A Comparative Study on the Treatment of Scaphoid Nonunion with Matti-Russe Technique and Fisk-Fernandez Technique.
10.4055/jkoa.2008.43.6.694
- Author:
Seung Hwan RHEE
1
;
Moon Sang CHUNG
;
Young Ho LEE
;
Hyun Sik GONG
;
Ji Yeong KIM
;
Jeong Hwan KIM
;
Goo Hyun BAEK
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ghbaek@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Scaphoid Nonunion;
Matti-Russe;
Fisk-Fernandez
- MeSH:
Congenital Abnormalities;
Follow-Up Studies;
Hand Strength;
Humans;
Osteoarthritis;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Range of Motion, Articular;
Retrospective Studies
- From:The Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
2008;43(6):694-702
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Established scaphoid nonunion may lead to carpal instability and osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical and radiological results of the osteosynthesis between Matti-Russe group and Fisk-Fernandez group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our retrospective study included 21 nonunion cases in 20 patients treated by Matti-Russe or Fisk-Fernandez technique from September 2001 to August 2006. The mean duration of follow up was 31 months. Based on the questionnaire which included clinical information and the radiologic evaluation, we compared the objective and subjective results between two surgical groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between two groups in respect of the postoperative satisfaction and the pain. Both the range of motion and the grip power decreased compared to that of the unaffected side, but there were no significant differences between two groups. Also, there were no significant differences in the union rate and the rate of successful correction of DISI deformity. In all cases in which DISI deformity was detected preoperatively, the deformity was corrected postoperatively. There were 7 cases of osteoarthritis, but among them only one case appeared newly after the surgery. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences between two surgical groups in clinical and radiological results. Both techniques were effective in achieving bony union and functional recovery.
