Modification of proximal row carpectomy (PRC) technique for adaptive wrist collapse (pilot study)

• Published in: Geniĭ ortopedii = Genij ortopedii Vol. 30; no. 4; pp. 502 - 510
• Main Authors: Kuttygul, Sh. K., Tyagunov, D. E., Shchudlo, N. A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Russian Ilizarov Scientific Center for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics 23-08-2024
• Subjects: adaptive carpal collapse (acc); ilizarov apparatus; proximal row of carpal bones; resection
• ISSN: 1028-4427; 2542-131X
• DOI: 10.18019/1028-4427-2024-30-4-502-510

Introduction Proximal carpal row resection has been used for many decades as a “salvage procedure” for progressive wrist collapse. Improving the technique of its implementation, as well as introducing various modifications of the technique into practice are an important area for achieving better results of surgical treatment. The purpose of this work was to demonstrate aspects of the modified proximal row carpectomy (PRC) technique and the immediate results of its use. Materials and methods Eight patients aged from 24 to 57 years (seven men and one woman) were treated with the modified PRC technique. Treatment results were assessed using an adapted QuickDASH questionnaire, a visual analogue scale (VAS), based on patient satisfaction and radiographic results. Results The average duration of surgical intervention was (149.0 ± 35.5) minutes. In the postoperative period, six patients (75 %) underwent fixation with an Ilizarov apparatus, the rest with a plaster splint. The average range of motion of flexion and extension was (67.5 ± 18.3)°, range: 40–95°. The patients had an average of (35.6 ± 16.13)° extension, range: 10–65° and (31.87 ± 10.9)° flexion, range: 10–45°. Patients reported decreased grip strength after surgery. Pain syndrome according to VAS at rest was equal to 0–1 points and 3–4 points when the affected limb was loaded. Six patients completed the QuickDASH survey, with a mean score of (14.83 ± 4.25) points. All patients are satisfied with the result of treatment and the absence of pain at rest. Patients returned to their usual work. Discussion Unlike the conventional dorsal approach through the III–IV tendon canals, the use of two mini-approaches provides a better cosmetic effect and makes it easier to restore the integrity of the tendon canals, which are important for the prevention of desmogenic contractures. The use of the Ilizarov apparatus has proven to be the method of choice, providing absolute stability and reduction of pain in the postoperative period. For patients under 45 years of age with increased functional demands, a balanced approach is required when choosing PRC or intercarpal arthrodesis, depending on which functional parameters are more important to the patient. Conclusion The analysis of short-term results of using the modified PRC technique shows that it reduces the invasiveness of the operation, improves its esthetic result, provides pain relief and a satisfactory range of motion and grip strength.