Alejandro Marquez-Lara1, Fiesky A Nuñez3, Tunc Kiymaz1, Fiesky A Nuñez3, Zhongyu Li1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. Electronic address: fnunez@wakehealth.edu. 3. Hand and Upper Extremity Unit, Centro Medico Guerra Mendez, Valencia, Venezuela.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes and complication rates of diaphyseal and metaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomies for the treatment of ulnar abutment syndrome. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study comparing 35 patients who underwent either a metaphyseal (n = 14) or diaphyseal (n = 21) osteotomy. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared. Complication rates including infection, hardware removal, and reoperations were also assessed. RESULTS: There were no differences in patient characteristics, ulnar variance, or pain and functional scores between groups. Metaphyseal osteotomy surgery time was shorter (45.5 vs 71.7 minutes) and resulted in greater ulnar shortening (4.8 vs 3.4 mm) compared with diaphyseal osteotomies. At an average 19.2-month follow-up, metaphyseal osteotomies were associated with greater improvement in pain and Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire scores. The need for implant removal was the same in both groups. There were no complications in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that metaphyseal osteotomies are a safe and effective alternative to diaphyseal osteotomies for the management of ulnar abutment syndrome. Although improved surgical time and postoperative outcomes are encouraging, further large-scale and properly powered studies with long-term outcomes will help characterize the benefit of one technique over another. Ultimately, the decision between a metaphyseal and diaphyseal osteotomy may be surgeon preference. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes and complication rates of diaphyseal and metaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomies for the treatment of ulnar abutment syndrome. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study comparing 35 patients who underwent either a metaphyseal (n = 14) or diaphyseal (n = 21) osteotomy. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared. Complication rates including infection, hardware removal, and reoperations were also assessed. RESULTS: There were no differences in patient characteristics, ulnar variance, or pain and functional scores between groups. Metaphyseal osteotomy surgery time was shorter (45.5 vs 71.7 minutes) and resulted in greater ulnar shortening (4.8 vs 3.4 mm) compared with diaphyseal osteotomies. At an average 19.2-month follow-up, metaphyseal osteotomies were associated with greater improvement in pain and Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire scores. The need for implant removal was the same in both groups. There were no complications in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that metaphyseal osteotomies are a safe and effective alternative to diaphyseal osteotomies for the management of ulnar abutment syndrome. Although improved surgical time and postoperative outcomes are encouraging, further large-scale and properly powered studies with long-term outcomes will help characterize the benefit of one technique over another. Ultimately, the decision between a metaphyseal and diaphyseal osteotomy may be surgeon preference. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
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