to reach a 1:2 case-control ratio. Outcome measures included Michigan Hand Questionnaire (primary outcome), Quick-Disability of the Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (QuickDASH) questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and improvement, and physical examination. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare patient groups. RESULTS: Patients who underwent revision LRTI reported significantly worse outcomes on all measured standardized questionnaires compared with primary patients. The Michigan Hand Questionnaire indicated worse overall outcomes (54 vs 79) as well as worse pain, appearance, and ability to complete activities of daily living. Compared with those who did not undergo revision LRTI, patients who did also reported more impairment (Quick-Disability of the Arm, Hand, and Shoulder, 47 vs 23), greater pain (VAS pain, 6.3 vs 1), and less improvement after surgery (VAS improvement, 2.7 vs 7.9). There was also a significantly higher rate of patient-reported depression in the revision LRTI group (50% vs 10% of patients treated with primary LRTI). We did not find a significant difference in objective outcomes of pinch strength, grip strength, and thumb palmar abduction between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: After revision LRTI, patient-reported outcomes indicate worse perceived function and greater pain than are expected following primary LRTI despite similar motion and strength. Revision surgery can be offered in the setting of persistent or recurrent symptoms, but patients should be counseled that improvement of symptoms is unpredictable. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: To test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in patient-reported and objective outcomes of revision ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) compared with primary LRTI. METHODS: This case-control investigation enrolled 10 patients who had undergone revision LRTI at a tertiary care center. All patients had previously undergone primary trapeziectomy with LRTI. Patients with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were eligible. All patients completed an in-office study evaluation. Controls (treated only with primary LRTI) were matched from our practice to reach a 1:2 case-control ratio. Outcome measures included Michigan Hand Questionnaire (primary outcome), Quick-Disability of the Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (QuickDASH) questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and improvement, and physical examination. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare patient groups. RESULTS:Patients who underwent revision LRTI reported significantly worse outcomes on all measured standardized questionnaires compared with primary patients. The Michigan Hand Questionnaire indicated worse overall outcomes (54 vs 79) as well as worse pain, appearance, and ability to complete activities of daily living. Compared with those who did not undergo revision LRTI, patients who did also reported more impairment (Quick-Disability of the Arm, Hand, and Shoulder, 47 vs 23), greater pain (VAS pain, 6.3 vs 1), and less improvement after surgery (VAS improvement, 2.7 vs 7.9). There was also a significantly higher rate of patient-reported depression in the revision LRTI group (50% vs 10% of patients treated with primary LRTI). We did not find a significant difference in objective outcomes of pinch strength, grip strength, and thumb palmar abduction between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: After revision LRTI, patient-reported outcomes indicate worse perceived function and greater pain than are expected following primary LRTI despite similar motion and strength. Revision surgery can be offered in the setting of persistent or recurrent symptoms, but patients should be counseled that improvement of symptoms is unpredictable. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III. Copyright Â
Authors: G M Vermeulen; S M Brink; H Slijper; R Feitz; T M Moojen; S E R Hovius; R W Selles Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 5.284