Open Access
Table 4
Key studies comparison.
| Author | Procedure(s) | Follow-up | Key findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Watson and Ballet (1984) [2] | 4CF | – | Defined SLAC progression; foundational technique |
| Wyrick et al. (1995) [15] | PRC vs 4CF | Mid-term | Comparable outcomes; PRC limited by capitate wear |
| Luchetti (2018) [10] | Tenodesis | 5–9 yrs | Good clinical outcomes; radiographic deterioration |
| Nienstedt et al. (2023) [9] | Dynamic ECRB tenodesis | Long-term | Up to 33% required salvage fusion |
| Andronic et al. (2022) [3] | 4CF (systematic review) | Long-term | >90% union; consistent PROMs |
| Traverso et al. (2017) [5] | 4CF | ≥10 yrs | Durable function; good patient satisfaction |
| Dunn et al. (2020) [4] | CLF (systematic review) | Long-term | Comparable results to 4CF |
| Elshahhat et al. (2024) [20] | CLF | Mid-term | PROMs comparable to 4CF |
| Reyniers et al. (2023) [11] | PRC vs 4CF | Long-term | Similar outcomes; PRC contraindicated with capitate chondrosis |
| Solgård et al. (2024) [12] | Limited intercarpal fusions | Mid-term | Comparable union; motion preserved |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.