Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical results and determine functional superiority in patients treated with scaphocapitate fusion (SCF) versus proximal row carpectomy (PRC) for advanced-grade Kienböck disease. METHODS: The patients were assessed in terms of demographic data, follow-up duration, disease stage, preoperative and final follow-up values of the disability of arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score, patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, together with the key-pinch grip and palmar grip values. The preoperative and postoperative flexion and extension angles and radial and ulnar deviation angles were also recorded and compared. As there were no records of preoperative grip strength values, comparisons were made with the healthy contralateral hand. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients were evaluated, including 10 who underwent PRC surgery and 16 who underwent SCF. Preoperatively, the flexion range was 65.8% in the PRC group and 58.8% in the SCF group, the extension range was 65.8% and 56.7%, radial deviation was 35% and 40.6%, and ulnar deviation was 65% and 61.1%, respectively. Postoperatively, the mean values of these parameters were comparable between the 2 groups. When grip strength was compared with the non-operated hand, it was determined to be 58.8% of the healthy hand in the PRC group and 60.9% in the SCF group. Similarly, pinch strength was 45.5% of the healthy hand in the PRC group and 55.6% in the SCF group. In all patients, a statistically significant reduction was observed in postoperative DASH, PRWE, and VAS scores compared to preoperative values. Specifically, in the PRC group, the postoperative scores were DASH: 22.6, PRWE: 43.6, and VAS: 3.2, while in the SCF group, the corresponding values were DASH: 26.5, PRWE: 38.2, and VAS: 2.9. CONCLUSION: In advanced-grade Kienböck disease, PRC appears to be a more favorable option when preserving joint range of motion is a priority, whereas SCF may provide better outcomes in terms of grip strength. Both techniques seem to o!er comparable pain relief and functional results, suggesting that the choice of procedure should be tailored to the patient's individual needs and priorities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Therapeutic Study.