Revision of a failed Swanson arthroplasty to a total wrist replacement restores wrist function and movements

Khan, Y.; Konan, Sujith; Sorene, Elliot

doi:10.3109/2000656x.2013.834612

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is difficult to compare the 82% 5-year survival rate with previous studies as published data are limited to two case reports. 18,19 The previous reporting of clinical outcomes is variable. Two studies identified that the Biaxial implant achieves 19 degrees of mean flexion and 31 and 36 degrees of mean extension when used as a revision prosthesis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survivorship of Revision Wrist Replacement

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to report the 5-year survivorship of revision wrist arthroplasties and to report midterm clinical and radiological results. All patients receiving a revision wrist arthroplasty in our unit between January 1, 1997 and October 31, 2010 were identified, and clinical notes retrospectively analyzed for Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (quickDASH), Patient Evaluation Method (PEM), Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), the range of movement, and visual analog score (VAS). In cases where patient review had not occurred within the past year, they were invited for assessment, and this data was included in the analysis. Plain radiographs were analyzed for loosening of each component. The 5-year survival was plotted using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Of the 19 patients identified, 1 was lost to follow-up and therefore excluded from all analyses. Mean age at revision wrist arthroplasty was 55.8 years and the mean time from primary to revision wrist arthroplasty was 6.7 years. At revision arthroplasty, 7 patients received the Biaxial implant (DePuy, Inc., Warsaw, IN) and 11 received the Universal II implant (Integra, Inc., Plainsboro, NJ). The 5-year implant revision survivorship was 83%. Depending on the variable of interest, clinical data were available for either three, four or five patients. At final follow-up (mean: 10.4 years), mean visual analog score was 2.9, mean quickDASH 57, mean PEM 49, mean PRWE 61, and mean arc of flexion/extension was 26 degrees. Radiological data were available for 12 patients, with evidence of gross loosening present in around 60% of the carpal components and 50% of the radial components at mean 6.7 years. Revision wrist replacement implant survival is acceptable, but the majority of the surviving implants are radiologically loose. It is not clear at this time whether they are better or worse than a fusion after a failed primary wrist arthroplasty. It is reasonable to offer revision wrist arthroplasty in selective cases, but regular clinical and radiological follow-up is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survivorship of Revision Wrist Replacement

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only a few studies reviewed the revision of a failed TWA by replacing the implant with a different type (Cobb and Beckbaugh, 1996; Fatti et al., 1991; Khan et al., 2014; Lorei et al., 1997; Pinder et al., 2018; Rettig and Beckenbaugh, 1993). These studies concerned small and/or heterogeneous case series or case reports and described short-term, sometimes mid-term, outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal 2 total wrist arthroplasty for the salvage of failed Biaxial total wrist arthroplasty

Zijlker

Berkhout

Ritt

et al. 2019

J Hand Surg Eur Vol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universal 2 implants may be an alternative to total wrist arthrodesis for the salvage of failed Biaxial total wrist prostheses. We assessed 40 Universal 2 revision implants retrospectively. Fourteen of these wrists were converted to total wrist arthrodeses, and two wrists received a third total wrist arthroplasty after a mean period of 5.5 years. Twenty-four of the Universal 2 implants that remained in situ after a mean follow-up of 9 years (range 4 to 13 years) were re-examined. Sixteen functioned satisfactorily. Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation scores and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were 53 and 47, respectively. Twenty-nine patients would choose the Universal 2 again and would also recommend it to other patients. The survival of the revision implants was 60% at a mean follow-up of 9 years. Level of evidence: IV

show abstract