Abstract
ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for chronic perilunate dislocations using single-stage, two-stage, and salvage procedures. The study also compares these approaches with each other and with results from existing literature. MethodsA total of 15 patients with chronic perilunate injuries from 2013 to 2019 were included in the study. Pre-operative and post-operative assessments were conducted using plain radiographs, with CT scans performed selectively for detailed morphology and fracture pattern analysis. Among the patients, 13 underwent ORIF, while 2 underwent salvage procedures. Among the ORIF cases, single-stage procedures were performed in 4 patients, and two-stage procedures in 9 patients. External fixators, including unilateral uniplanar external fixators (UUEF) and bilateral uniplanar external fixators (BUEF), were applied in 5 and 4 patients, respectively. Our methodology of treating chronic perilunate injuries has evolved over the years. We started with single stage ORIF then graduated to a two staged procedure initially using a external fixator as a carpal distractor applied only on the radial side and finally settling down with bilateral carpal distraction using external fixators both on the radial and ulnar sides. ResultsAmong the 15 patients, 3 were lost to follow-up. Of these, one underwent four-corner fusion, while the remaining two had UUEF. The mean time interval between injury and surgery was 3.60 months. The post-operative mean scapholunate angle measured 52.46°, with a negative radio-lunate angle (indicating flexion) observed in two patients, while others showed a positive angle (indicating extension). Two cases exhibited nonunion and avascular necrosis (AVN) of the scaphoid, while one case presented with lunate AVN. Mid-carpal and radio-carpal arthritis was observed in 4 and 2 patients, respectively. Functional outcomes were evaluated using Mayo's wrist score categorized as good for two-stage BUEF cases and satisfactory for UUEF and single-stage procedures. ConclusionStaged reduction utilizing the BUEF followed by open reduction has demonstrated superior outcomes when compared to UUEF, single-stage open reduction and salvage procedures. Level of evidence: 4
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.