| Literature DB >> 35473677 |
Daniel Muder1,2, Torbjörn Vedung3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of an osteoarthritic distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) in patients with high physical demands and a long lifetime expectancy is challenging. A variety of methods like implant surgery and salvage procedures as partial or total ulnar head resection and the Sauve-Kapandji procedure are reasonable options in the elderly patient but not in young individuals since it often compromises manual power and stability and may cause impingement problems. Reconstruction of the DRUJ with rib perichondrium is a new treatment option with promising short-term outcome. The aim the present study was to investigate if the outcome is consistent over time.Entities:
Keywords: Arthritis; Cartilage; Distal radioulnar joint; Perichondrium; Reconstruction; Transplantation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35473677 PMCID: PMC9039597 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05335-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.562
Fig. 1Posterior-anterior (PA) view with conventional radiography (CR) in case 1 with preoperative signs of osteoarthritis in the DRUJ (A). An increased distance in the DRUJ at 2.5 years follow-up (B), and similar findings 5 years postoperatively (C)
Fig. 2PA radiographs in case 2 showing a reduced joint space in the DRUJ preoperatively (A). At 1 year follow-up, some of the subchondral bone appears uneven but the distance between radius and ulna is wide (B). MRI 2 years postoperatively revealed similar findings (C)
Fig. 4Preoperative CT in case 4 with an obliterated joint space in the DRUJ (A). Postoperative CR with an increased distance in the joint (B), which is confirmed with CT 2.5 years postoperatively (C)
Pre- and postoperative data
| Case | Year of surgery | Motion/Strength/ | Pre- | Follow up 1 | Follow up 2 | Follow up 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | 2011 | Supination | 70 | 90 | 90 | Unchangeda |
| Case 1 | Pronation | 50 | 75 | 90 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 1 | Flexion | 70 | 75 | 75 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 1 | Extension | 75 | 75 | 75 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 1 | JAMAR (KG) | 36 | 38 | 33 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 1 | Pain (VAS) | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Case 1 | DASH | 77 | 4 | 0 | 6.7 | |
| Case 2 | 2013 | Supination | 70 | 40 | 85 | Unchangeda |
| Case 2 | Pronation | 70 | 80 | 80 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 2 | Flexion | 75 | 70 | 75 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 2 | Extension | 60 | 75 | 75 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 2 | JAMAR (KG) | 26 | 27 | 28 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 2 | Pain (VAS) | 9 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| Case 2 | DASH | 77 | 27 | 5 | 0 | |
| Case 3 | 2014 | Supination | 30 | –– | 50 | Unchangeda |
| Case 3 | Pronation | 25 | –– | 50 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 3 | Flexion | 60 | –– | 60 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 3 | Extension | 65 | –– | 65 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 3 | JAMAR (KG) | 13 | –– | 21 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 3 | Pain (VAS) | 7 | –– | 5 | 5 | |
| Case 3 | DASH | –– | –– | 45 | 23.3 | |
| Case 4 | 2016 | Supination | 80 | –– | 90 | Unchangeda |
| Case 4 | Pronation | 80 | –– | 90 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 4 | Flexion | 75 | –– | 75 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 4 | Extension | 75 | –– | 75 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 4 | JAMAR (KG) | 24 | –– | 22 | Unchangeda | |
| Case 4 | Pain (VAS) | 9 | –– | 0 | 3 | |
| Case 4 | DASH | –– | –– | 7.5 | 15 | |
| Mean of all Cases | Supination | 62.5 | –– | 79 | Unchangeda | |
| Pronation | 56 | –– | 77.5 | Unchangeda | ||
| JAMAR (KG) | 25 | –– | 26 | Unchangeda | ||
| Pain (VAS) | 8.5 | –– | 1.5 | 2 | ||
| DASH | –– | –– | 14.4 | 11.3 | ||
aFollow-up 2021 by letter, Clinical values reported by the patients as changed/unchanged compared to the latest follow-up in 2016
bThe figures in column 5 are previously published in reference [11]. Reprinted with permission
Fig. 3PA radiographs in case 3 with osteoarthritis in the DRUJ (A). Computer tomography (CT) at 6 months follow-up showing a wide distance in the joint (B), which is unchanged 5 years postoperatively (C)