Skip to main content
. 2024 Aug 31;14(9):1099. doi: 10.3390/life14091099

Table 2.

Surgical approaches by defect interval and results reported in previous studies.

Study Type Patients/Cases Pathogenesis Localization of the Defect Graft Type Reconstruction Concept Consolidation Pre-Operative ROM
Extension/Flexion
Pronation/Supination		 Post-Operative ROM
Extension/Flexion
Pronation/Supination		 Grip Strength Quality of Life Level of Evidence
GROUP 1 (n = 55) Ebinger et al., 2003 [8] Case report 1 Failed wrist prothesis Distal radius Free vascularized fibula Arthrodesis 1/1 N/A
N/A 		0-0-0°
70-0-75° 		85% N/A 4
Wang et al., 2017 [23] Cohort study 27 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Non vascularized iliac crest Arthrodesis 21/27 N/A
N/A 		N/A
Mean 113°		 51% Musculoskeletal Tumour Society functional classification (MSTS) = 96%
DASH = 9 		4
Clarkson et al., 2013 [24] Case–control study 27 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Free vascularized fibula vs. Non vascularized iliac crest Arthrodesis 27/27 N/A
N/A 		N/A
N/A 		N/A MSTS = 90%
DASH = 17 		3
GROUP 2 (n = 4) Graham et al., 2022 [7] Case report, Technical note 2 Osteomyelitis, Giant cell tumor Distal radius to proximal middle hand Vascularized triangular shaped fibula Arthrodesis 2/2 N/A
N/A 		N/A
N/A 		N/A N/A 4
Inui et al., 2020 [20] Case report 2 Osteomyelitis Carpus Non vascularized induced membrane technique Arthrodesis 1/2 N/A
N/A 		N/A
N/A 		80% N/A 4
GROUP 3 (n = 82) Mays et al., 2010 [10] Case report 1 Giant cell tumor Distal radius and proximal row Free vascularized fibula head Arthroplasty 1/1 N/A
N/A 		35-0-45°
N/A 		80% N/A 4
Saini et al., 2011 [25] Cohort study 12 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Non vascularized fibula head Arthroplasty 9/12 N/A
N/A 		31-0-42°
37-0-52° 		71% (42–86%) MSTS = 91% 4
Chung et al., 2013 [12] Cohort study 12 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Free vascularized fibula head Arthroplasty 12/12 N/A
N/A 		Mean 73°
Mean 102.9° 		57.3% N/A 4
Scaglioni et al., 2014 [2] Case series 3 Giant cell tumor, osteosarcoma Distal radius Free vascularized fibula head Arthroplasty 3/3 N/A
N/A 		32-0-72°
83-0-38° 		N/A N/A 4
Yang et al., 2016 [16] Cohort study 17 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Free vascularized fibula head Arthroplasty 17/17 N/A
N/A 		52-0-49°
N/A 		77.2° MMWS = 77.3 4
Liu et al., 2019 [6] Cohort study 26 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Free vascularized fibula head Arthroplasty 26/26 44-0-52°
42-0-45° 		32-0-42°
22-0-31°		 71% DASH = 33.3 4
Barik et al., 2020 [19] Cohort study 11 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Non vascularized fibula head Arthroplasty 11/11 N/A
N/A 		47-0-37°
64-0-57°		 51% MMWS = 66.4 4
GROUP 4 (n = 3) Franz et al., 2010 [1] Case report 1 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Free vascularized fibula RFSL-Fusion 1/1 30-0-40°
N/A 		40-0-20°
70-0-80° 		75% N/A 4
Bickert et al., 2002 [26] Case series 2 Giant cell tumor Free vascularized fibula RFSL-Fusion 2/2 N/A
N/A 		22.5-0-35°
62.5-0-70° 		64.5% N/A
GROUP 1 vs. 3 (n = 21) Qu et al., 2019 [18] Case–control study 21 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Non vascularized fibula head Arthroplasty (n = 13)
vs.
Total wrist arthrodesis (n = 8) 		20/21 N/A
N/A 		N/A
N/A 		40% (n = 13)
vs.
71% (n = 8)		 MSTS = 93%
vs.
83% 		3
GROUP 3 vs. 4 (n = 14) Zhu et al., 2013 [27] Case–control study 14 Giant cell tumor Distal radius Vascularized and non-vascularized proximal fibula Arthroplasty (n = 7) vs. partial wrist arthrodesis (n = 7) 14/14 N/A
N/A 		71.6  ±  16.1° vs. 55.9  ±  7.5°
140  ±  14.7° vs. 127.6  ±  14.2° 		59.2 ±  13.7%
vs.
76.5 ±  4.6% 		MSTS = 25.9  ±  1.46
vs.
25.6  ±  0.78 		3
NO GROUP Wood et al., 2006 [28] Expert opinion N/A various various various various N/A N/A
N/A 		N/A
N/A 		N/A N/A 5
Malizos et al., 2010 [9] Review, expert opinion N/A various various various various N/A N/A
N/A 		N/A
N/A 		N/A N/A 5
Liu et al., 2021 [5] Review N/A various various various various N/A N/A
N/A 		N/A
N/A 		N/A N/A 4