article = {SCR-2021-3-111}
title = {Rhizarthrosis Bilateral – Trapeziectomy Versus Arthroplasty with Dual Mobility Prosthesis: Case Report}
journal = {Surgical Case Reports}
year = {2021}
issn = {2613-5965}
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.31487/j.SCR.2021.03.11}
url = {https://www.sciencerepository.org/rhizarthrosis-bilateral-trapeziectomy-versus-arthroplasty-with_SCR-2021-3-111 
author = {Saverio  Comitini,Giuseppe  Mobilia,Matteo  Berti,Luca  Amendola,Andrea  Assenza,Paolo  Barca,Marco  Caponnetto,Emanuela  Castiello,Marco  Ganci,Matteo  Commessatti,Noemi  Silluzio,Domenico  Tigani,}
keywords = {Osteoarthrosis, bilateral, trapezium, trapeziectomy, prosthesis, dual mobility}
abstract ={Background: The trapeziometacarpal joint is the second joint affected by osteoarthritis in the hand. The symptoms and clinical presentation are characterized by pain, limited range of motion, muscle weakness with loss of strength, bone deformities and disability. The symptomatology often is not related to the radiographic grade of osteoarthrosis. Therefore, in addition to the radiographic stage of the disease, the treatment is influenced by multiple variables such as age, functional requirement, symptoms and stability of the joint.
Objective: There are several options of surgical treatments. Although trapeziectomy and its technical variation is the gold standard for treatment, prosthesis replacement can be used with good results. This case report discusses the case of a 70-year-old male who presents bilateral trapeziometacarpal osteoarthrosis treated with two different techniques with different timelines.
Methods: The patient underwent a trapeziectomy on the right hand and arthroplasty with implant on the left. In both TMC the stage of the disease was grade III according to the Eaton Litter classification and the results were evaluated according to clinical and radiographic criteria. The NPRS pain scale and the Quick Dash functional scale were used in subsequent checks. The mean follow-up was 12 months.
Conclusion: There were no significantly different results with respect to pain, activities of daily living, mobility or strength. No complications were observed. The patient is satisfied with the treatment having found a better and earlier resumption of daily activity of the left hand treated with prosthesis replacement.}