Download PDF
J Wrist Surg 2019; 08(04): 317-320
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1685469
Scientific Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Long-Term Results of Universal 2 Total Wrist Arthroplasty

H. J. A. Zijlker
1   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
,
M. J. P. F. Ritt
1   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
,
C. B. IJsselstein
2   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 October 2018

03 March 2019

Publication Date:
22 April 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The Universal 2 is a widely used total wrist implant that aims to maintain function of the wrist.

Purpose Promising mid-term results of the Universal 2 total wrist implant are described in the literature. This study evaluates the long-term results in terms of implant survival and patient satisfaction.

Patients and Methods Patients who received a Universal 2 implant between 2004 and 2009 were retrospectively identified through a database search. Clinical outcome and complications of the implant were assessed by examination of the patient's medical records, X-rays, and a questionnaire, consisting of the Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation questionnaire (PRWHE) and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaires and additional questions.

Results Twenty-five patients (26 wrists) were included in this study. Twenty-one (81%) Universal 2 implants remained in situ after a mean follow-up of 11 years. Moderate PRWHE (44) and QuickDASH (41) scores were found in these cases. Five Universal 2 implants failed and were converted to a total wrist arthrodesis after a mean period of 9.2 years due to distal component loosening (n = 3), recurrent luxation (n = 1), or recurrent synovitis (n = 1). Twenty-three (92%) patients were (very) satisfied with the Universal 2 implant.

Conclusion The Universal 2 demonstrates a high (81%) implant survival with a high patient satisfaction after a mean follow-up of 11 years. Prospective studies of the Universal 2 implant are necessary to objectify improvement in wrist function and to provide a better comparison to other fourth generation wrist implants.

Keywords

total wrist arthroplasty - wrist implant - Universal 2 - long-term results
 

  • References

  • 1 Ward CM, Kuhl T, Adams BD. Five to ten-year outcomes of the Universal total wrist arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (10) 914-919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Badge R, Kailash K, Dickson DR. , et al. Medium-term outcomes of the Universal-2 total wrist arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (12) 1642-1647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ferreres A, Lluch A, Del Valle M. Universal total wrist arthroplasty: midterm follow-up study. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36 (06) 967-973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kennedy JW, Ross A, Wright J, Martin DJ, Bransby-Zachary M, MacDonald DJ. Universal 2 total wrist arthroplasty: high satisfaction but high complication rates. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2018; 43 (04) 375-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pfanner S, Munz G, Guidi G, Ceruso M. Universal 2 wrist arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis. J Wrist Surg 2017; 6 (03) 206-215
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Adams BD. Total wrist arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2004; 27 (03) 278-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Adams BD. Total wrist arthroplasty. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 2004; 8 (03) 130-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Anderson MC, Adams BD. Total wrist arthroplasty. Hand Clin 2005; 21 (04) 621-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 MacDermid JC, Turgeon T, Richards RS, Beadle M, Roth JH. Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: a reliable and valid measurement tool. J Orthop Trauma 1998; 12 (08) 577-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kennedy C, Beaton D, Solway S, McConnell S, Bombardier C. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). The DASH and QuickDASH Outcome Measure User's Manual. 3rd ed. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Work & Health; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Boeckstyns ME, Herzberg G, Merser S. Favorable results after total wrist arthroplasty: 65 wrists in 60 patients followed for 5–9 years. Acta Orthop 2013; 84 (04) 415-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Reigstad O, Holm-Glad T, Bolstad B, Grimsgaard C, Thorkildsen R, Røkkum M. Five- to 10-year prospective follow-up of wrist arthroplasty in 56 nonrheumatoid patients. J Hand Surg Am 2017; 42 (10) 788-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ritt MJ, Stuart PR, Naggar L, Beckenbaugh RD. The early history of arthroplasty of the wrist. From amputation to total wrist implant. J Hand Surg [Br] 1994; 19 (06) 778-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Adams BD. Total wrist arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis. Int Congr Ser 2006; 1295: 83-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nair R. Review article: total wrist arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2014; 22 (03) 399-405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Menon J. Universal total wrist implant: experience with a carpal component fixed with three screws. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (05) 515-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Reigstad O, Røkkum M. Wrist arthroplasty: where do we stand today? A review of historic and contemporary designs. Hand Surg 2014; 19 (02) 311-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar