Jnl Wrist Surg 2018; 07(01): 018-023
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603320
Scientific Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Survivorship of Revision Wrist Replacement

E. M. Pinder
1  Upper Limb Unit, Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, United Kingdom
,
K. G. Chee
1  Upper Limb Unit, Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, United Kingdom
,
M. Hayton
1  Upper Limb Unit, Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, United Kingdom
,
S. R. Murali
1  Upper Limb Unit, Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, United Kingdom
,
S. C. Talwalkar
1  Upper Limb Unit, Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, United Kingdom
,
I. A. Trail
1  Upper Limb Unit, Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

26 October 2016

17 April 2017

Publication Date:
15 May 2017 (eFirst)

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to report the 5-year survivorship of revision wrist arthroplasties and to report midterm clinical and radiological results.

Materials and Methods 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.

Results 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.

Conclusion 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.

Clinical Relevance It is reasonable to offer revision wrist arthroplasty in selective cases, but regular clinical and radiological follow-up is recommended.