Patient Perspectives on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Thumb, Hand, or Wrist Pain and Function: A Survey of 98 Patients.

PURPOSE: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an established option to improve pain and function for many orthopedic conditions. Our purpose was to obtain patient perspectives regarding CBT for thumb, hand, or wrist pain and function. METHODS: Between March and April 2022, we distributed an electronic survey via email to patients in our institution's health system with a diagnosis of arthritic or non-specific thumb, hand, or wrist pain. The survey included the opening statement "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a non-medication option to help manage pain and improve function" and up to 13 questions pertaining to patients' experiences and perceptions regarding CBT. The survey was anonymous and did not collect protected health information. We used descriptive statistics for the findings. RESULTS: We distributed the survey to 327 patients, yielding a 30% response rate (98/327). Of the respondents, 17 reported already using CBT to specifically help with pain/function. Of these, 15 felt it was helpful and agreed it could help others. Of the subset that used CBT for arthritis, all felt it was helpful. Of the 75 respondents with no CBT experience, 42 indicated "I've never heard of it," 28 responded "I never had it recommended as an option," and 16 marked "I don't know enough about it." Small subsets noted potential personal barriers to CBT implementation, such as cost, time involved, or perceived lack of potential efficacy for themselves. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of patients from our institution with thumb, hand, or wrist pain are utilizing CBT, and the majority finds it helpful. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: While some patients are already substantially benefiting from CBT to improve their thumb, hand, or wrist pain or function, there is a notable opportunity for providers to increase awareness and recommendations for this option.

Medial Femoral Trochlea Osteochondral Flap Reconstruction of the Previously Unsalvageable Kienbock-Associated Lunate With a Coronal Split.

PURPOSE: Patients with Kienbock disease can present with coronal fracture and collapse of the proximal lunate (Unified B2/Bain grade 1, 2B). Traditionally, this was considered unsalvageable. However, medial femoral trochlea (MFT) osteochondral reconstruction, used to recreate the proximal lunate surface, can be paired with reduction and repair of the coronal plane fracture, thus restoring midcarpal congruity. The purpose of this study was to report radiographic and clinical outcomes following lunate coronal fracture fixation at the time of MFT osteochondral reconstruction. METHODS: This was a retrospective study performed at a single institution. We identified patients with Kienbock disease who underwent MFT osteochondral reconstruction from 2014 to 2023. Patients were included if they had a coronal fracture of the lunate distal articular surface fixed at the time of surgery. Radiographic and clinical parameters were evaluated, including carpal height ratio, union rate, presence of heterotopic ossification, need for revision surgery, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included, with a mean age of 27.5 years (range: 15-41); 19 (58%) were women. Mean radiographic follow-up time was 5.8 months, and mean clinical follow-up time was 22.6 months. Union was achieved in 30/33 patients (91%). Carpal height ratio improved from 1.32 to 1.4. Two patients (6%) required reoperation, one for removal of heterotopic ossification and another for conversion to proximal row carpectomy. Patients demonstrated meaningful improvement in brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Upper Extremity scores. Range of motion before and after surgery was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Lunate coronal fracture fixation with MFT osteochondral reconstruction represents an additional management option in select patients with Kienbock disease. This technique restores the midcarpal joint during lunate reconstruction and may allow patients to avoid salvage procedures. Early radiographic and clinical outcomes are promising. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

No difference in load to failure or stiffness between transosseous tunnels, suture anchors, and cortical buttons for pectoralis major tendon repair: a systematic review & meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Surgical options for pectoralis major tendon tears include primary repair, though there is no consensus as to which constructs are biomechanically superior for repair. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase using PRISMA guidelines to identify studies that analyzed the biomechanical properties of bone tunnels (BT), cortical buttons (CB) and suture anchors (SA) techniques for pectoralis major tendon repair. The search phrase implemented was 'pectoralis major tendon repair biomechanics'. Studies that did not evaluate biomechanical outcome data, evaluated partial pectoralis major tendon tears, and non-English articles were excluded. Evaluated outcomes included ultimate load to failure (N) and stiffness (N/mm). RESULTS: Six studies met inclusion criteria, including a total of 124 cadaveric specimens, for pectoralis major tendon repair comparing BT with SA and CB. Pooled analysis from four studies reporting on ultimate load to failure between BT and SA failed to reveal a difference between BT and SA (p = 0.489). Pooled analysis from two studies reporting on stiffness failed to reveal a difference in favor of BT compared to SA (p = 0.705). Pooled analysis from four studies reporting on ultimate load to failure between BT and CB failed to reveal a difference between BT and CB (p = 0.567). Pooled analysis from two studies reporting on stiffness failed to reveal a difference in favor of BT compared to CB (p = 0.701). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in load to failure or stiffness when using BT, CB, or SA in pectoralis major tendon repairs. This review reveals that clinical outcomes may better inform which fixation construct to implement in pectoralis major tendon repairs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Systematic Review of Complications Associated With Proximal Hamstring Tendon Repair.

Background: Although several complications of proximal hamstring tendon ruptures have been reported in the literature, few studies have comprehensively analyzed the complication profile of proximal hamstring tendon repair. Purpose: To identify the overall rate of complications following proximal hamstring tendon repair and to differentiate these complications into categories. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Included in this review were studies that examined surgical repair of proximal hamstring tendon ruptures; all studies were in English and had an evidence level of 4 or higher. No restrictions were made regarding publication date or methodological quality. Data regarding complications were extracted to calculate the overall complication rate as well as the rate of major and minor complications. A quantitative data synthesis was conducted using the chi-square test to compare the proportion of patients who experienced complications with the endoscopic versus open approach. Results: A total of 43 articles including 2833 proximal hamstring tendon repairs were identified. The overall postoperative complication rate was 15.3% (n = 433). The rate of major complications was 4.6%, including a 1.7% rate of sciatic nerve injury, 0.8% rate of venous thromboembolism, 0.8% reoperation rate, 0.8% rerupture rate, and 0.4% rate of deep infection. Minor complications included a 2.4% rate of posterior femoral cutaneous nerve injury, 2.3% rate of persistent hamstring myopathy, 2.2% rate of persistent sitting pain, 1.8% rate of peri-incisional numbness, 1.1% rate of superficial infection, and 0.8% rate of hematoma/seroma. Conclusion: Proximal hamstring tendon repair is associated with an overall complication rate of 15.3%, including a 4.6% rate of major complications.

A Meta-Analysis of Biomechanical Studies for Suture Button Pullout Versus Suture Anchor Repair of Flexor Digitorum Profundus Avulsions.

BACKGROUND: There is no current consensus on which of the two most common flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) avulsion repair constructs, via suture button pullout (SBP) or suture anchor (SA), is biomechanically superior. Our purpose was to compare these repair methods via systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature. METHODS: We performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase. We only included studies with direct comparison data for both techniques. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the reported biomechanical results using pooled data for initial repair stiffness (N/mm), gap formation (mm), and ultimate load to failure (N). RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria, including a total of 201 cadaveric specimens. Four studies reported initial construct stiffness, with pooled analysis showing superiority for SA repairs (P < .05). Four studies evaluated gap formation, with pooled analysis demonstrating less gapping with SA repair (P < .05). Mean gap formation was 2.4 (±1.4) mm and 3.9 (±2.0) mm for the SA and SBP groups, respectively. All 7 studies assessed load to failure, with pooled analysis revealing no significant difference between groups (P > .05). We lacked statistical power to determine equivalence between techniques for load to failure. Both groups had failure values significantly lower than the native FDP. CONCLUSIONS: Via meta-analysis, there was increased initial construct stiffness and less gap formation for SA compared to SBP for FDP reinsertion, with no significant differences for ultimate failure load.