A critical look at intercarpal arthrodesis: Review of the literature

Painful joints have long been treated by arthrodesis. Limited intercarpal arthrodesis as an alternative to total wrist arthrodesis began gaining popularity in the late 1960s. Peterson and Lipscomb described various combinations of intercarpal arthrodeses for painful conditions affecting selected carpal bones.~ The authors concluded that these limited wrist artha-odeses rclieved pain while providing stability and preserving motion. Since that time, many different limited intercarpal arthrodesis combinations have been described in the literature; these include the scaphotrapezium trapezoid, lunottiquetral, scapholuhate, scaphocapitolunate, scaphocapitate, capitolunate, and capitohamate-lunotriquetral arthrodeses. They are described for various indications such as intercarpal arthrosis and instability, but pain is the most conunon indication. Postoperative results have varied. We were interested in reviewing the reported data on intercarpal arflarodesis to obtain a clearer understanding of the outcomes of each type of arthrodesis and how the different t ~ e s compared in terms of nonunion, rate of other complications, postoperative grip strength, range of motion (ROM), and pain relief. We examined the limited intercarpal