Lunotriquetral Ligament Injuries: Arthrodesis or Capsulodesis

 

Group I – LT fusion

Group II – ligament reconstruction

p value

N

17

13
 
M/F

8/9

5/8

Age

32.6 years (10)

30 years (11)

Follow-up (years)

5.6 years (1.99)

2 years (1.5)

Satisfaction

8/9

8/5

0.43

Pain (VAS)

5.8 (1.84)

4.3 (2.69)

0.078

Function (VAS)

3.2 (3.83)

6.8 (1.84)

0.007*

Grip (in kg)

27.7 (12.37)

32.0 (16.29)

0.15

Extension

37 (21.3)

61 (18.5)

0.33

Flexion

40 (25.3)

55 (19.9)

0.44

Reoperation (Y/N)

11/6

3/11

0.02*


( ) standard deviation, *significant



In group I, a reoperation was required in 11 patients (29 procedures including removal of hardware), and in group II, it was necessary in 3 patients (three procedures) (Chi Square, p  <  0.05).



4 Discussion


Based on the observation that patients with congenital lunotriquetral coalition are usually without symptoms, LT arthrodesis has been the standard treatment option for LT ligament ruptures. The outcome however is not uniformly favorable, and complications are numerous. The rate of nonunion varies between 0 and 57 % [4, 9]. High complication rates are mostly due to technical errors: nonunion, neurapraxia of the dorsal branch of the ulnar nerve and midcarpal joint discongruency. Patient satisfaction was only 57.1 % in the series of Shin et al. The rate of complications, others than nonunion, varies between 22 and 46 % [5]. The outcome is very variable, and the evaluation of results in the published series is not very detailed. Sennwald et al. called the LT arthrodesis a “controversial” procedure [9]. On the contrary, Guidera et al. [4] in a recent survey had very favorable results in 24 patients.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

May 13, 2017 | Posted by in ORTHOPEDIC | Comments Off on Lunotriquetral Ligament Injuries: Arthrodesis or Capsulodesis

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access