Rioux-Forker, Dana

Abstract Background The inclusion of the third carpometacarpal (CMC) joint in the fusion mass in total wrist fusion (TWF) remains controversial. Our goal was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and effects of third CMC joint arthrodesis compared with bridging the CMC joint during TWF. A retrospective chart review was performed. Outcomes assessed included hardware loosening, hardware failure, symptomatic hardware necessitating removal, and need for revision arthrodesis. Case Description/Literature Review We found that concomitant third CMC joint arthrodesis was associated with a significantly reduced rate of radiocarpal and midcarpal joint nonunion, hardware loosening, and symptomatic hardware removal when compared to bridging of the CMC joint. There was no significant difference in hardware failure rates or the need for revision arthrodesis. Clinical Relevance When using a contoured dorsal spanning plate, concomitant CMC joint arthrodesis should be considered during TWF to mitigate against hardware loosening and symptomatic hardware. Level of Evidence Level IV

Abstract Background Some surgeons advocate for concomitant proximal row carpectomy (PRC) with total wrist arthrodesis (TWA), though there are limited data to support or oppose this view. Questions/Purposes Does concomitant PRC improve rates of union, revision, hardware loosening, hardware failure, and hardware removal in TWA? Patients and Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TWA with and without concomitant PRC between January 2008 and December 2018 was undertaken. Patients were included if they underwent TWA using a dorsal spanning plate. Patients were excluded if they underwent partial wrist arthrodesis, revision TWA, or TWA with nondorsal spanning plate fixation. Results A total of 183 wrists in 180 patients were included in the study, 96 (52.5%) in the TWA only and 87 (47.5%) in the TWA + PRC groups. Median clinical and radiographic follow-up was 18.0 months (3.0–133.0 months) in the TWA + PRC group and 18.5 months (2.0–126.0 months) in the TWA only group (p = 0.907). No difference in nonunion (TWA + PRC: 13/87 [14.9%], TWA only: 18/96 [18.8%], odds ratio: 0.76, p = 0.494), revision (TWA + PRC: 5/87 [5.75%], TWA only: 8/96 [8.33%], hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73, p = 0.586), loosening (TWA + PRC: 4/87 [4.60%], TWA only: 6/96 [6.25%], HR: 0.74, p = 0.646), failure (TWA + PRC: 5/87 [5.75%], TWA only: 4/96 [4.17%], HR: 1.55, p = 0.530), and removal (TWA + PRC: 12/87 [13.8%], TWA only: 16/96 [16.7%], HR: 0.84, p = 0.634) were identified. Conclusion Concomitant PRC might not improve rates of union or diminish complications in patient undergoing TWA. The role of PRC and the rationale for its use in TWA need to be individualized and discussed with patients prior to surgery. Level of Evidence This is a Level IV, therapeutic study.

Distal radius fractures are one of the most common upper extremity injuries seen by hand surgeons each year. Many of these fractures require reduction and surgical fixation because of displacement, comminution or inherent fracture instability. New hardware is designed and introduced each year to help surgeons manage these injuries. We report a case of a major complication from the use of the Dorsal Nail Plate hardware. The patient presented to our clinic with an extensor pollicis longus attrition rupture, which required tendon transfer for treatment. Intraoperatively, we also found ongoing extensor digitorum communis tendon attrition, myostatic atrophy of the extensor pollicus longus and ultimately a large bony defect following complex hardware removal. This case serves as a reminder to consider the potential complication profile of any hardware or technique you are considering using in your patients and to evaluate donor muscles and tendons when performing grafting or transfers.