Skip to main content
. 2014 Dec 2;10(3):472–476. doi: 10.1007/s11552-014-9705-z

Table 1.

Comparative outcomes for scaphocapitate arthrodesis and proximal row carpectomy

Study Methods N Number with Kienbock’s disease Postoperative flex-extension arc Grip strength (% contralateral) Failures Average follow-up
Luegmair [8] Retrospective analysis of SC arthrodesis 10 10 (100 %) 87° 60 % 1 (10 %) nonunion but declined revision
1 (10 %) subsequent PRC
1 (10 %) subsequent radial styloidectomy
1 (10 %) EPL tenolysis
8.75 years
Delétang [18] Retrospective analysis of SC arthrodesis 31 0 (0 %) 80° 19 % 2 (6 %) patients required radiocarpal arthrodesis 5 years
Sennwald [13] Retrospective analysis of SC arthrodesis 11 11 (100 %) 64° 83 % Unknown 1.5 years
Pisano [11] Retrospective analysis of SC arthrodesis 17 9 (53 %) 74° 74 % 2 (12 %) revisions for nonunion 1.95 years
Ali [1] Retrospective analysis of PRC 61 13 (21 %) 69° 48 % 12 (20 %) failures requiring arthrodesis or arthroplasty 19.8 years
DiDonna [4] Retrospective analysis of PRC 22 7 (32 %) 72° 91 % 4 (18 %) failures requiring arthrodesis 10 years
Imbriglia [20] Retrospective analysis of PRC 27 5 (19 %) 84° 80 % Unknown 4 years
Wyrick [19] Four-corner arthrodesis compared with PRC (PRC Data) 27 Unknown 115° 94 % No failures in PRC group 3.1 years

PRC proximal row carpectomy; SC scaphocapitate; EPL extensor pollicis longus