Description and Clinical Assessment of the Bone Block Tendon Interposition Technique for the Management of Thumb Carpometacarpal Joint Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Pellegrini's surgical technique is the most useful for thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis. The purpose of this paper is to describe the technique of a modified version using a bone block in the tunnel through which the flexor carpi radialis tendon is passed (BBTI). METHODS: Case series of patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the thumb carpometacarpal joint, in stage II or higher based on Eaton's classification, that were intervened using the BBTI technique for a 2-year period. Grip and pinch strength, range of motion, and 1-2 metacarpal angle were evaluated. Pain and function were measured using the visual analogue scale and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scale. RESULTS: The study included 16 cases in 14 patients (11 women and 3 men), with an average age of 55.7 ± 7.1 years. Encouraging results were obtained, with an average DASH score of 24.3 ± 17.9 and a minimum VAS pain score. A total of 58% showed a grip strength of over 80% and the postoperative movement was equivalent to the contralateral limb. No cases of infection were reported, and only two minor complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The BBTI technique is a surgical option that incorporates an interference screw, offering good functional results for managing osteoarthritis of the thumb carpometacarpal joint, with a similar complication rate to that of the original technique.

Orthotic use for CMC osteoarthritis: Variations among different health professionals in Brazil.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal disease in the adult and older adult populations. The use of orthoses to stabilize the thumb's articular complex is one of the most common conservative management strategies. Despite substantial research about this topic, there is insufficient evidence about the optimal use of orthoses to inform clinical practice, contributing to practice variations within and across health professionals. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To identify the prescription patterns, design preferences, and barriers for the use of orthotic devices among Brazilian health care professionals involved in the treatment of patients with OA of the basal thumb joint. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was sent to occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and rheumatologists across Brazil through professional association mailing lists. Survey included questions about orthosis design, materials, and barriers to the use of orthotic interventions. Respondents indicated their use based on photographs of 25 orthoses models that were selected through bibliographic review and expert consultation. Descriptive statistics, the chi-square test for independence, and the Fisher exact test were used to compare differences among orthotic prescription preferences, barriers, and challenges observed amidst the 3 participants' professional classes. RESULTS: There was no consensus about orthotic prescription among 275 professionals who answered the survey. About 69% of participants reported the use of multiple orthosis during treatment of patients with thumb OA. Results suggest significant variations in the number of joints included and stabilization strategies adopted, with a preference for orthotics made in rigid materials and involving the wrist, carpometacarpal, and metacarpophalangeal joints (P < .001). The lack of knowledge about orthotic options, institutional regulations, and policies were the major barriers reported by respondents (P < .01). CONCLUSION: A plentiful variety of different orthoses designs were observed in this study, and the prescriptions made by 3 professional classes showed differences regarding types of stabilization, joint involvement, and positioning. Despite the existence of clinical trials suggesting benefits for specific custom-made design models, our results indicated widespread clinical variation in practices and preferences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.