J Wrist Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2698-9531
Survey or Meta-analysis

Open versus Arthroscopic Scapholunate Ligament Repair: A Systematic Review

1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School and Memorial Hermann Medical Center, Houston, Texas, United States
,
2   Division Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Brian Zhou
2   Division Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
,
2   Division Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Owen Ross
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
,
2   Division Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Nina Suh
2   Division Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
,
2   Division Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
› Institutsangaben
Preview

Abstract

Purpose

Scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL) injuries have traditionally been treated via open approaches. Recent arthroscopic techniques have improved the ability to access the SLIL while preserving local blood supply and ligaments. Here, we present a systematic review comparing outcomes after arthroscopic versus open SLIL repair.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search of PubMed was conducted for primary research articles evaluating open or arthroscopic SLIL repair. Inclusion criteria were primary articles examining open or arthroscopic repair of SLIL injuries. Data extracted included surgical interventions and indications, time from injury to surgery, length of follow-up, range of motion (ROM), reoperations, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographic results, and complications.

Results

Out of 226 studies screened, 15 met inclusion criteria, encompassing 982 SLIL repairs (827 arthroscopic, 155 open). The frequency-weighted mean follow-up was 41 months, with a mean age of 34 years (range 14–68). PROMs were significantly improved in arthroscopic compared with open repairs, with visual analog scale (VAS) scores of 1.13 versus 4.69 (p < 0.05), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores of 9.93 versus 21.93 (p < 0.05), and Mayo scores of 87.55 versus 80.28 (p < 0.05). Functional outcomes also revealed increased range of motion and strength in the arthroscopic group: flexion (67.04 degrees vs. 51.73 degrees), extension (72.56 versus vs. 51.97 degrees), and strength (41.94 kg vs. 34.59 kg; all p < 0.05). Radiographic outcomes demonstrated a significant albeit smaller postoperative scapholunate (SL) angle, with arthroscopic repairs at 54.08 degrees and open repairs at 59.10 degrees (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Arthroscopic SLIL repair is associated with improved pain, ROM, strength, and PROMs compared with open repair, along with a more favorable postoperative SL angle. These findings support the potential benefits of arthroscopic approaches in managing SLIL injuries and may inform future treatment algorithms.



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 31. Mai 2025

Angenommen: 01. September 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. September 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA