4.2 Article

A Cemented Surface Replacement Prosthesis in the Basal Thumb Joint

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME
Volume 35A, Issue 4, Pages 572-579

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.12.026

Keywords

Basal thumb joint; prosthesis; surface replacement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate a cemented prosthesis (Avanta SR TMC prosthesis: Avanta Orthopaedics, San Diego, CA) of the basal thumb joint on the outcomes of range of motion, strength, pain, function, and loosening. Methods Between July 2004 and December 2007, a total of 15 prostheses in 13 patients were implanted, with an average follow-up period of 36 months (range, 21-63 mo). Before and during the follow-up, the following scores were recorded: Kapandji-score (range of opposition), strength (hand dynamometer and pinch meter), pain (sequential occupational dexterity assessment [SODA], and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire [MHQ]) and function (9-hole peg test, SODA and MHQ). Radiographs taken before and after surgery were reviewed. Results The measurements of range of opposition and strength did not show any significant postoperative improvement. Pain during activities (SODA) decreased significantly, and the function with both hands (SODA and MHQ) improved significantly after surgery. The review of pre- and postoperative radiographs did not show any signs of implant loosening after surgery. One failure and one nerve injury occurred. Conclusions In this group of patients, the Avanta SR TMC prosthesis provided statistically significant improvements in function with both hands and in pain during activity, but no significant change in range of motion, strength, or in function of the operated hand used alone. Prosthesis loosening was not detected. (J Hand Surg 2010;35A:572-579. Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. All rights reserved.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available