Download PDF
J Wrist Surg 2021; 10(06): 502-510
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1728806
Scientific Article

Joint Distraction for Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis: 2-Year Follow-up Results of 20 Patients

Janna S.E. Ottenhoff 
1   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Anne J. Spaans 
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sint Maartenskliniek, Ubbergen, The Netherlands.
,
Assa Braakenburg 
3   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
,
Teun Teunis 
1   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
L. Paul van Minnen 
4   Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
,
Aebele B. Mink van der Molen 
1   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
5   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was financially supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation on 14-01-2013 to perform MRI in five patients.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Joint distraction is a fairly new treatment for patients with symptomatic thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (CMC1 OA). A previous pilot study of five patients showed that CMC1 joint distraction is technically feasible. The current study presents the results of CMC1 joint distraction in 20 patients with a 2-year follow-up period.

Purposes The primary study aim was to assess if patients with CMC1 OA have better physical function and less pain 2 years after CMC1 joint distraction. Second, we assessed the number of patients who achieved a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures at each follow-up time point. Furthermore, this study sought differences on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the CMC1 joint before and after distraction. Adverse events were noted and reported.

Methods Twenty patients (median age of 54 years) with symptomatic CMC1 OA and an established indication for a trapeziectomy were enrolled. An external distractor device was placed over the CMC1 joint and left in situ for 8 weeks. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ), visual analogue scale (VAS), and grip strength were recorded preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively.

Results Two years after joint distraction, physical function and pain scores had improved significantly compared with baseline: DASH from 48 to 17, MHQ from 56 to 83, and VAS for pain from 50 to 18 mm. Fourteen of 19 patients (74%) reached an MCID in DASH and MHQ scores. One patient was not satisfied with treatment outcome and chose to proceed with a trapeziectomy 14 months after initial distraction therapy.

Conclusions This study demonstrates that CMC1 joint distraction can postpone more invasive surgical interventions (e.g., trapeziectomy) for at least 2 years. Larger comparative studies are needed to assess the value of CMC1 joint distraction in the treatment of CMC1 OA.

Level of Evidence This is a Level IV, prospective case series study.

Keywords

osteoarthritis - thumb - carpometacarpal joint - external fixator - treatment

Note

The work was performed at St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.


Ethical Approval

This study received approval from the local institutional review board (Medical research Ethics Committees United; MEC-U) of the St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. This study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. This study has been performed in accordance with relevant regulations of the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Written informed consent was obtained from all 20 patients before the study.




Publication History

Received: 30 October 2020

Accepted: 10 March 2021

Article published online:
04 May 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Dahaghin S, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Ginai AZ, Pols HAP, Hazes JMW, Koes BW. Prevalence and pattern of radiographic hand osteoarthritis and association with pain and disability (the Rotterdam study). Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64 (05) 682-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sodha S, Ring D, Zurakowski D, Jupiter JB. Prevalence of osteoarthrosis of the trapeziometacarpal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (12) 2614-2618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Spaans AJ, van Minnen LP, Kon M, Schuurman AH, Schreuders AR, Vermeulen GM. Conservative treatment of thumb base osteoarthritis: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Am 2015; 40 (01) 16-21.e1 , 6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wajon A, Vinycomb T, Carr E, Edmunds I, Ada L. Surgery for thumb (trapeziometacarpal joint) osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015 (02) CD004631
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wilkens SC, Meghpara MM, Ring D, Coert JH, Jupiter JB, Chen NC. Trapeziometacarpal arthrosis. JBJS Rev 2019; 7 (01) e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Downing ND, Davis TRC. Trapezial space height after trapeziectomy: mechanism of formation and benefits. J Hand Surg Am 2001; 26 (05) 862-868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lins RE, Gelberman RH, McKeown L, Katz JN, Kadiyala RK. Basal joint arthritis: trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am 1996; 21 (02) 202-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jansen MP, van der Weiden GS, Van Roermund PM, Custers RJH, Mastbergen SC, Lafeber FPJG. Initial tissue repair predicts long-term clinical success of knee joint distraction as treatment for knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018; 26 (12) 1604-1608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ploegmakers JJW, van Roermund PM, van Melkebeek J. et al. Prolonged clinical benefit from joint distraction in the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005; 13 (07) 582-588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wiegant K, van Roermund PM, Intema F. et al. Sustained clinical and structural benefit after joint distraction in the treatment of severe knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21 (11) 1660-1667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 van der Woude JAD, Wiegant K, van Roermund PM. et al. Five-year follow-up of knee joint distraction: clinical benefit and cartilaginous tissue repair in an open uncontrolled prospective study. Cartilage 2017; 8 (03) 263-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Spaans AJ, Minnen LPV, Braakenburg A, Mink van der Molen AB. Joint distraction for thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a feasibility study with 1-year follow-up. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2017; 51 (04) 254-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Eaton RG, Glickel SZ. Trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Staging as a rationale for treatment. Hand Clin 1987; 3 (04) 455-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Veehof MM, Sleegers EJA, van Veldhoven NHMJ, Schuurman AH, van Meeteren NLU. Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV). J Hand Ther 2002; 15 (04) 347-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 van der Giesen FJ, Nelissen RG, Arendzen JH, de Jong Z, Wolterbeek R, Vliet Vlieland TP. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire--Dutch language version in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89 (06) 1121-1126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 London DA, Stepan JG, Calfee RP. Determining the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire minimal clinically important difference by means of three methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (03) 616-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, Ketchersid J, Calfee RP. Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am 2013; 38 (04) 641-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8 (12) 1153-1157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tang JB, Tonkin M, Boeckstyns M, Hooper G. The minimum length of follow-up in hand surgery reports. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2019; 44 (03) 330-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 de Kraker M, Selles RW, Schreuders TAR, Stam HJ, Hovius SER. Palmar abduction: reliability of 6 measurement methods in healthy adults. J Hand Surg Am 2009; 34 (03) 523-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kroon FPB, Conaghan PG, Foltz V. et al. Development and reliability of the OMERACT thumb base osteoarthritis magnetic resonance imaging scoring system. J Rheumatol 2017; 44 (11) 1694-1698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kroon FPB, van Beest S, Gandjbakhch F. et al. Longitudinal reliability of the OMERACT thumb base osteoarthritis magnetic resonance imaging scoring system (TOMS). J Rheumatol 2019; 46 (09) 1228-1231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML. et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250 (02) 187-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Becker SJE, Makarawung DJS, Spit SA, King JD, Ring D. Disability in patients with trapeziometacarpal joint arthrosis: incidental versus presenting diagnosis. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39 (10) 2009-2015.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hwang RW, Ring D. Pain and disability related to osteoarthrosis of the trapeziometacarpal joint. J Hand Microsurg 2011; 3 (02) 63-65
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Belcher HJCR, Nicholl JE. A comparison of trapeziectomy with and without ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition. J Hand Surg [Br] 2000; 25 (04) 350-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Davis TRC, Pace A. Trapeziectomy for trapeziometacarpal joint osteoarthritis: is ligament reconstruction and temporary stabilisation of the pseudarthrosis with a Kirschner wire important?. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2009; 34 (03) 312-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tsehaie J, van der Oest MJW, Poelstra R. et al; Hand-Wrist Study Group. Positive experience with treatment is associated with better surgical outcome in trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2019; 44 (07) 714-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wang T, Zhao G, Rui YJ, Mi JY. Outcomes of modified trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction tendon interposition for the treatment of advanced thumb carpometacarpal arthritis: Two-year follow-up. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (13) e0235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 O'Brien VH, Giveans MR. Effects of a dynamic stability approach in conservative intervention of the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb: a retrospective study. J Hand Ther 2013; 26 (01) 44-51 , quiz 52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Berger AJ, Momeni A, Ladd AL. Intra- and interobserver reliability of the Eaton classification for trapeziometacarpal arthritis: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (04) 1155-1159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Marijnissen ACA, Hoekstra MCL, Pré BC. et al. Patient characteristics as predictors of clinical outcome of distraction in treatment of severe ankle osteoarthritis. J Orthop Res 2014; 32 (01) 96-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Davis TRC, Brady O, Dias JJ. Excision of the trapezium for osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint: a study of the benefit of ligament reconstruction or tendon interposition. J Hand Surg Am 2004; 29 (06) 1069-1077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Field J, Buchanan D. To suspend or not to suspend: a randomised single blind trial of simple trapeziectomy versus trapeziectomy and flexor carpi radialis suspension. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2007; 32 (04) 462-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar