Union and Complication Rates After Total Wrist Arthrodesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

David H Owen; Joshua W Booth; Paul A Agius; Diana M Perriman; Paul N Smith; Chris J Roberts

doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.10.011

Union and Complication Rates After Total Wrist Arthrodesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

J Hand Surg Am. 2023 Dec 1:S0363-5023(23)00556-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.10.011. Online ahead of print.

Authors

David H Owen¹, Joshua W Booth², Paul A Agius³, Diana M Perriman², Paul N Smith², Chris J Roberts²

Affiliations

¹ Trauma and Orthopaedic Research Unit, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia; Australian National University Medical School, Canberra, Australia; Gippsland Orthopaedics, Traralgon, Australia. Electronic address: David.Owen@anu.edu.au.
² Trauma and Orthopaedic Research Unit, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia; Australian National University Medical School, Canberra, Australia.
³ Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia; Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

PMID: 38043034
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.10.011

Abstract

Purpose: Total wrist arthrodesis (TWA) has been performed using various techniques. We aimed to provide pooled prevalence estimates of union and complications of TWA by technique. A secondary aim was to provide estimates of union and complication rates by treatment of the carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) in TWA using plates. Given the widespread adoption of wrist arthrodesis plates (WAP), we hypothesized that these implants would result in higher union and lower complication rates. We also hypothesized that TWA with CMCJ arthrodesis would improve these outcomes.

Methods: Online databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched. Studies reporting union and/or complication rates of 10 or more TWA performed with a similar technique (analyzed as bone graft only, bone graft with minimal fixation, intramedullary, augmented intramedullary, plate, WAP, and other) were included. Studies with fewer than 10 TWA, studies reporting TWA where union or complications could not be analyzed separately, and studies without union and complication rates were excluded. Data extraction was performed independently by two English-speaking reviewers with a translator where required. Pooled prevalence estimates were made using a random-effects meta-analysis model and presented as a percent prevalence with 95% confidence and prediction intervals.

Results: One hundred and thirty-six studies with a total of 3,517 patients and 3,969 TWA were analyzed. No differences in union and complication prevalence were observed between TWA techniques and in TWA with different treatments of the CMCJ using plates and WAP.

Conclusion: Using meta-analysis, we found no difference in union and complication prevalence between TWA techniques and TWA with different treatments of the CMCJ with plates and WAP. It must be acknowledged that this research included low-quality studies with high heterogeneity, and confidence in the precision of the estimates is low.

Type of study/level of evidence: Prognostic IV.

Keywords: Arthrodesis; Carpometacarpal joint; Fusion; Meta-analysis; Total wrist arthrodesis; Total wrist fusion; Wrist.