Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Santo André, SP, Brazil
Introduction
Scaphoid fracture is a complex injury, representing the most incident injury among carpal bones; sometimes, it is not diagnosed and evolves with high rates of complications, such as pseudarthrosis, necrosis of the proximal pole, and even osteoarthritis of the entire wrist. Pseudarthrosis, if untreated, causes a burden on the radial side of the carpus, promoting degeneration of the radioscaphoid joint, mainly in the radial styloid process, which leads to a local impact. With evolution, the outline of the scaphoid is worn down, which affects the scaphocapitate and capitolunate joints, causing proximal migration of the capitate and promotes carpal derangement,1–3 described as scaphoid non-union advanced collapse (SNAC). To guide treatment of this disease, the classification according to the stages of Watson and Ryu1 is used. The development stages are described as follows:
1. Stylo-scaphoid osteoarthritis – SNAC stage I;
2. Stylo-scaphoid + radioscaphoid osteoarthritis – SNAC stage II;
3. Stylo-scaphoid + lunocapitate osteoarthritis – SNAC stage III;
4. Stylo-scaphoid + lunocapitate osteoarthritis + radiolunate osteoarthritis – SNAC stage IV.
No published study has concluded which is the best method for treating this disease; arthrodesis carpectomy and four-corner fusion (FCF) are the most studied methods. These surveys show no scientific evidence,4–8 since they are retrospective studies, non-randomized, and include other degenerative diseases of the carpus, such as post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the wrist, Kienböck disease, and scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC). Other randomized studies9 that addressed the same conditions other than SNAC10 were also non-conclusive.
Only patients with the disease in stage II may undergo salvage surgery,2,11–13 which preserves some degree of movement, as do carpectomy14–18 and FCF.1,19–21 Patients in stage I should undergo reconstructive surgery, such as the correction ofthe scaphoid non-union3 and/or radial styloidectomy. Those who have radiographic changes of lunocapitate joint (stage III) cannot undergo carpectomy, only partial wrist arthrodesis.11,19,22–24 Patients in stage IV have the best treatment option in salvage surgeries, such as total fusion,2,11,25 or total wrist arthroplasty, whose indication is still controversial.26
Both for carpectomy18,27,28 and FCF, 29 studies presented satisfactory long-term clinical and functional results, with approximately ten years of follow-up. But there are still questions about what is the best method of treatment for patients with pain, loss ofhand grip strength, and range ofmotion limitation to perform daily life or professional activities. For these reasons, the authors decided to perform this clinical trial.
This study aimed to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of patients with stage II1 SNAC who underwent proximal row carpectomy (PRC) or FCF.
Methods
From 2005 to December 2014, 78 patients treated in the outpatient clinics of the Hand and Microsurgery Department and diagnosed with SNAC were evaluated. Only 27 met inclusion criteria and were included in the study; they underwent physical examination, plain radiographs in posteroanterior (PA) and lateral (P), computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the affected wrist. Inclusion criteria were adult patients aged 18–60 years, of both genders, with clinical and imaging diagnosis of SNAC (Fig. 1), in stage II, who signed the informed consent form and the conflict ofinterest protocol, as per the Research Ethics Committee decision. Patients with associated wrist diseases, such as bone metabolic diseases, or who had undergone any prior surgical procedure, or those who had bilateral conditions on the wrists, were excluded. Functional assessment was conducted by the professionals from the Hand Occupational Therapy Department of the institution, who did not have access to information regarding the group to which the patient belonged. Functional assessment was performed by measurement (in degrees) of the wrist range of motion with a single, specific goniometer; the measurement of grip strength was in kilogram-force (kgf), performed with the Jamar® device (hydraulic dynamometer).
Clinical analysis of pain was made with the visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10, for subjective evaluation. The assessment of quality of life was made with the DASH questionnaire.13
Randomization was done by drawing lots with a coin: heads, the patient would undergo PRC (Fig. 2); tails, FCF (Fig. 3). Therefore, patients were divided into two groups, A and B. Group A (heads) underwent resection of the proximal row (Table 1), with interposition of the dorsal wrist capsule.14–18
PRC surgical technique
Dorsal and oblique surgical approach, using the base of the second metacarpal bone and the distal radioulnar joint, was the same for both groups.
A single transverse opening of the dorsal capsule was made; a flap was created to contour the head of the capitate.15,16
At that moment, proximal carpectomy was made with the removal of the scaphoid, lunate, and triquetrum.
A radius styloidectomy, of at most 2 mm, was mandatory.
Then, the dorsal capsule was interposed and the flap was sutured in the palmar capsule, followed by sutures of the planes and skin.
Subsequently, postoperative fluoroscopy and radiographs of the wrist were made for post-operative control.
FCF surgical technique
Patients in Group B (Table 2) were treated using the FCF technique: they underwent two dorsal arthrotomies, one for resection of the scaphoid bone and the other for fixation of the four corners.
After the removal ofthe scaphoid bone and the preparation of the graft of the same bone, the four corners were opened. At this point, a thick cavity of similar thickness to carpal bones was created in the center of the four corners, where the scaphoid graft was placed. The four corners were prepared with a special mill provided by the manufacturer. The lunate and triquetrum were appropriately reduced with provisional Kirschner wires.
All four bones (lunate, capitate, hamate, and triquetrum) were stabilized with a special plate (conventional carpal button® by SBI®, or blocked carpal button by Biotech®) and screws.15–17
Postoperative period of Groups A and B
For completion of the procedure, wrist fluoroscopy and radiography were performed to assess the position of the implant and screws.
A plaster cast was made around the wrist, which was removed in the first week after surgery.
Patients were clinically and radiographically evaluated before surgery and then on a monthly basis. However, in the present study, only the preoperative and current values were used for statistical analysis. All patients underwent rehabilitation at the Hand Occupational Therapy Department of the institution, with the same protocol, from the first week after the surgery, when the immobilization was removed, until discharge from the department.
Group A comprised 13 patients with a mean of 32.38 years, who underwent PRC (Fig. 2). Group B comprised 14 patients with a mean of 40.43 years, who underwent FCF (Fig. 3). In the statistical analysis of the parametric variables, the Mann–Whitney test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank were used; the significance level ( p) was set at 5% (0.05). When a statistically significant difference was observed, it was marked with an asterisk (*); when the calculated significance
value ( p) was equal to or greater than 5% (0.050), a statistically non-significant difference was observed and it was not marked. For nonparametric variables, Fisher’s exact test was used.
Results
The values of Group A for range of motion were 68.50%, and for hand grip strength, 78.67%, both compared with the unaffected side; Group B, which underwent FCF, presented range of motion of 58.01%, and hand grip strength of 65.42%. The subjective assessment ofpain was 2.3 in Group A and 2.9 in Group B. The DASH score was 11 for Group A and 13 for Group B. In relation to return to work, 64.3% (9/14) and 84.61% (11/13) of patients in Groups A and B, respectively, perform some work activity (Tables 3–5).
The complication rate observed in Group A was 7.69% (1/13), a patient diagnosed with symptomatic osteoarthritis in the radiocarpal joint (Fig. 4) who required total wrist arthrodesis; in Group B, this rate was 7.1% (1/14), composed by a single patient with diagnosis of pseudarthrosis of the four corners and loosening of the screws. This patient was satisfied with his wrist functional outcome (Fig. 5)
Discussion
The present authors agree with Mulford and Krimmer7,11: these are the two most commonly used methods in the treatment of SNAC. Thus, both have their advantages.
According to the literature,4–7,18,19,29 FCF has as advantages in relationship to PRC the maintenance of carpal height and preservation of the radiolunate joint and, as disadvantages, the steeper learning curve, greater incidence of complications with the use of circular plates,19–21 and higher cost. According to Imbriglia,18 PRC does not preserve the midcarpal joint, and can lead to degeneration of the radius or the head of the capitate.
In order to protect the radio-capitate joint space, the authors chose to perform an interposition of the dorsal wrist capsule15,16 and earlier joint mobility, with the removal of immobilization after a period not longer than one week.17 However, other authors27,28 have observed long-term results of degenerative radiographic alteration on the radius or even on the head of the capitate, without clinical consequences. In the present study, one patient from Group A presented radiographic alterations ofthe radial lunate fossa, with clinical repercussions one year after surgery.
In the present study, carpal button® and bone graft in block were used for FCF. Mantovanni et al.,19 and Merrell et al.,20 who also used circular plates in their research, and suggested modifications to the technique, such as using block graft harvest from the scaphoid or metaphysis of the distal radius, showed superior results with lower rate of complication than that observed by Kendall et al.21 There were no statistically significant differences in functional parameters after one or ten years postoperative in patients who underwent FCF.29 In the present study, there was only one case ofpseudarthrosis of the four corners, with release of a screw in the carpal button. The range of motion in Group A (PRC) was 68.50% in relation to the contralateral side in the present study; Tomaino et al.4 observed 64%; Wryick et al.,5 7%; Cohen and Kozin,6 57%; DiDonna et al.,27 61%; and Jebson et al.,28 63%. In Group B, 58.01% of wrist range of motion compared to the non-affected side was observed; Tomaino et al.4 observed 41%; Wryick et al.,5 47%; Cohen and Kozin,6 64%; and Kendall et al.,21; 46%. The data for pronation and supination were not used because the present authors believe that the distal radioulnar joint is not affected in this pathology, which is also corroborated by other authors.1–3 When the results of hand grip strength in
Group A in the present study (78.67% of the normal side) are compared with the literature, Tomaino et al.4 observed 96%; Wryick et al.,5 94%; Cohen and Kozin,6 71%; Bisneto et al.,9 47%; Imbriglia,18 80%; Didonna et al.,27 91%; and Jebson et al.,28 83%. In Group B, the hand grip strength was 65.42% of the unaffected side; Tomaino et al.,4 observed 81%; Wryick et al.,5 74%; Cohen e Kozin,6 79%; Bisneto et al.,9 73%; and Kendall et al.,21 56%. There were no significant differences in clinical and functional results.
The complication rate was 7.69% in Group A and 7.1% in Group B; Tomaino et al.4 observed 0%; Jebson et al.,28 10%; Didonna et al.,27 18%; Cohen and Kozin,6 0%; Wryick et al.,5 11%; Kendall et al.,21 62.5%; and Imbriglia,18 3.7%. Radio-capitate joint degeneration is frequent7,27,28 (12/26 patients after ten years of follow-up) and asymptomatic in most patients,18 but one patient, an active adult who returned to work, evolved poorly with radio-capitate joint degeneration,7,12,18 and underwent total wrist arthrodesis.18,25 Although not statistically significant, the indication ofcarpectomy in young adult patients should be avoided. Group B presented inferior results when compared with studies that used circular plates, and similar results when compared with studies that used Kirschner wires and screws, perhaps due the improvement of the method and safety of the technique.7,12,19,20 The complication observed in the present trial was pseudarthrosis of the four corners; this patient declined revision surgery, as he was satisfied with his clinical and functional outcome.
As for the return to work, results were very similar to those from the literature. Return to work activities was observed in 69.23% of patients who underwent PRC in the present study; 86% in the study by Cohen and Kozin6 and 80%, in the study by Tomaino et al.4 Of the patients who underwent FCF in the present study, 57.14% returned to work; 100% in the study by Tomaino et al.4 and 86% in the study by Cohen and Kozin.6
There was no statistical difference between the groups for this variable. However, the authors believe that the abovementioned data presented objective and subjective values; therefore, they do not consider the result of the variable of return to work to be reliable.
When comparing both methods, the literature4–8,12 presents a slight superiority in all analyzed functional parameters of patients undergoing PRC, except for the studies by Cohen and Kozin6 and by Bisneto et al.,9 who observed better hand grip strength results for patients undergoing FCF.
To date, no article features only patients with the same initial condition of SNAC, which leads to wrist osteoarthritis. Most studies using FCF for the treatment of osteoarthritis did not standardize the wrist osteosynthesis technique for fixation of the four corners (which combines the use of Kirschner wires, compression bolts, or circular plates). Of the aforementioned studies, only one was randomized9; nevertheless, it did not standardize the initial pathology that progressed to carpal collapse. One study10 included only patients with SLAC and had shorter hospital stay and lower complication rate in favor of PRC; those authors suggested the use of this procedure for stages I and II. The study by Mulford et al.,7 a systematic review of 52 articles, also suggested PRC as the procedure with the lowest complication rate; the authors highlighted radio-capitate osteoarthritis, which in most patients is asymptomatic.
For these reasons, some differences in the variables studied may be observed when compared with those of the present study. Both are salvage surgeries that present functional and social limitations, with decreasing values in all criteria analyzed when comparing these wrists with the uninvolved side. In the comparison with other methods of surgical salvage treatment, such as arthroplasty and total wrist arthrodesis, the present study presented superior DASH scores when compared with the study by Anderson and Adams26 and superior return when compared with that by Weiss and Hastings.25
When compared to other procedures of partial wrists arthrodesis, such as radioscapholunate fusion, which allows for wrist mobility in the midcarpal joint, the results of the present study are also superior to that observed by Saffar,22 who observed 57% hand grip strength. Beyermann et al.23 observed a DASH score24 of 25.7. Dimitrios et al.24 showed good results in a retrospective study of modified midcarpal arthrodesis, wherein an iliac graft was used to maintain the carpal height, observing consolidation in all cases, without complications.
Conclusion
Patients had clinical and functional improvement ofthe wrist, increased hand grip strength, reduced pain, and improved quality of life after treatment of this disease with both methods used in this trial.
Clinical and functional results showed no statistical differences between the two methods.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
1. Watson HK, Ryu J. Evaluation of arthristis of the wrist. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;202:57–67. 2. Krakauer JD, Bishop AT, Cooney WP. Surgical treatment of scapholunate advanced collapse. J Hand Surg Am. 1994;19(5):751–9. 3. Mack GR, Bosse MJ, Gelberman RH, Yu E. The natural history of scaphoid non-union. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(4):504–9. 4. Tomaino MM, Miller RJ, Cole I, Burton RI. Scapholunate advanced collapse wrist: proximal row carpectomy or limited wrist arthrodesis with scaphoid excision? J Hand Surg Am. 1994;19(1):134–42. 5. Wyrick JD, Stern PJ, Kiefhaber TR. Motion-preserving procedures in the treatment of scapholunate advanced collapse wrist: proximal row carpectomy versus four-corner arthrodesis. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20(6):965–70. 6. Cohen MS, Kozin SH. Degenerative arthritis of the wrist: proximal row carpectomy versus scaphoid excision and four-corner arthrodesis. J Hand Surg Am. 2001;26(1):94–104. 7. Mulford JS, Ceulemans LJ, Nam D, Axelrod TS. Proximal row carpectomy vs. four corner fusion for scapholunate (SLAC) or scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse (SNAC) wrists: a systematic review of outcomes. J Hand Surg Eur. 2009;34:256–63. 8. Weiss KE, Rodner CM. Ostearthritis of the wrist: review article. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(5):725–46. 9. Bisneto EN, Freitas MC, Paula EJ, Mattar R Jr, Zumiotti AV. Comparison between proximal row carpectomy and four-corner fusion for treating osteoarthrosis following carpal trauma: a prospective randomized study. Clinics (São Paulo). 2011;66(1):51–5. 10. Vanhove W, De Vil J, Van Seymortier P, Boone B, Verdonk R. Proximal row carpectomy versus four-corner arthrodesis as a treatment for SLAC (scapholunate advanced collapse) wrist. J Hand Surg Eur. 2008;33(2):118–25. 11. Krimmer H, Krapohl B, Sauerbier M, Hahn P. Post-traumatic carpal collapse (SLAC- and SNAC-wrist) – Stage classification and therapeutic possibilities. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 1997;29(5):228–33. 12. Kiefhaber TR. Management of scaphulunate advanced collapse pattern of degenerative arthritis of the wrist. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(8):1527–30. 13. Jester A, Harth A, Wind G, Germann G, Sauerbier M. Disability arm, shoulder and hand DASH questionnaire: determining functional activity profiles in patients with upper extremity disorders. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(1):23–8. 14. Stamm TT. Excision of the proximal row of the carpus. Proc R Soc Med. 1944;38(2):74–5. 15. Fukushima WY, Faloppa F. Doenc¸a de Kienböck: ensaio clínico randomizado entre ressecc¸ão da fileira proximal do carpo com e sem interposic¸ão cápsulo ligamentar dorsal [tese]. São Paulo: Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) – Escola Paulista de Medicina; 2007. 16. Hughes TB Jr. Proximal row carpectomy and a modification for dorsal capsular interposition. Oper Tech Orthop. 2007;17:94–101. 17. Jacobs R, Degreef I, De Smet L. Proximal row carpectomy with or without postoperative immobilisation. J Hand Surg Eur. 2008;33(6):768–70. 18. Imbriglia JE. Proximal row carpectomy. Technique and long-term results. Atlas Hand Clinics. 2000;5:101–9. 19. Mantovani G, Mathoulin C, Fukushima WY, Cho AB, Aita MA, Argintar E. Four corner arthrodesis limited to the centre using a scaphoid one piece graft and a dorsal circular plate. J Hand Surg Eur. 2010;35(1):38–42. 20. Merrell GA, McDermott EM, Weiss AP. Four-corner arthrodesis using a circular plate and distal radius bone grafting: a consecutive case series. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(5): 635–42. 21. Kendall CB, Brown TR, Millon SJ, Rudisil LE Jr, Sanders JL, Tanner SL. Results of four-corner arthrodesis using dorsal circular plate fixation. J Hand Surg Am. 2005;30(5): 903–7. 22. Saffar P. Radio-lunate arthrodesis for distal radial intra articular malunion. J Hand Surg Br. 1996;21(1):14–20. 23. Beyermann K, Prommersberger KJ, Lanz U. Radioscapholunate fusion following comminuted fractures of the distal radius. J Trauma Eur. 2001;26:169–75. 24. Giannikas D, Karageorgos A, Karabasi A, Syggelos S. Capitolunate arthrodesis maintaining carpal height for the treatment of SNAC wrist. J Hand Surg Eur. 2010;35(3): 198–201. 25. Weiss AP, Hastings H 2nd. Wrist arthrodesis for traumatic conditions: a study of plate and local bone graft application. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20(1):50–6. 26. Anderson MC, Adams BD. Total wrist arthroplasty. Hand Clin. 2005;21(4):621–30. 27. DiDonna ML, Kiefhaber TR, Stern PJ. Proximal row carpectomy: study with a minimum of ten years of follow up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(11):2359–65. 28. Jebson PJ, Hayes EP, Engber WD. Proximal row carpectomy: a minimum 10-year follow-up study. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28(4):561–9. 29. Bain GI, Watts CA. The outcome of scaphoid excision and four-corner arthrodesis for advanced carpal collapse at a minimum of ten years. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(5):719–25.
