Resurfacing Capitate Pyrocarbon Implant Without Capitate Pole Resection to Improve Clinical Results in the Treatment of Chronic Wrist Arthritis

Proximal Row Carpectomy Modifications for Capitate Arthritis: A Systematic Review

Introduction  Proximal row carpectomy (PRC) is a motion-sparing procedure for radiocarpal arthritis with reliable results. Traditionally, proximal capitate arthritis is a contraindication to PRC; however, PRC with modifications are proposed to circumvent this contraindication. PRC modifications can be broadly grouped into capitate resurfacing (CR) and capsular interposition (CI) procedures which could expand PRC indications. Our primary question was to characterize the outcomes achievable with various PRC modifications. Our secondary question was to determine which PRC modification was the optimal procedure when capitate arthritis was present. Methods  A systematic review was conducted to examine the outcomes of modified PRC procedures. Independent reviewers appraised multiple databases for PRC studies with modifications for capitate arthritis in adult patients (age >18 years) with a minimum of three cases and extractable outcomes. Modified PRC procedures included capsular/allograft interposition, resurfacing capitate pyrocarbon implants, and osteochondral grafting. Pertinent outcomes included patient demographics, range-of-motion, grip strength, patient-reported outcomes, and complications, including salvage rates. Results  Overall, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria-10 studies ( n  = 147) on CI and 8 studies on CR ( n  = 136). PRC with CI had the greatest flexion-extension arc and grip strength. Complications were marginally higher in the CR group (4%), while the CI group had a higher conversion to total wrist arthrodesis (10%). Conclusion  Techniques to address capitate arthritis center around resurfacing or soft tissue interposition. PRC modifications with CI produces better range-of-motion and grip strength but higher conversion to total wrist arthrodesis. Higher conversion rates may be attributable to longer follow-up periods in studies examining CI compared with CR. Level of Evidence  This is a Level III study.