Arthroscopic three-corner or lunocapitate arthrodesis: technical tips and early outcomes

Three-corner arthrodesis for scapholunate and scaphoid nonunion advanced collapsed wrists: outcomes at long term follow-ups

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess clinical, functional and radiological outcomes after three-corner arthrodesis in patients suffering from symptomatic scapholunate or scaphoid non-union advanced collapsed wrists. We hypothesised that three-corner arthrodesis provided satisfactory clinical and radiological results in the long term.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 13 patients (14 wrists) who underwent a three-corner arthrodesis between March 2004 and January 2019 with a mean follow-up of 6,7 years. Clinical assessment consisted of wrist motion, grip strength, pain and functional scores (Quick-DASH, PRWE, MWS). All complications and surgical revisions were investigated. Radiographic assessment searched for union, evaluated carpal height and ulnar translation, lunate tilt and occurrence of radio-lunate arthritis.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up Quick-DASH and PRWE scores were 24,87(± 17.2) and 47.4 (± 26.9) respectively and were significantly improved. Wrist motion was 35°, 32°, 10° et 24° of flexion, extension, radial and ulnar deviation respectively. Union was obtained for 13 (92,9%) wrists. The mean radiolunate angle was 11° (-17°-34°). Three patients needed reintervention, which 2 consisted of total wrist arthrodesis due to persisting pain. Mild signs of radio-lunate arthritis were found in three patients.

CONCLUSION

Three-corner arthrodesis seemed to provide satisfactory long-term functional outcomes. The union rate was high and even patients with signs of radio-lunate arthritis still had improved outcomes at the last follow-up. It could be a part of surgical options in wrists with radio- and midcarpal arthritis, among other procedures.

A Systematic Review of Aesthetic Surgery Training Within Plastic Surgery Training Programs in the USA: An In-Depth Analysis and Practical Reference

BACKGROUND

The importance of aesthetic surgery exposure for plastic and reconstructive trainees has been recently validated by the expansion of case requirements for aesthetic procedures from 50 to 150, as well as resident-driven desire for increased cosmetic exposure throughout training. We aim to systematically review the literature at a national level to report on overall trends in aesthetic surgery training within PRS residencies.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified all English articles published in the USA between 2000 and 2020, using a combination of "aesthetic surgery", "cosmetic surgery", "plastic surgery", "residency and internship", "education", and "training."

RESULTS

Our initial search resulted in 415 articles. After review of inclusion and exclusion criteria, in addition to cross-referencing, 41 studies remained, including 15 studies discussing resident and/or program director surveys, eight studies discussing teaching methods, sixteen studies discussing dedicated resident clinics, four studies discussing cosmetic/aesthetic fellowships, three studies discussing cosmetic practice patterns, and eleven studies discussing patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Current literature demonstrates that there are gaps in aesthetic surgery training for PRS residents in the USA, including facial and neck surgeries and non-surgical interventions. Resident clinics have clear benefits for resident education, without sacrificing patient outcomes. Residency programs should consider the development of a resident cosmetic clinic and/or dedicated cosmetic center to increase surgical exposure and increase trainee comfort in providing this subset of procedures. Published literature is limited in consistency of methods of evaluation, and further in-depth analysis of case volume and diversity at training programs within the USA and internationally is indicated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .