Distal Positioning of the Ulnar Shortening Plate Increases Symptomatic Removal: A Comparative Analysis of Ulnar Shortening Osteotomy Plate Positioning and Symptomatic Hardware Removal

John F. Hoy; Shelby R. Smith; Zachary C. Hanson; John J. Fernandez; Xavier C. Simcock

doi:10.1055/s-0044-1787747

Journal of Wrist Surgery, Inhaltsverzeichnis

J Wrist Surg 2025; 14(05): 423-428
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787747

Scientific Article

Distal Positioning of the Ulnar Shortening Plate Increases Symptomatic Removal: A Comparative Analysis of Ulnar Shortening Osteotomy Plate Positioning and Symptomatic Hardware Removal

Authors

John F. Hoy

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Shelby R. Smith

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Zachary C. Hanson

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
John J. Fernandez

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Xavier C. Simcock

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois

Abstract

Background

Ulnar shortening osteotomy (USO) is a common procedure to treat symptomatic ulnar-sided wrist symptoms in patients with positive ulnar variance who fail nonoperative management. Plate placement on the volar, dorsal, or subcutaneous border of the ulna has been described. There remains debate regarding the optimal plate placement to minimize soft tissue irritation and the need for plate removal. The goal of this study is to determine whether plate position along the volar cortex versus along the subcutaneous border, as well as the distance of the plate from the ulnar styloid, affects the risk of symptomatic hardware requiring removal.

Materials and Methods

In total, 112 USO procedures on 107 patients performed between 2017 and 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. The position of the plate on the ulna and the distance of the plate from the ulnar styloid were assessed radiographically. Demographic information, visual analog scale pain scores, disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand scores, and incidence of hardware removal were collected and compared between plate location groups.

Results

The overall symptomatic hardware removal rate was 79%. There was no difference in the rate of symptomatic hardware removal between volar (80%) and subcutaneous (77%) plate locations (p = 0.69) at a mean follow-up time of 26 months. The mean distance from the distal plate to the ulnar styloid was higher in cases in which hardware was retained (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

We found no difference in hardware removal rates based on volar versus subcutaneous plate placement after USO. Cases in which hardware was not removed had a higher mean distance from the distal plate to the ulnar styloid. Further prospective studies are warranted to determine optimal plate positioning to minimize hardware irritation after USO.

Keywords

ulnar shortening osteotomy - hardware irritation - hardware removal - ulnar impaction syndrome

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Tomaino MM, Elfar J. Ulnar impaction syndrome. Hand Clin 2005; 21 (04) 567-575
2 Friedman SL, Palmer AK. The ulnar impaction syndrome. Hand Clin 1991; 7 (02) 295-310
3 Shin EK. Impaction syndromes about the wrist. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2023; 16 (01) 1-8
4 Verhiel SHWL, Özkan S, Eberlin KR, Chen NC. Nonunion and reoperation after ulna shortening osteotomy. Hand (N Y) 2020; 15 (05) 638-646
5 Iwatsuki K, Tatebe M, Yamamoto M, Shinohara T, Nakamura R, Hirata H. Ulnar impaction syndrome: incidence of lunotriquetral ligament degeneration and outcome of ulnar-shortening osteotomy. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39 (06) 1108-1113
6 Stockton DJ, Pelletier ME, Pike JM. Operative treatment of ulnar impaction syndrome: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Eur 2015; 40 (05) 470-476
7 Teunissen JS, Al Shaer S, van der Heijden BPA, Selles RW, Hovius SER, Zöphel OT. Hand Wrist Study Group. The association between plate location and hardware removal following ulna shortening osteotomy: a cohort study. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2022; 47 (08) 831-838
8 Owens J, Compton J, Day M, Glass N, Lawler E. Nonunion rates among ulnar-shortening osteotomy for ulnar impaction syndrome: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Am 2019; 44 (07) 612.e1-612.e12
9 Megerle K, Hellmich S, Germann G, Sauerbier M. Hardware location and clinical outcome in ulna shortening osteotomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3 (10) e549
10 Das De S, Johnsen PH, Wolfe SW. Soft tissue complications of dorsal versus volar plating for ulnar shortening osteotomy. J Hand Surg Am 2015; 40 (05) 928-933
11 Clark SM, Geissler WB. Results of ulnar shortening osteotomy with a new plate compression system. Hand (N Y) 2012; 7 (03) 281-285
12 Pomerance J. Plate removal after ulnar-shortening osteotomy. J Hand Surg Am 2005; 30 (05) 949-953
13 Zhang Y, Grewal R, Vergouwen M. et al; WECan. Risk factors for complications in ulnar shortening osteotomies: a multicenter retrospective review. J Hand Surg Am 2023 (e-pub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.06.001
14 Ozasa Y, Iba K, Takahashi N, Wada T, Yamashita T. Comparative study of dorsal and volar plating for ulnar shortening osteotomy. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol 2020; 25 (01) 54-58
15 Fricker R, Pfeiffer KM, Troeger H. Ulnar shortening osteotomy in posttraumatic ulnar impaction syndrome. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1996; 115 (3-4): 158-161
16 Köppel M, Hargreaves IC, Herbert TJ. 1997 Ulnar shortening osteotomy for ulnar carpal instability and ulnar carpal impaction. Accessed January 9, 2024 at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1016/S0266-7681%2897%2980265-3
17 Boulas HJ, Milek MA. Ulnar shortening for tears of the triangular fibrocartilaginous complex. J Hand Surg Am 1990; 15 (03) 415-420