Download PDF
J Wrist Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2558-7154
Scientific Article

Ball-and-Socket Replacement for Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Comparison Between the Single and Dual Mobility Design

Willem Geuskens 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, AZ Monica Hospital, Deurne, Belgium
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Matthias Papen
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Maxime De Fré
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium
,
Kristien Vuylsteke
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, AZ Monica Hospital, Deurne, Belgium
,
Annemieke Van Haver
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, AZ Monica Hospital, Deurne, Belgium
,
Frederik Verstreken
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, AZ Monica Hospital, Deurne, Belgium
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium
,
Matthias Vanhees
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, AZ Monica Hospital, Deurne, Belgium
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives

Total joint arthroplasty is a valid surgical option for end-stage CMC1 osteoarthritis (OA). Currently, there are two types of implants used: the conventional single mobility design, and the new generation dual mobility design. Promising results for the latter design have been reported but there is scant literature on comparing the two implants. The objectives of this study were to first, assess the safety of the implants regarding loosening, revision, and luxation and second, compare the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction of the two CMC1 implant designs.

Study design

This retrospective study evaluated plain radiographs for complications. To compare the clinical outcomes, patients were matched based on follow-up, age, and gender. Clinical outcomes consisted of lateral pinch and Grip strength, Kapandji, VAS, QuickDASH, and Nelson scores.

Results

An overall complication rate of 5.4% was observed and were all associated with the single mobility design. In contrast, the clinical outcomes were slightly superior in the single mobility design.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes following CMC1 arthroplasty, with a clear trend toward an increased dislocation risk in the single mobility design.

Keywords

arthroplasty - osteoarthritis - total joint replacement - trapeziometacarpal joint


Publication History

Received: 18 September 2024

Accepted: 13 March 2025

Article published online:
09 April 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Cooney III WP, Lucca MJ, Chao EY, Linscheid RL. The kinesiology of the thumb trapeziometacarpal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63 (09) 1371-1381
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Colman M, Mass DP, Draganich LF. Effects of the deep anterior oblique and dorsoradial ligaments on trapeziometacarpal joint stability. J Hand Surg Am 2007; 32 (03) 310-317
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Melville DM, Taljanovic MS, Scalcione LR. et al. Imaging and management of thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis. Skeletal Radiol 2015; 44 (02) 165-177
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Van Heest AE, Kallemeier P. Thumb carpal metacarpal arthritis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16 (03) 140-151
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sodha S, Ring D, Zurakowski D, Jupiter JB. Prevalence of osteoarthrosis of the trapeziometacarpal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (12) 2614-2618
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Wilder FV, Barrett JP, Farina EJ. Joint-specific prevalence of osteoarthritis of the hand. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006; 14 (09) 953-957
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Saheb RLC, Vaz BAS, Soeira TP, Shimaoka FJ, Herrero CFPDS, Mazzer N. Surgical treatment for rhizarthrosis: a systematic review of the last 10 years. Acta Ortop Bras 2022; 30 (01) e246704
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Yao J, Park MJ. Early treatment of degenerative arthritis of the thumb carpometacarpal joint. Hand Clin 2008; 24 (03) 251-261 , v–vi
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Swindells MG, Logan AJ, Armstrong DJ, Chan P, Burke FD, Lindau TR. The benefit of radiologically-guided steroid injections for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010; 92 (08) 680-684
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 De Smet L, Sioen W, Spaepen D, van Ransbeeck H. Treatment of basal joint arthritis of the thumb: trapeziectomy with or without tendon interposition/ligament reconstruction. Hand Surg 2004; 9 (01) 5-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Tägil M, Kopylov P. Swanson versus APL arthroplasty in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint: a prospective and randomized study in 26 patients. J Hand Surg [Br] 2002; 27 (05) 452-456
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Taylor EJ, Desari K, D'Arcy JC, Bonnici AV. A comparison of fusion, trapeziectomy and silastic replacement for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint. J Hand Surg [Br] 2005; 30 (01) 45-49
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Davis TR, Brady O, Dias JJ. Excision of the trapezium for osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint: a study of the benefit of ligament reconstruction or tendon interposition. J Hand Surg Am 2004; 29 (06) 1069-1077
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Haase SC, Chung KC. An evidence-based approach to treating thumb carpometacarpal joint arthritis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (02) 918-925
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Tchurukdichian A, Guillier D, Moris V, See LA, Macheboeuf Y. Results of 110 IVORY prostheses for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2020; 45 (05) 458-464
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Martin-Ferrero M, Simón-Pérez C, Coco-Martín MB, Vega-Castrillo A, Aguado-Hernández H, Mayo-Iscar A. Trapeziometacarpal total joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: 199 patients with a minimum of 10 years follow-up. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2020; 45 (05) 443-451
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Jager T, Barbary S, Dap F, Dautel G. Evaluation of postoperative pain and early functional results in the treatment of carpometacarpal joint arthritis. Comparative prospective study of trapeziectomy vs. MAIA prosthesis in 74 female patients. Chir Main 2013; 32 (02) 55-62
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Robles-Molina MJ, López-Caba F, Gómez-Sánchez RC, Cárdenas-Grande E, Pajares-López M, Hernández-Cortés P. Trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition versus a trapeziometacarpal prosthesis for the treatment of thumb basal joint osteoarthritis. Orthopedics 2017; 40 (04) e681-e686
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Erne H, Scheiber C, Schmauss D. et al. Total endoprosthesis versus Lundborg’s resection arthroplasty for the treatment of trapeziometacarpal joint osteoarthritis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (04) e1737
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Holme TJ, Karbowiak M, Clements J, Sharma R, Craik J, Ellahee N. Thumb CMCJ prosthetic total joint replacement: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev 2021; 6 (05) 316-330
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Borgers A, Verstreken A, Vanhees M, Verstreken F. Primary endoprosthetic replacement of the arthritic CMC-1 joint. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2021; 33 (03) 228-244
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Wong JY, Fung BK, Chu MM, Chan RK. The use of disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire in rehabilitation after acute traumatic hand injuries. J Hand Ther 2007; 20 (01) 49-55 , quiz 56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Tchurukdichian A, Gerenton B, Moris V, See LA, Stivala A, Guillier D. Outcomes of double-mobility prosthesis in trapeziometacarpal joint arthritis with a minimal 3 years of follow-up: an advantage for implant stability. Hand (N Y) 2021; 16 (03) 368-374
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Lussiez B, Falaise C, Ledoux P. Dual mobility trapeziometacarpal prosthesis: a prospective study of 107 cases with a follow-up of more than 3 years. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2021; 46 (09) 961-967
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Thorkildsen RD, Røkkum M. Trapeziectomy with LRTI or joint replacement for CMC1 arthritis, a randomised controlled trial. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2019; 53 (06) 361-369
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Cebrian-Gomez R, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Sebastia-Forcada E, Lopez-Prats FA. Outcomes of cementless joint prosthesis versus tendon interposition for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a prospective study. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2019; 44 (02) 151-158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Martínez-Martínez F, García-Hortelano S, García-Paños JP, Moreno-Fernández JM, Martín-Ferrero MÁ. Comparative clinical study of 2 surgical techniques for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 2016; 60 (01) 59-66
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006; 7: 44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar