Skip to main content

Table 5 Review of comparative outcome studies with extractable data

From: Comparison of clinical and radiologic treatment outcomes of Kienböck’s disease

Author

Data assessment

Treatment (inclusion rate of wrists with KDd)

Follow-up in years (SD)

Post-op pain

Post-op DASH without work module

Post-op E/F

Incapacity for work (weeks)

Significant difference in clinical outcome

Afshar, 2013 [42]

Chart review

RSO (9/9)

6.4 ± 1.8

NM

NM

NM

NM

None

Examination

VBG (7/7)

6.5 ± 1.6

NM

NM

NM

NM

Martin, 2013 [43]

DASH only

Conservative (44/44)

NM

NM

23.7 ± 24.5

NM

NM

None

Partial wrist fusion (11/11)

NM

NM

20.0 ± 20.1

NM

NM

Complete wrist fusion (5/5)

Lunate excision (1/1)

RSO (1/1)

Hohendorff, 2012 [44]

Chart review

STT (8/8)

1

VAS at restb, 28 ± 31

21 ± 16

56° ± 16

NM

Better E/F and R/U after PRC

VAS activity-inducedb, 30 ± 27

Examination

PRC (11/11)

1

VAS at restb, 16 ± 29

19 ± 20

80° ± 23

NM

VAS activity-inducedb, 30 ± 26

Van den Dungen, 2006 [45]

Chart review

Conservative (19/59)

12

Pain quality and duration

21

92°

2.6

Less pain, better ROM, faster return to work after conservative treatment

Examination

STT (11/25)

14

Pain quality and duration

17

74°

17.1

Das Gupta, 2003 [46]

Examination

STT (13/13)

1.9

NM

19

68°

NM

NM

RSO (20/42)

6.9

NM

14

106°

NM

Salmon, 2000

Chart review

Conservative (15/18)

NM

NRS at restb, 2.8

NM

NM

NM

NM

NRS at worstb, 3

Examination

RSO (14/15)

NM

NRS at restb, 0.5

NM

NM

NM

NRS at worstb, 7.6

Nakamura, 1998 [48]

Chart review

PRC (7/7)

6.7

Pain yes/no

NM

64°

NM

None

STT (7/7)

3.5

Pain yes/no

NM

76°

NM

SC (4/4)

RL (3/3)

LC (1/1)

Delaere, 1998 [49]

Chart review

Conservative (22/22)

5.4

Pain quality and duration

NM

97°

NM

Better ROM after conservative treatment

Examination

STT (11/11)

5.5

Pain quality and duration

NM

68°

NM

PRC (6/6)

Vessel implantation (3/3)

RSO (1/1)

Ulnar lengthening (1/1)

Denervation (1/1)

Condit, 1993 [50]

Chart review

RSO (14/15)

5.2

NM

NM

NM

Better clinical outcome after RSO according to own wrist scoring system

Examination

STT (9/9)

4.5

NM

NM

NM

Kristensen, 1986 [51]

Chart review

Immobilization (23/23)

23

VRSa (0–3), 2 ± 0.7

NM

NM

NM

Examination

No specific treatment (24/24)

18.2

VRSa (0–3), 2 ± 0.7

NM

NM

Evans, 1986 [52]

Chart review

Conservative (14/14)

1.8

VRSa (0–3), 1 ± 0.7

68°

NM

NM

Examination

Silastic arthroplasty (21/21)

3.2

VRSa (0–3), 1 ± 0.8

69°

NM

Beckenbaugh, 1980 [53]

Chart review

Conservative (7/10)

7

No patient had pain

89°

NM

None

Examination

Silastic arthroplasty (22/22)

3.8

No patient had pain

75°

NM

Stahl, 2015 [54]

Chart review

STT (27/46)

4b ± 3c

NRS at rest, 0a ±2 c

44.3b ± 19c

83°b ± 16c

4b ± 3c

None

NRS activity-induced, 5a ±2c

 

Questionnaire

RSO (14/21)

10b ± 7.4c

NRS at rest, 1a ± 1c

43.9b ± 19c

93°b ± 42c

5b ± 3c

 

Examination

NRS activity-induced, 6a ±2 c

  1. NRS Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (0–10), VAS visual analog scale (0–100), VRS verbal rating scale, NM not mentioned, Δ Difference between pre- and post-treatment values, PRC proximal row carpectomy, STT scaphotrapeziotrapezoid arthrodesis, RSO radial shortening osteotomy, VBG vascularized bone graft
  2. aMedian
  3. bMean
  4. cStandard deviation
  5. dTen out of 12 of the reviewed studies did not mention if the data were collected prospectively in a follow-up examination for the purpose of a clinical study or if the data were assessed on the occasion of clinical follow-up examination and retrospectively analyzed. None of the studies provided a flow chart of patient enrolment with the number of patients excluded at each stage