Surgical Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Carpometacarpal Joint of the Thumb: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most cases of basal joint osteoarthritis, surgery becomes an option at stages II, III, and IV, as classified by Eaton. Controversy exists regarding which technique achieves the best outcome. This systematic review was undertaken to address the question of which technique, if any, offers the best outcome to patients with osteoarthritis of the first carpometacarpal joint greater than stage II. A thorough search of the electronic databases Cochrane, Cinahl, Healthstar, and MEDLINE/PubMed was undertaken to identify reviews and articles on primary comparative studies of the different surgical options. The methodological quality of the retrieved articles was assessed on the basis of specific criteria. Inclusion criteria were applied to 44 of 254 possibly relevant articles. Eight reviews and 18 comparative studies met the criteria and were reviewed. Each of the techniques, arthrodesis, trapeziectomy with or without biological/synthetic interposition, osteotomy, and joint replacement, was associated with unique benefits and risks. There was great variability in outcome measurements. The majority of retrieved review articles claim that ligamentous reconstruction and tendon interposition may represent the best option; however, validity assessment of these studies revealed methodological flaws. Furthermore, results from the articles on comparative studies indicate that ligamentous reconstruction and tendon interposition may provide no additional benefit when compared with arthrodesis and trapeziectomy alone or with tendon interposition. There is no consensus as to which clinical outcomes are most important in thumb basal joint surgery and how these should be measured. This renders the appraisal and comparison of such studies a challenging task. Until large randomized controlled trials that compare techniques in similar populations with respect to staging and prognostic factors are undertaken and the clinical outcomes are clearly defined, surgeons will continue to claim superiority of one technique over another without supporting evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".