![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Background and purpose There is very little literature on the long-term outcome of wrist replacements. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register has registered wrist replacements since 1994. We report on the total wrist replacements and their revision rates over a 16-year period.
Material and methods 189 patients with 189 primary wrist replacements (90 Biax prostheses (80 of which were cementless), 23 cementless Elos prostheses, and 76 cementless Gibbon prostheses), operated during the period 1994–2009 were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Prosthesis survival was analyzed using Cox regression analyses. The 3 implant designs were compared and time trends were analyzed.
Results The 5-year survival was 78% (95% CI: 70–85) and the 10-year survival was 71% (CI: 59–80). Prosthesis survival was 85% (CI: 78–93) at 5 years for the Biax prosthesis, 77% (CI: 30–90) at 4 years for the Gibbon prosthesis, and 57% (CI: 33–81) at 5 years for the Elos prosthesis. There was no statistically significant influence of age, diagnosis, or year of operation on the risk of revision, but females had a higher revision rate than males (RR = 3, CI: 1–7). The number of wrist replacements performed due to osteoarthritis increased with time, but no such change was apparent for inflammatory arthritis.
Interpretation The survival of the total wrist arthroplasties studied was similar to that in other studies of wrist arthroplasties, but it was still not as good as that for most total knee and hip arthroplasties. However, a failed wrist arthroplasty still leaves the option of a well-functioning arthrodesis.
This study represents close teamwork by the orthopaedic surgeons YK, LIH, OF, and the statistican SAL. All authors participated in interpretation of the results and in preparation of the manuscript. YK and SAL performed the statistical analyses. YK was responsible for writing the manuscript.
We thank all the Norwegian surgeons who provided data to the register. We also thank Dr Magne Røkkum for providing information about the Elos and Gibbon prostheses and Geir Hallan for revising the English.
No competing interests declared.