Aims. To analyze the short-term outcome of two types of total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) in terms of wrist function, migration, and periprosthetic bone behaviour. Methods. A total of 40 patients suffering from non-rheumatoid wrist arthritis were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing the ReMotion and Motec TWAs. Patient-rated and functional outcomes, radiological changes, blood metal ion levels, migration measured by model-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA), bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), complications, loosening, and revision rates at two years were compared. Results. Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) scores, abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) scores, and pain improved similarly and significantly in both groups. Wrist motion improved significantly in the Motec group only, and forearm rotation in the ReMotion group only. Cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) blood ion levels were significantly higher in the metal-on-metal (MoM) Motec group than in the metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) ReMotion group. Mean total translation was 0.65 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.12) and 0.27 mm (95% CI 0.14 to 0.47) for the ReMotion carpal and radial components, and 0.32 mm (95% CI 0.22 to 0.45) and 0.26 mm (95% CI 0.20 to 0.34) for the Motec metacarpal and radial components, respectively. Apart from dorsal and volar tilts, which were significantly higher for the radial ReMotion than for the Motec component, no significant differences in absolute migration occurred. BMD around the radial components never returned to baseline. Almost one-third of patients required reoperation due to complications. Two ReMotion implants were revised to Motec TWAs due to carpal component loosening, and three Motec MoM articulations were revised to metal-on-polyether ether ketone due to painful synovitis. Conclusion. Both implants provided matched function and were stable at short-term follow-up, but with a high complication rate. This procedure should be restricted to specialist centres undertaking prospective analysis until its role is clarified. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1132–1141

Aims

There is no level I evidence dealing with the optimal period of immobilization for patients with a displaced distal radial fracture following closed reduction. A shorter period might lead to a better functional outcome due to less stiffness and pain. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this period could be safely reduced from six to four weeks.

We performed a retrospective study to determine the effect of osteoporosis on the functional outcome of osteoporotic distal radial fractures treated with a volar locking plate. Between 2009 and 2012 a total of 90 postmenopausal women with an unstable fracture of the distal radius treated with a volar locking plate were studied. Changes in the radiological parameters of 51 patients with osteoporosis (group 1, mean age 66.9, mean T-score –3.16 (sd 0.56)) were not significantly different from those in 39 patients without osteoporosis (group 2, mean age 61.1, mean T-score –1.72 (sd 0.57)). The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at final follow-up was 11.5 (sd 12.2) in group 1 and 10.5 (sd 13.25) in group 2. The mean modified Mayo wrist score at final follow-up was 79.0 (sd 14.04) in group 1 and 82.6 (sd 13.1) in group 2. However, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.35 for DASH score, p = 0.2 for modified Mayo wrist score). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that only the step-off of the radiocarpal joint was related to both a poor DASH and modified Mayo wrist score. Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed a weak negative relationship only between the T-score and the change in volar tilt (intraclass coefficient –0.26, p = 0.02).

We found that osteoporosis does not have a negative effect on the functional outcome and additional analysis did not show a correlation between T-score and outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:229–34.