BACKGROUND: Thumb carpometacarpal joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis may hold advantages over trapeziectomy by preserving range of motion, whilst providing stability and preventing thumb shortening. METHODS: We compare functional and satisfaction outcomes scores, radiological shortening and complication rates between patients treated with trapeziectomy and those receiving the ARPE thumb CMCJ arthroplasty. RESULTS: Seventy-five trapeziectomies and one hundred and ten ARPE arthroplasties were performed over the study period. Both treatments resulted in significant improvements in functional scores. When matching patients according to pre-operative function, patients receiving the ARPE arthroplasty had better post-operative function (Quick DASH: trapeziectomy = 25.1, ARPE = 16.8). More patients receiving the ARPE arthroplasty were satisfied with their treatment (trapeziectomy = 7.8/10, ARPE = 8.7/10) and would have the same treatment again (trapeziectomy = 76%, ARPE = 89%). The ARPE also resulted in less thumb shortening. However the ARPE arthroplasty is associated with a higher complication rate, with 14% of patients requiring further surgery at a mean of 2 years follow up (95% implant survival). CONCLUSIONS: Both trapeziectomy and the ARPE CMCJ arthroplasty are effective treatment options for thumb CMCJ osteoarthritis. Arthroplasty may offer potential advantages in terms of post-operative function and patient satisfaction. However the risk of complications and requirement for further surgery is greater and must be carefully considered during patient selection and pre-operative counselling.
BACKGROUND: Thumb carpometacarpal joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis may hold advantages over trapeziectomy by preserving range of motion, whilst providing stability and preventing thumb shortening. METHODS: We compare functional and satisfaction outcomes scores, radiological shortening and complication rates between patients treated with trapeziectomy and those receiving the ARPE thumb CMCJ arthroplasty. RESULTS: Seventy-five trapeziectomies and one hundred and ten ARPE arthroplasties were performed over the study period. Both treatments resulted in significant improvements in functional scores. When matching patients according to pre-operative function, patients receiving the ARPE arthroplasty had better post-operative function (Quick DASH: trapeziectomy = 25.1, ARPE = 16.8). More patients receiving the ARPE arthroplasty were satisfied with their treatment (trapeziectomy = 7.8/10, ARPE = 8.7/10) and would have the same treatment again (trapeziectomy = 76%, ARPE = 89%). The ARPE also resulted in less thumb shortening. However the ARPE arthroplasty is associated with a higher complication rate, with 14% of patients requiring further surgery at a mean of 2 years follow up (95% implant survival). CONCLUSIONS: Both trapeziectomy and the ARPE CMCJ arthroplasty are effective treatment options for thumb CMCJ osteoarthritis. Arthroplasty may offer potential advantages in terms of post-operative function and patient satisfaction. However the risk of complications and requirement for further surgery is greater and must be carefully considered during patient selection and pre-operative counselling.