Arthroscopic treatment of TFCC tears

Arthroscopic-Assisted Repair of the Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex

Triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) injuries are a common cause of ulnar-side wrist pain and may progress to persistent pain, instability of the distal radioulnar joint, and arthritis if left untreated. Diagnosis and management of these injuries requires a nuanced understanding of features pertinent to the clinical presentation, imaging, and arthroscopic findings for accurate management. Arthroscopic-assisted repair techniques have revolutionized surgical management, providing detailed visualization and facilitating the repair of TFCC injuries and associated pathologies with minimally invasive techniques. In this review, we discuss the anatomy of the TFCC, history and examination of ulnar-sided pathology, imaging findings, and classification schemes and review surgical techniques for the treatment of TFCC injuries. We also touch on pearls and pitfalls of the techniques, complications, and results of treatment.

A comparison of combined arthroscopic triangular fibrocartilage complex debridement and arthroscopic wafer distal ulna resection versus arthroscopic triangular fibrocartilage complex debridement and ulnar shortening osteotomy for ulnocarpal abutment syndrome

PURPOSE

Treatment of ulnocarpal abutment (UAS) syndrome involves decompression of the pressure and impingement, or abutment of the ulnocarpal articulation. Debridement of triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) tears alone in the patient with UAS may have a failure rate of as much as 25% to 30%. Ulnar shortening osteotomy (USO) can be an effective treatment of failed TFCC debridement. Good results have been reported with combined arthroscopic TFCC debridement and mechanical arthroscopic distal ulnar resection. Similar results have been reported with both ulnar shortening osteotomy and open wafer distal ulnar resections in the UAS patient. Because all of these treatment choices appear to yield similar relief of symptoms, determination of the optimal treatment protocol remains a point of debate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 2 different surgical treatments for UAS.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective review.

METHODS

Eleven combined arthroscopic TFCC debridement and arthroscopic distal ulna resections (arthroscopic wafer procedures; AWP) were compared with 16 arthroscopic TFCC debridement and USOs. All patients had diagnostic wrist arthroscopy and arthroscopic TFCC debridement. All patients presented with ulnar wrist pain or neutral or positive ulnar variance, and all experienced at least 3 months of failed conservative management.

RESULTS

At mean follow-up times of 21 and 15 months, respectively, 9 of 11 patients showed good to excellent results after arthroscopic TFCC debridement and AWP compared with 11 of 16 after arthroscopic TFCC debridement and USO. A statistically significant difference (P <.05) in the complication rates was identified, including secondary procedures and tendonitis. One secondary procedure and 2 cases of tendonitis were seen in the arthroscopic wafer group.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined arthroscopic TFCC debridement and arthroscopic wafer procedure provides similar pain relief and restoration of function with fewer secondary procedures and tendonitis when compared with arthroscopic TFCC debridement and USO, for the treatment of UAS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Laser-assisted arthroscopic ulnar shortening

The purpose of this study is to evaluate arthroscopic ulnar shortening with the holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for the treatment of ulnocarpal abutment syndrome (UAS). This is a retrospective review of the experience of a single surgeon using this technique between 1994 and 2000. Unloading the ulnocarpal joint is the recognized treatment of UAS. Ulnar shortening via a diaphyseal osteotomy and plating (USO) has been used with good results; however, nearly 50% of patients will require hardware removal. Researchers have reported similar results between open distal ulnar resection (the wafer procedure) and USO for the treatment of UAS. Researchers have also reported similar results with mechanical arthroscopic distal ulnar resections (arthroscopic wafer distal ulnar resection [AWP]) for UAS. Eleven patients who underwent Ho:YAG laser-assisted arthroscopic distal ulnar resection were retrospectively evaluated. The average follow-up time was 31 months, with a range of 7 to 61 months. Evaluation using Darrow' s criteria revealed 64% excellent (7 of 11), 18% good (2 of 11), 9% fair (1 of 11), and 9% poor (1 of 11) results. The average return to work time was 4.7 months, with a range of 1.5 to 16 months. Complications included 1 repeat surgery for ulnocarpal scar formation, 2 cases of transient tendonitis, and 1 portal site erythema without drainage that was treated with antibiotics. One patient (the one with a poor result) has not returned to work for unrelated reasons. chi- square analysis (P <.05) was unable to identify a statistical difference between the reported results of arthroscopic wafer procedures, USOs, and open wafer procedures. We concluded that Ho:YAG laser-assisted arthroscopic ulna shortening procedures show similar results to those reported for arthroscopic wafer procedures, open wafer procedures, and USOs. Return to work times are similar to those reported by other researchers, as is the return to preoperative occupation rate. There is no need for late removal of hardware, as is sometimes associated with USO. Our experience has been that the Ho:YAG laser removes hyaline cartilage and subchondral bone rapidly and with little debris, and thus facilitates the ulna shortening procedure.