Patient Perspectives After Trapeziectomy Versus Carpometacarpal Prosthesis: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of Ten Bilateral Cases.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Carpometacarpal (CMC-I) arthritis is a frequent and disabling condition. Standard surgical options include trapeziectomy and prosthetic arthroplasty. While quantitative outcomes have been widely studied, little is known about patient perspectives regarding function, aesthetics, and rehabilitation. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten patients who had undergone trapeziectomy on one side and prosthesis implantation on the contralateral side. Interviews were performed ≥6 months postoperatively, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically following Braun and Clarke's framework. Researcher triangulation and member checking were applied to enhance trustworthiness. Results: Four overarching themes were identified. (1) Strength: Most patients reported greater strength and endurance on the prosthetic side, though both hands were generally adequate for daily activities. (2) Rehabilitation: Recovery after prosthesis implantation was described as markedly faster and less burdensome, with reduced need for therapy compared to trapeziectomy. (3) Aesthetics: Trapeziectomy was often associated with dissatisfaction due to thumb shortening and collapse, while prostheses were perceived as restoring a more natural appearance. (4) Surgical preference: When asked which procedure they would hypothetically choose again, all participants favored prosthesis implantation, citing superior function, faster recovery, and more favorable aesthetics. Conclusions: Patients who experienced both procedures consistently preferred prosthesis implantation. Their narratives highlight dimensions beyond standard clinical scores, including rehabilitation burden, appearance, and psychosocial impact. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into surgical counseling is essential to align treatment of CMC-I arthritis with patient priorities and to support shared decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".