Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Thumb CMC Arthritis

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Thumb CMC Arthritis

Comprehensive guide to thumb carpometacarpal arthritis - anatomy, Eaton-Littler classification, grind test, trapeziectomy, LRTI, CMC arthroplasty, and surgical decision-making for orthopaedic exam

complete
Updated: 2025-12-25
High Yield Overview

THUMB CMC ARTHRITIS (TRAPEZIOMETACARPAL OSTEOARTHRITIS)

Saddle Joint Degeneration | Beak Ligament Failure | Grind Test | Eaton-Littler Staging

33%Women over 50 affected
15:1Female to male ratio
90%+Success rate for surgery
AOLAnterior oblique ligament (beak) is key stabilizer

EATON-LITTLER CLASSIFICATION

Stage I
PatternNormal joint space, widening only
TreatmentConservative, splinting
Stage II
PatternJoint space narrowing, less than 2mm osteophytes
TreatmentConservative or surgery
Stage III
PatternSignificant narrowing, large osteophytes
TreatmentSurgery (trapeziectomy, LRTI)
Stage IV
PatternPantrapezial arthritis (STT involved)
TreatmentSurgery addressing all joints

Critical Must-Knows

  • Saddle joint anatomy - unique biaxial motion allows opposition and circumduction
  • Anterior oblique (beak) ligament is primary stabilizer - failure leads to subluxation
  • Grind test is pathognomonic - axial compression with rotation reproduces pain
  • Eaton-Littler staging guides treatment - Stage I-II conservative, III-IV surgical
  • Trapeziectomy with LRTI is gold standard - 90%+ satisfaction, preserves motion
  • CMC arthroplasty emerging option - preserves height but higher complication rate

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    CMC arthritis is the most common site of hand osteoarthritis
  • "
    Anterior oblique ligament (beak ligament) is the key primary restraint
  • "
    Grind test positive = pain with axial load and rotation of thumb metacarpal
  • "
    Stage IV includes scaphotrapezial-trapezoid (STT) joint involvement
  • "
    LRTI = Ligament Reconstruction and Tendon Interposition
  • "
    FCR is most commonly used donor tendon for LRTI

Clinical Imaging

Imaging Gallery

Clinical photograph showing (a) trapeziometacarpal prosthesis unconstrained metal on metal joint prosthesis consists of a titanium stem inserted into the first metacarpal, a chrome–cobalt steel cup sh
Click to expand
Clinical photograph showing (a) trapeziometacarpal prosthesis unconstrained metal on metal joint prosthesis consists of a titanium stem inserted into Credit: Chug M et al. via Indian J Orthop via Open-i (NIH) (Open Access (CC BY))
(a) The arterial pedicle of the harvested joint was dissected carefully to the snuff box, and the harvested joint was elevated to the thumb carpometacarpal joint. (b) The third carpometacarpal was har
Click to expand
(a) The arterial pedicle of the harvested joint was dissected carefully to the snuff box, and the harvested joint was elevated to the thumb carpometacCredit: Kodama N et al. via Case Reports Plast Surg Hand Surg via Open-i (NIH) (Open Access (CC BY))
(a) Radiographic images at 1-year follow-up evaluation. The grafted joint survived and showed no osteoarthritic changes in the radiographic findings. Donor site had no problems at the 1-year follow-up
Click to expand
(a) Radiographic images at 1-year follow-up evaluation. The grafted joint survived and showed no osteoarthritic changes in the radiographic findings. Credit: Kodama N et al. via Case Reports Plast Surg Hand Surg via Open-i (NIH) (Open Access (CC BY))

Critical Thumb CMC Arthritis Exam Points

Saddle Joint Biomechanics

The CMC joint is a saddle joint (sellar joint) with reciprocally curved surfaces allowing biaxial motion. This unique anatomy permits opposition and circumduction but creates high contact stresses predisposing to arthritis.

Beak Ligament is Key

The anterior oblique ligament (AOL), also called the beak ligament, is the primary restraint to dorsoradial subluxation. Its attenuation or failure is the initial pathologic step leading to progressive arthritis.

Eaton-Littler Staging

Stage I-II can be treated conservatively. Stage III has isolated CMC arthritis requiring trapeziectomy plus or minus LRTI. Stage IV involves the STT joint and may require extended procedures like arthrodesis.

Surgical Gold Standard

Trapeziectomy with LRTI remains the gold standard with over 90% patient satisfaction. Simple trapeziectomy alone has higher subsidence rates. CMC arthroplasty is emerging but has higher revision rates.

Treatment Algorithm by Eaton-Littler Stage

StageRadiographic FindingsFirst-Line TreatmentSurgical Options
IWidening of joint space, no narrowing, synovitisSplinting, NSAIDs, activity modification, steroid injectionArthroscopic synovectomy (rarely indicated)
IIJoint space narrowing, osteophytes less than 2mmSplinting, NSAIDs, steroid injection, trial of 3-6 monthsTrapeziectomy with LRTI, ligament reconstruction alone
IIISevere narrowing, osteophytes greater than 2mm, sclerosisSurgery if conservative failsTrapeziectomy with LRTI (gold standard), CMC arthroplasty, arthrodesis
IVPantrapezial arthritis, STT joint involvedSurgery addressing all involved jointsTrapeziectomy with LRTI, STT fusion, complete arthrodesis
Mnemonic

SADDLE - Anatomy and Biomechanics

S
Saddle joint (biaxial)
Reciprocally curved surfaces
A
Anterior oblique ligament
Beak ligament - primary stabilizer
D
Dorsoradial subluxation
Pattern when AOL fails
D
Deep (volar) ligament
Posterior oblique and intermetacarpal ligaments
L
Lateral pinch strength
Reduced in advanced arthritis
E
Eaton-Littler classification
4 stages guide treatment

Memory Hook:SADDLE describes the joint anatomy - remember the beak ligament is anterior oblique

Mnemonic

GRIND - Clinical Diagnosis

G
Grasp weakness
Pinch strength reduced
R
Radial side thenar pain
Base of thumb pain
I
Inspection shows squaring
Adduction deformity, prominent base
N
Narrowing on X-ray
Joint space loss on stress view
D
Distraction-compression test
Grind test - axial load with rotation causes pain

Memory Hook:GRIND is the pathognomonic test - axial compression and rotation of thumb metacarpal

Mnemonic

LRTI - Surgical Technique

L
Ligament reconstruction
Suspensionplasty to stabilize metacarpal
R
Remove trapezium
Complete trapeziectomy
T
Tendon interposition
FCR slip or APL as spacer
I
Incision (Wagner or Brunner)
Volar or dorsal approach

Memory Hook:LRTI stands for Ligament Reconstruction and Tendon Interposition - the gold standard

Mnemonic

FCR SLIP - Donor Tendon

F
Flexor Carpi Radialis
Most commonly used donor tendon
C
Complete or partial slip
Half tendon harvested, preserves wrist flexion
R
Reconstruction of suspension
Weave through drill holes in metacarpal base
S
Spacer function
Remaining tendon acts as interposition
L
Long enough for weaving
Adequate length for suspensionplasty
I
Intact wrist flexion
FCU compensates for half FCR harvest
P
Prevents subsidence
Maintains thumb height and strength

Memory Hook:FCR SLIP is the most common donor - half the tendon used, wrist flexion preserved

Overview and Epidemiology

Thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthritis, also known as trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis or basilar joint arthritis, is the most common site of osteoarthritis in the hand. It affects the articulation between the first metacarpal and the trapezium.

Epidemiology:

  • Prevalence increases with age - affects up to 33% of postmenopausal women
  • Female to male ratio approximately 15:1
  • Bilateral involvement in 40-70% of cases
  • Most common symptomatic presentation is Stage II-III disease

Risk factors:

  • Female sex (hormonal factors, ligamentous laxity)
  • Age greater than 50 years
  • Previous trauma or fracture
  • Repetitive pinch activities (occupational)
  • Joint laxity or hypermobility
  • Genetic predisposition

Why So Common at CMC Joint?

The CMC joint is a saddle joint with unique biomechanics. High contact stresses during pinch (up to 120 kg/cm²) combined with the small articular surface area predispose to cartilage degeneration. The anterior oblique ligament (beak ligament) acts as the primary restraint, and its attenuation initiates the degenerative cascade.

Natural history:

  • Initial ligamentous laxity leads to joint instability
  • Abnormal kinematics increase contact stresses
  • Progressive cartilage loss and osteophyte formation
  • Dorsoradial subluxation of metacarpal base
  • Adduction contracture (first web space narrowing)
  • Secondary STT arthritis in advanced cases (Stage IV)

Anatomy and Pathophysiology

Osseous anatomy:

  • Trapezium: distal carpal row bone with saddle-shaped articular surface
  • First metacarpal base: reciprocally curved saddle surface
  • Saddle joint (sellar joint): biaxial motion - flexion/extension and abduction/adduction
  • Opposition is a combination of abduction, flexion, and pronation

Ligamentous anatomy (16 ligaments described):

The CMC joint has complex ligamentous support with 16 described ligaments. The key structures:

Key CMC Ligaments

LigamentLocationFunctionClinical Significance
Anterior Oblique (AOL)Volar-ulnar, beak-shapedPrimary restraint to dorsoradial subluxationFailure is initiating event in arthritis
Posterior ObliqueDorsal-radialSecondary restraintContributes to stability in extension
Intermetacarpal (IML)Between MC1 and MC2Prevents dorsal subluxationMay be used for reconstruction
Dorsoradial ligamentDorsal aspectRestraint in flexionLess critical than AOL

Beak Ligament

The anterior oblique ligament (AOL) is also called the beak ligament due to its shape. It originates from the volar-ulnar tubercle of the trapezium and inserts on the volar-ulnar aspect of the metacarpal base. It is the primary restraint and its attenuation is the initial pathologic event. Think of it as the ACL of the thumb CMC joint.

Biomechanics:

  • Saddle joint allows two degrees of freedom: flexion/extension and abduction/adduction
  • Combination movements create opposition (pronation component from muscle action)
  • Contact stresses during pinch are extremely high: 120 kg/cm² (12 MPa)
  • Small articular surface area (1-2 cm²) concentrates forces
  • Ligamentous restraints prevent subluxation under these high loads

Pathophysiology:

The degenerative cascade:

Ligamentous Attenuation

Anterior oblique ligament stretches or partially tears, often from repetitive microtrauma or hormonal-related laxity. Joint kinematics become abnormal with subluxation during pinch.

Abnormal Kinematics

Dorsoradial subluxation of the metacarpal base occurs with pinch. Altered contact areas and increased peak stresses damage articular cartilage.

Cartilage Degeneration

Progressive cartilage loss with fibrillation, fissuring, and full-thickness defects. Subchondral bone exposure and sclerosis. Osteophyte formation at joint margins.

Advanced Arthritis

Severe joint space loss, large osteophytes, cyst formation. Adduction contracture develops. In Stage IV, pantrapezial arthritis with STT joint involvement.

Secondary deformities:

  • Adduction contracture: first web space narrowing
  • Metacarpal base dorsoradial subluxation: prominent "shoulder" at base
  • MCP hyperextension: compensatory for adduction (swan neck of thumb)
  • Z-deformity: adduction at CMC, hyperextension at MCP, flexion at IP

Classification Systems

The Eaton-Littler classification (modified Eaton classification) is the standard staging system for thumb CMC arthritis. It is based on radiographic findings and guides treatment decisions.

Stage I: Pre-Arthritic

Radiographic findings:

  • Normal joint space or slight widening
  • No osteophytes
  • Possible joint effusion (synovitis)
  • Subluxation may be present on stress views

Clinical presentation:

  • Pain with activities
  • Tenderness over CMC joint
  • Grind test positive
  • Maintained pinch strength

Treatment:

  • Conservative management primary
  • Splinting (thumb spica)
  • NSAIDs
  • Activity modification
  • Corticosteroid injection (diagnostic and therapeutic)
  • Arthroscopic synovectomy (rarely indicated)

Stage I is relatively uncommon as patients often present later.

Stage II: Early Arthritis

Radiographic findings:

  • Joint space narrowing (less than normal but still present)
  • Small osteophytes or bone debris (less than 2mm)
  • Possible sclerosis
  • Subluxation may be apparent

Clinical presentation:

  • Pain with pinch and grasp activities
  • Thenar pain and tenderness
  • Reduced pinch strength (20-30% loss)
  • Positive grind test
  • Some limitation of thumb motion

Treatment:

  • Initial conservative trial (3-6 months)
  • Splinting in functional position
  • NSAIDs and activity modification
  • Corticosteroid injection
  • Surgical options if conservative fails:
    • Ligament reconstruction alone
    • Trapeziectomy with LRTI
    • Volar ligament reconstruction
    • Arthroscopy with debridement (limited role)

Stage II is the transition zone between conservative and surgical treatment.

Stage III: Advanced CMC Arthritis

Radiographic findings:

  • Severe joint space narrowing or complete loss
  • Large osteophytes (greater than 2mm)
  • Subchondral sclerosis and cysts
  • Dorsoradial subluxation
  • STT joint normal (key differentiator from Stage IV)

Clinical presentation:

  • Significant pain with activities and at rest
  • Thenar atrophy
  • Marked pinch weakness (50%+ loss)
  • Adduction contracture
  • Positive grind test
  • Palpable osteophytes
  • Squaring of thumb base

Treatment:

  • Primarily surgical
  • Trapeziectomy with LRTI (gold standard)
  • Simple trapeziectomy
  • CMC arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty or total joint)
  • Arthrodesis (for young laborers)
  • Hematoma distraction arthroplasty (Burton procedure)

Stage III is the most common presentation requiring surgery.

Stage IV: Pantrapezial Arthritis

Radiographic findings:

  • All findings of Stage III at CMC joint
  • Scaphotrapezial-trapezoid (STT) joint arthritis
  • Joint space narrowing at STT joint
  • Osteophytes at multiple trapezial articulations

Clinical presentation:

  • Similar to Stage III but more extensive pain
  • Pain over STT joint (radial side of wrist)
  • Tenderness over scaphoid tuberosity
  • More severe functional limitation
  • Potential radiocarpal arthritis symptoms

Treatment:

  • Trapeziectomy with LRTI (most common)
  • Combined trapeziectomy and STT fusion
  • Extended trapeziectomy
  • Four-corner fusion (if severe wrist arthritis)
  • Total wrist arthrodesis (salvage)

Stage IV requires addressing all involved joints for optimal outcomes.

Stage IV Key Point

The defining feature of Stage IV is involvement of the STT joint (scaphotrapezial-trapezoid articulation). This is pantrapezial arthritis. Treatment requires addressing the STT joint, either with trapeziectomy (which removes the trapezium articulating with scaphoid) or with combined procedures like STT fusion.

Clinical Presentation and Examination

History:

  • Chief complaint: pain at base of thumb, difficulty with pinch activities
  • Pain characteristics: worse with pinch, opening jars, turning keys, writing
  • Functional impact: reduced grip strength, difficulty with ADLs
  • Duration: often gradual onset over months to years
  • Previous treatments: splinting, NSAIDs, injections
  • Hand dominance: affects functional expectations
  • Occupation: heavy manual labor vs. sedentary

Physical examination:

Inspection:

  • Squaring of thumb base: prominence from dorsoradial subluxation and osteophytes
  • Thenar atrophy: in advanced cases
  • Adduction contracture: reduced first web space
  • MCP hyperextension: compensatory Z-deformity
  • Skin changes: overlying the joint

Palpation:

  • Tenderness: directly over CMC joint (volar and dorsal)
  • Osteophyte palpation: bony prominences at base
  • Crepitus: with joint motion
  • Synovitis: soft tissue fullness

Range of motion:

  • Opposition: thumb tip to small finger base (Kapandji score)
  • Abduction: measure first web space
  • Radial abduction and palmar abduction: often reduced
  • Extension: may have compensatory MCP hyperextension

Special tests:

Special Tests for CMC Arthritis

TestTechniquePositive FindingSensitivity
Grind test (Compression-Rotation)Axial compression of thumb metacarpal with rotationPain and/or crepitus reproducedVery high (pathognomonic)
CMC shear testStabilize trapezium, translate metacarpal dorsally and volarlyPain, crepitus, or excessive translationHigh for instability
Radial stress test (STT)Radial deviation of wrist with compressionPain over STT joint (Stage IV)Moderate for STT involvement
Pinch strength measurementKey pinch (lateral) and tip pinch measuredReduced compared to contralateral (greater than 30%)Functional assessment

Grind Test

The grind test is the most specific examination finding for CMC arthritis. Hold the thumb metacarpal, apply axial compression (pushing the base toward the trapezium), and rotate the metacarpal. Pain and crepitus are pathognomonic. The test reproduces the high contact stresses that occur during pinch.

Differential diagnosis:

  • De Quervain tenosynovitis: pain at radial styloid, Finkelstein test positive
  • Scaphoid fracture or nonunion: snuffbox tenderness, different pain location
  • STT arthritis: isolated STT pain without CMC involvement
  • Flexor carpi radialis tendinitis: pain over FCR at wrist
  • First dorsal compartment arthritis: rare
  • Carpal tunnel syndrome: may coexist, different symptom pattern
  • Trigger thumb: locking and catching at IP or MCP joint

Investigations and Imaging

Radiographic assessment:

Standard radiographic series for CMC arthritis:

1. PA view of hand:

  • Shows joint space narrowing
  • Osteophytes
  • Subluxation pattern

2. Lateral view of hand:

  • Dorsal subluxation visible
  • Osteophyte size assessment

3. Robert view (Bett view, stress AP):

  • True AP of CMC joint
  • Positioning: forearm pronated, thumb extended and opposed
  • Best view for joint space narrowing and subluxation
  • Most useful for staging

4. Eaton stress view:

  • Resisted tip pinch during radiograph
  • Demonstrates dynamic subluxation
  • Useful in early disease (Stage I-II)

Radiographic findings by stage:

  • Stage I: Normal joint space or widening, stress view shows subluxation
  • Stage II: Narrowing, osteophytes less than 2mm
  • Stage III: Severe narrowing, osteophytes greater than 2mm, sclerosis
  • Stage IV: Above findings plus STT joint involvement

Robert View

The Robert view (also called Bett view) is the most important radiograph for CMC arthritis. It provides a true AP view of the CMC joint by pronating the forearm and placing the thumb flat on the cassette. This view best demonstrates joint space narrowing and subluxation for Eaton-Littler staging.

Advanced imaging:

MRI:

  • Not routinely required for diagnosis
  • May be useful to assess:
    • Ligament integrity (AOL)
    • Synovitis severity
    • Articular cartilage status
    • Occult fractures
    • STT joint involvement when X-ray equivocal

CT scan:

  • Rarely indicated
  • May be useful for:
    • Preoperative planning for arthrodesis
    • Complex deformity assessment
    • Failed prior surgery

Ultrasound:

  • Can assess synovitis
  • Guide injection procedures
  • Limited role compared to radiographs

Injection testing:

  • Diagnostic injection: local anesthetic into CMC joint
    • Pain relief confirms CMC as source
    • Distinguishes from de Quervain or STT arthritis
  • Therapeutic injection: corticosteroid
    • May provide temporary relief (weeks to months)
    • Up to 3 injections can be attempted
    • Helps select appropriate surgical candidates

Management Approach

📊 Management Algorithm
Management algorithm for Thumb Cmc Arthritis
Click to expand
Management algorithm for Thumb Cmc ArthritisCredit: OrthoVellum

Conservative Management (Stage I-II)

Non-operative treatment trial (3-6 months):

  • Thumb spica splinting (removable, worn during activities and night)
  • Activity modification (avoid repetitive pinch)
  • NSAIDs (oral or topical)
  • Hand therapy (strengthening, ROM, adaptive equipment)
  • Corticosteroid injection (up to 3 attempts)

Success rate: 40-60% of patients achieve adequate symptom control. Better outcomes in Stage I-II disease.

Surgical Indications

Consider surgery when:

  • Failure of conservative management for 3-6 months
  • Persistent pain affecting function
  • Significant functional limitation (ADLs, occupation)
  • Pinch strength loss greater than 30-50%
  • Patient motivation for surgical intervention
  • Stage III-IV disease (earlier surgical consideration)

These indications apply to properly selected patients with realistic expectations.

Surgical Options

Multiple surgical techniques available:

  • Trapeziectomy with LRTI (gold standard)
  • Simple trapeziectomy
  • Arthrodesis (CMC fusion)
  • Arthroplasty (implant: hemiarthroplasty or total joint)
  • Ligament reconstruction alone (Stage I-II)
  • Hematoma distraction arthroplasty

Choice depends on patient factors, stage, surgeon preference, and evidence.

Postoperative Protocol

Immobilization: 3-4 weeks in thumb spica (includes wrist and thumb, IP free) Early motion: ROM exercises at 4 weeks Strengthening: Begins at 8-12 weeks Full recovery: 3-6 months for maximal improvement

Surgical Techniques

Trapeziectomy with Ligament Reconstruction and Tendon Interposition

Indications:

  • Stage II-IV disease with failed conservative treatment
  • Primary surgical option for most patients
  • Standard procedure with best long-term evidence

Technique (Burton-Pellegrini or variations):

1. Incision and approach:

  • Dorsal or volar approach (volar more common)
  • Wagner incision: longitudinal over thenar eminence
  • Identify and protect radial sensory nerve branches
  • Protect palmar cutaneous branch of median nerve

2. Trapeziectomy:

  • Identify CMC joint and trapezium
  • Dissect circumferentially around trapezium
  • Protect FCR tendon (volar approach) or ECRB (dorsal)
  • Remove trapezium completely
  • Ensure no fragments remain
  • Inspect STT joint (Stage IV)

3. Tendon harvest:

  • Harvest half-width of FCR (most common) or entire APL
  • FCR: make distal window, retrieve with tendon stripper
  • Leave proximal attachment intact
  • Length: 10-12 cm typically adequate

4. Ligament reconstruction (suspensionplasty):

  • Drill hole in metacarpal base (dorsal-radial to volar-ulnar)
  • Second drill hole in index metacarpal base or through FCR tunnel
  • Thread tendon through metacarpal hole
  • Create sling or anchor to suspend first metacarpal
  • Prevents proximal migration and subsidence

5. Tendon interposition:

  • Remaining tendon rolled into ball or figure-of-eight
  • Placed in trapezial space as spacer
  • Suture to capsule to prevent migration
  • Maintains space and prevents subsidence

6. Closure:

  • Repair capsule
  • Close skin
  • Apply thumb spica splint with IP joint free

Technical pearls:

  • Complete trapezium removal is essential (prevents pain)
  • FCR harvest: take only half width to preserve wrist flexion
  • Ensure adequate tension on suspension (not too tight)
  • Interposition prevents bone-on-bone contact

Postoperative care:

  • Thumb spica splint for 3-4 weeks
  • Remove sutures at 2 weeks
  • ROM exercises begin at 4 weeks
  • Strengthening at 8-12 weeks
  • Avoid heavy lifting for 3 months

This concludes the LRTI technique description.

Simple Trapeziectomy (Without LRTI)

Indications:

  • Stage III-IV disease
  • Low-demand patients
  • Elderly patients
  • Contraindication to prolonged rehabilitation

Technique:

  • Same approach as LRTI
  • Complete removal of trapezium
  • No ligament reconstruction or interposition
  • Direct closure

Advantages:

  • Simpler procedure
  • Shorter operative time
  • Faster initial recovery
  • Less complex rehabilitation

Disadvantages:

  • Higher subsidence rate (20-30%)
  • Potential thumb height loss
  • Some loss of pinch strength
  • Possible instability

Evidence:

  • Outcomes similar to LRTI at 1 year
  • Subsidence does not always correlate with poor outcomes
  • Many patients achieve good pain relief and function
  • Some surgeons prefer simple trapeziectomy for elderly

Simple trapeziectomy is a valid option for appropriate patients.

CMC Joint Arthroplasty (Implant)

Types:

  • Hemiarthroplasty: Resurface trapezium or metacarpal
  • Total joint arthroplasty: Both sides replaced (less common)

Indications:

  • Stage III disease
  • Desire to preserve thumb height and strength
  • Younger, active patients
  • Failed conservative treatment

Advantages:

  • Immediate stability
  • Preserves thumb height
  • Potentially faster recovery
  • Stronger pinch strength initially

Disadvantages:

  • Higher complication rate
  • Risk of loosening (10-15%)
  • Risk of dislocation (5-10%)
  • Subsidence possible
  • Revision surgery more common
  • Implant cost

Evidence:

  • Short-term outcomes comparable to LRTI
  • Higher revision rate than LRTI (approximately 10-15% vs. 5%)
  • Longer-term data still emerging
  • Not yet considered gold standard

Current role:

  • Emerging alternative to LRTI
  • Consider for younger patients
  • Need careful patient selection
  • Requires specialized implants

CMC arthroplasty is evolving but has higher revision rates than LRTI.

CMC Arthrodesis (Fusion)

Indications:

  • Young, high-demand manual laborers
  • Male patients requiring maximal pinch strength
  • Post-traumatic arthritis
  • Failed previous surgery
  • Inflammatory arthritis

Technique:

  • Approach similar to LRTI
  • Denude articular cartilage from trapezium and metacarpal base
  • Position: 40° palmar abduction, 20° radial abduction, 10-15° pronation
  • Fixation: K-wires, plate, or screws
  • Bone graft if needed (gap or poor bone quality)

Advantages:

  • Maximal pinch strength (100% preservation or increase)
  • No subsidence
  • Excellent stability
  • Predictable pain relief

Disadvantages:

  • Loss of CMC motion
  • Compensatory MCP hyperextension (may lead to MCP arthritis)
  • Nonunion risk (5-10%)
  • Malposition risk
  • Hardware complications
  • Prolonged immobilization (8-12 weeks)
  • Accelerated STT or MCP arthritis long-term

Evidence:

  • Highest pinch strength outcomes
  • Good pain relief (90%+)
  • Nonunion rate 5-10%
  • Adjacent joint arthritis concern long-term
  • Best for specific patient population (young male laborers)

Patient selection critical:

  • Discuss loss of motion
  • Emphasize strength gain
  • Reserve for appropriate candidates

Arthrodesis provides maximal strength but sacrifices motion.

Alternative Surgical Procedures

1. Ligament reconstruction alone (Stage I-II):

  • Volar ligament reconstruction without trapeziectomy
  • Reconstruct AOL with tendon graft
  • Preserves joint
  • Limited evidence
  • May delay inevitable trapeziectomy

2. Arthroscopic synovectomy or debridement:

  • Stage I disease with synovitis
  • Remove inflamed synovium
  • Debride early cartilage damage
  • Limited long-term benefit
  • Rarely performed

3. Hematoma distraction arthroplasty (Burton procedure):

  • Trapeziectomy with K-wire distraction for 4-6 weeks
  • Allows hematoma to form in space
  • Organizes into fibrous tissue
  • Similar outcomes to LRTI
  • Less commonly performed now

4. Metacarpal extension osteotomy:

  • Realign metacarpal to offload arthritic areas
  • Very limited indications
  • Not commonly used

5. Joint denervation:

  • Rarely performed
  • Theoretical pain relief without affecting function
  • Minimal evidence

These procedures have limited or evolving roles compared to standard techniques.

Complications of Surgical Treatment

Early complications (less than 6 weeks):

Early Complications

ComplicationIncidenceManagementPrevention
Radial sensory nerve injury (neuroma or paresthesia)5-10%Observation (most resolve), neuroma excision if persistentCareful dissection, protect nerve branches
Wound infection1-2%Antibiotics, wound care, possible debridementPerioperative antibiotics, sterile technique
Hematoma2-3%Compression, drainage if largeHemostasis, drain consideration
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy (CRPS)1-5%Early mobilization, therapy, medicationsEarly ROM, avoid prolonged immobilization

Late complications (greater than 6 weeks):

Late Complications

ComplicationIncidenceManagementPrevention
Subsidence (proximal migration of metacarpal)20-30% simple, less than 10% LRTIUsually asymptomatic, revision LRTI if symptomaticLRTI technique, adequate suspensionplasty
Instability or weakness5-10%Therapy, revision reconstruction if severeProper LRTI tension, adequate rehabilitation
Persistent pain5-10%Investigate cause (incomplete trapeziectomy, STT, de Quervain), treat accordinglyComplete trapezium removal, assess STT joint
Tendon adhesions or rupture2-3%Tenolysis if adhesions, reconstruction if ruptureGentle technique, early ROM
Scar sensitivity5-10%Desensitization therapy, scar massageMeticulous skin closure, therapy

Arthroplasty-specific complications:

  • Implant loosening (10-15%)
  • Dislocation (5-10%)
  • Subsidence (5-10%)
  • Periprosthetic fracture (2-5%)
  • Metallosis (rare)

Arthrodesis-specific complications:

  • Nonunion (5-10%)
  • Malunion (improper positioning)
  • Hardware failure or irritation
  • Adjacent joint arthritis (MCP, STT)

Subsidence

Subsidence (proximal migration of the thumb metacarpal into the trapezial space) occurs in 20-30% of simple trapeziectomy cases but is less common with LRTI (less than 10%). Importantly, radiographic subsidence does not always correlate with poor clinical outcomes. Many patients with subsidence have excellent pain relief and function. Symptomatic subsidence requires revision LRTI.

Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation

Immobilization phase (0-4 weeks):

  • Thumb spica splint or cast
  • Includes wrist and thumb CMC/MCP joints
  • IP joint free for motion
  • Elevate hand to reduce swelling
  • Suture removal at 2 weeks
  • Continue splinting until week 4

Early mobilization phase (4-8 weeks):

  • Remove splint at 4 weeks
  • Begin gentle ROM exercises
    • Thumb opposition
    • Radial and palmar abduction
    • CMC and MCP flexion/extension
  • Progress to active ROM without resistance
  • Custom splint for protection during activities
  • Scar massage and desensitization

Strengthening phase (8-12 weeks):

  • Begin progressive resistance exercises
  • Pinch strengthening (putty, grippers)
  • Grip strengthening
  • Functional activities training
  • Gradual return to work (light duty)

Return to full activity (12+ weeks):

  • Full ROM usually achieved by 3 months
  • Strengthening continues for 6 months
  • Maximal improvement at 6-12 months
  • Return to unrestricted activities at 3-6 months
  • Heavy manual labor may require 6 months

Expected outcomes:

  • Pain relief: 90-95% of patients
  • Pinch strength: 80-90% of contralateral side
  • ROM: Slightly reduced but functional
  • Satisfaction: 85-95%
  • Return to activities: 90%+

Early Motion is Critical

Starting ROM at 4 weeks is critical to prevent stiffness and adhesions. Prolonged immobilization beyond 4 weeks increases risk of CRPS and poor functional outcomes. Balance protection of reconstruction with need for early mobilization.

Outcomes and Prognosis

Trapeziectomy with LRTI: Gold Standard

High
Key Findings:
  • Pain relief achieved in over 90% of patients
  • Satisfaction rates 85-95% at long-term follow-up
  • Pinch strength recovers to 80-90% of contralateral side
  • Low reoperation rate (less than 5%)
  • Subsidence occurs but often asymptomatic
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

LRTI vs Simple Trapeziectomy

High
Key Findings:
  • No significant difference in pain relief (VAS scores equivalent)
  • No significant difference in pinch strength at 1 year
  • LRTI has less radiographic subsidence (statistically significant)
  • Subsidence does not correlate with clinical outcomes
  • Simple trapeziectomy may be adequate for many patients
  • LRTI adds cost and complexity without proven benefit
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

CMC Arthroplasty vs LRTI

Moderate
Key Findings:
  • Short-term pain relief similar to LRTI (1-2 years)
  • Revision rate 10-15% vs. less than 5% for LRTI
  • Dislocation risk 5-10% with total joint
  • Hemiarthroplasty better than total joint
  • Longer-term data needed (most studies less than 5 years)
  • Not yet considered gold standard
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

Arthrodesis for CMC Arthritis

Moderate
Key Findings:
  • Pinch strength 100%+ of preoperative (highest of all procedures)
  • Pain relief in 90%+ of patients
  • Nonunion rate 5-10%
  • Loss of CMC motion (compensatory MCP motion)
  • Risk of MCP hyperextension and arthritis long-term
  • Best results in young male manual workers
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

Conservative Management Efficacy

Moderate
Key Findings:
  • Success rate 40-60% for Stage I-II disease
  • Thumb spica splinting reduces pain and improves function
  • Corticosteroid injections provide temporary relief (3-6 months average)
  • Up to 3 injections can be attempted before considering surgery
  • Activity modification and hand therapy improve outcomes
  • Progression to surgery more likely with Stage III-IV disease
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

References

  1. Becker SJE, Makarawung DJS, Spit SA, et al. Disability in patients with trapeziometacarpal joint arthrosis: incidental versus presenting diagnosis. J Hand Surg Am. 2014;39(10):2009-2015. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.07.009

  2. Wajon A, Vinycomb T, Carr E, et al. Surgery for thumb (trapeziometacarpal joint) osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(2):CD004631. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004631.pub4

  3. Eaton RG, Littler JW. Ligament reconstruction for the painful thumb carpometacarpal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55(8):1655-1666.

  4. Bettinger PC, Linscheid RL, Berger RA, et al. An anatomic study of the stabilizing ligaments of the trapezium and trapeziometacarpal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1999;24(4):786-798. doi:10.1053/jhsu.1999.0786

  5. Pellegrini VD Jr. Osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint: the pathophysiology of articular cartilage degeneration. I. Anatomy and pathology of the aging joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1991;16(6):967-974.

  6. Vermeulen GM, Slijper H, Feitz R, et al. Surgical management of primary thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(1):157-169. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.10.028

  7. Salem H, Davis TR. Six year outcome excision of the trapezium for trapeziometacarpal joint osteoarthritis: is it improved by ligament reconstruction and temporary Kirschner wire insertion? J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012;37(3):211-219. doi:10.1177/1753193411414518

  8. Huang K, Hollevoet N, Giddins G. Thumb carpometacarpal joint total arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015;40(4):338-350. doi:10.1177/1753193414563243

  9. Vitale MA, Hettinger RM, O'Connor JP, et al. Trapeziometacarpal arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24(8):555-562. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00266

  10. Gottschalk MB, Carpenter E, Oakes D, et al. Thumb carpometacarpal arthrodesis for arthritis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction at greater than 5-year follow-up. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(9):815-821. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.05.012

  11. Burton RI, Pellegrini VD Jr. Surgical management of basal joint arthritis of the thumb. Part II. Ligament reconstruction with tendon interposition arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 1986;11(3):324-332.

  12. Forestier E, Vidoni E, Corain M, et al. Radiographic progression in thumb base osteoarthritis: a follow-up study. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2018;36(6):1059-1064.

  13. Marks M, Hensler S, Wehrli M, et al. Trapeziectomy with suspension-interposition arthroplasty for thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial comparing the use of allograft versus flexor carpi radialis tendon. J Hand Surg Am. 2017;42(12):978-986. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.004

  14. Spekreijse KR, Vermeulen GM, Kedilioglu MA, et al. The effect of a bone tunnel during ligament reconstruction for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a 5-year follow-up. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(4):690-696. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.01.023

  15. Marks M, Audigé L, Herren DB, et al. Trapeziometacarpal joint implant arthroplasty outcomes and approach-related complications: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2014;39(9):927-938. doi:10.1177/1753193413511936

  16. Gangopadhyay S, McKenna H, Burke FD, et al. Five- to 18-year follow-up for treatment of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a prospective comparison of excision, tendon interposition, and ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(3):411-417. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.11.027

  17. Davis TR, Brady O, Dias JJ. Excision of the trapezium for osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint: a study of the benefit of ligament reconstruction or tendon interposition. J Hand Surg Am. 2004;29(6):1069-1077. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.06.017

  18. Hartigan BJ, Stern PJ, Kiefhaber TR. Thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: arthrodesis compared with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(10):1470-1478.

  19. Spaans AJ, van Laarhoven CM, Schuurman AH, et al. Interobserver agreement of the Eaton-Littler classification system and treatment strategy of thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(9):1467-1470. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.06.009

  20. Raven EE, Haverkamp D, Sierevelt IN, et al. Long-term results of surgical intervention for osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint: comparison of resection arthroplasty, trapeziectomy with tendon interposition and trapezio-metacarpal arthrodesis. Int Orthop. 2007;31(4):547-554. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0224-5

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Scenario 1: Stage III CMC Arthritis

EXAMINER

"A 62-year-old right-hand-dominant female presents with 2 years of progressive right thumb base pain. She reports difficulty opening jars, turning keys, and writing. Conservative treatment with splinting and NSAIDs for 6 months has failed. X-rays show Eaton-Littler Stage III changes. She asks about surgical options."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a classic presentation of Stage III thumb CMC arthritis in a postmenopausal woman with failed conservative management. I would take a systematic approach: First, I would complete my history focusing on functional limitations, occupation, hand dominance, and expectations. I would perform a focused examination including inspection for squaring at the base, palpation for tenderness and osteophytes, assessment of first web space, and perform the grind test which should be positive. I would measure pinch strength compared to the left. For Stage III disease with failed conservative treatment, surgical intervention is appropriate. I would discuss the main surgical options: 1. **Trapeziectomy with LRTI** - this is my preferred option and the gold standard. I would explain that this involves complete removal of the trapezium bone, using half of the FCR tendon to create a suspension for the thumb metacarpal and interposition spacer. Success rate is 90-95% for pain relief with good functional outcomes. 2. **Simple trapeziectomy** - similar procedure but without the ligament reconstruction. Evidence suggests outcomes are similar to LRTI at 1 year, though there is higher radiographic subsidence which often does not correlate with symptoms. 3. **CMC arthroplasty** - an emerging option using an implant, but I would explain this has higher revision rates (10-15%) compared to LRTI and is not yet the gold standard. 4. **Arthrodesis** - I would not recommend this for her as it is best for young male manual laborers requiring maximal strength. It sacrifices all CMC motion. I would recommend trapeziectomy with LRTI given the strong evidence base. I would counsel her on the postoperative course: 4 weeks of splinting, then progressive rehabilitation over 3-6 months, with maximal improvement by 6-12 months. I would discuss complications including nerve injury (5-10%), subsidence, and potential for persistent pain if other pathology coexists.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Identify this as Stage III disease with surgical indications
Explain Eaton-Littler classification and its role in treatment decisions
Present LRTI as gold standard with 90-95% success rate
Acknowledge evidence that simple trapeziectomy may be equivalent
Discuss realistic timeline for recovery (6-12 months for full improvement)
Counsel on complications especially radial sensory nerve risk
COMMON TRAPS
✗Do not recommend arthrodesis for this patient (inappropriate for elderly female)
✗Do not suggest arthroplasty as first-line (higher revision rate, less evidence)
✗Do not promise immediate or complete strength recovery
✗Do not fail to examine STT joint and assess for Stage IV disease
✗Do not forget to discuss conservative options if not already tried
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"How would your management change if this were Stage IV disease?"
"What if she develops persistent pain after trapeziectomy with LRTI?"
"Describe the LRTI surgical technique in detail"
"What is the evidence comparing LRTI to simple trapeziectomy?"
"How do you assess the STT joint intraoperatively?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 2: Young Manual Laborer

EXAMINER

"A 35-year-old male carpenter presents with left thumb base pain. He does heavy manual work requiring strong grip and pinch. Examination reveals positive grind test, reduced pinch strength 40% compared to right side. X-rays show Stage III CMC arthritis. He has tried conservative treatment for 4 months without benefit. He asks what operation will give him the strongest grip to return to his carpentry work."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is an important case of Stage III CMC arthritis in a young, high-demand manual laborer where surgical decision-making differs from the typical patient. I would explain that for his specific situation - young age, male, heavy manual labor requirements - I would consider **CMC arthrodesis (fusion)** as the primary option, which is different from my usual recommendation. **Rationale for arthrodesis:** - Provides the **highest pinch strength** of all procedures (100%+ of preoperative or normal) - Excellent stability and pain relief (90%+) - No risk of subsidence - Predictable outcomes for strength **Downsides I would discuss:** - Complete loss of CMC motion (he will lose some opposition, but MCP joint compensates) - Nonunion risk approximately 5-10% - Potential for MCP hyperextension and eventual MCP arthritis - Longer immobilization (8-12 weeks) - Hardware may require removal **Alternative - LRTI:** I would also present trapeziectomy with LRTI as an alternative, explaining: - More preservation of motion - Excellent pain relief (90-95%) - But lower pinch strength (80-90% of contralateral) - May not meet his high demands **My recommendation:** Given his age (35), occupation (carpenter), and primary goal (maximum strength for work), I would recommend arthrodesis. I would position the fusion at 40° palmar abduction, 20° radial abduction, with slight pronation. I would use plate fixation for rigid stability. I would counsel him that recovery takes 3-6 months, and he may develop compensatory MCP hyperextension over time, but this typically does not limit function. I would obtain informed consent emphasizing the trade-off: maximum strength but loss of motion.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Recognize this patient differs from typical CMC arthritis (young, male, high-demand)
Arthrodesis is the best option for maximal pinch strength
Discuss loss of motion as acceptable trade-off for his occupation
Explain fusion positioning (40° palmar abduction, 20° radial abduction)
Counsel on longer recovery and nonunion risk
Acknowledge that LRTI is still a reasonable alternative if motion is priority
COMMON TRAPS
✗Do not recommend LRTI as first-line for this patient without discussing arthrodesis
✗Do not promise that LRTI will provide adequate strength for heavy carpentry
✗Do not perform simple trapeziectomy (inadequate for his demands)
✗Do not fail to discuss the risk of adjacent joint arthritis with fusion
✗Do not forget to assess his expectations and priorities (strength vs. motion)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"Describe your technique for CMC arthrodesis in detail"
"What position do you fuse the joint in and why?"
"What are the evidence-based outcomes for arthrodesis vs. LRTI in this population?"
"How do you manage a nonunion after CMC arthrodesis?"
"What if he develops MCP hyperextension and arthritis 10 years later?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 3: Persistent Pain After Trapeziectomy

EXAMINER

"A 58-year-old female underwent trapeziectomy with LRTI 6 months ago for Stage III CMC arthritis. She initially improved but now has persistent radial-sided wrist pain, especially with gripping. Examination shows tenderness over the scaphoid and STT joint area. Post-operative X-rays show complete trapezium removal with some subsidence but good alignment. How would you manage this?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a challenging case of persistent pain after trapeziectomy with LRTI. I need to systematically determine the cause of her ongoing symptoms. **Differential diagnosis for post-trapeziectomy pain:** 1. **STT arthritis** (Stage IV disease missed preoperatively) - most likely given location 2. De Quervain tenosynovitis (postoperative tendinitis) 3. Incomplete trapezium removal (retained fragment causing pain) 4. Radial sensory neuritis or neuroma 5. FCR tendinitis 6. CRPS (unlikely at 6 months without other features) 7. Scaphoid pathology **My workup:** - Detailed examination: palpate STT joint specifically, perform radial stress test (radial deviation under compression), Finkelstein test for de Quervain, assess for Tinel sign over radial sensory nerve - Review preoperative X-rays to check if STT joint was involved (Stage IV) - New X-rays: PA, lateral, and STT-focused views to assess STT joint space - Consider diagnostic injection: - Local anesthetic into STT joint - if pain relief, confirms STT as source - De Quervain compartment injection if Finkelstein positive **Most likely diagnosis:** Given the location (radial-sided wrist pain), tenderness over scaphoid/STT, and gripping pain, this is most consistent with **STT arthritis** that was either present preoperatively (Stage IV) or has progressed postoperatively. **Management:** If STT arthritis confirmed: 1. **Initial conservative management:** - Wrist splint (neutral position) - NSAIDs - Activity modification - Corticosteroid injection into STT joint (diagnostic and therapeutic) 2. **Surgical management if conservative fails:** - STT fusion (scaphotrapezial-trapezoid arthrodesis) - Perform through dorsal approach - Denude articular cartilage - Bone graft and plate/screw fixation - Preserves radiocarpal and midcarpal motion I would counsel her that STT arthritis can coexist with CMC arthritis (Stage IV) and may have been present but underappreciated on preoperative imaging. The STT fusion should resolve her symptoms while maintaining wrist function.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Systematic approach to post-operative pain: differential diagnosis
STT arthritis is most likely given clinical presentation
Diagnostic injection confirms pain source
Review preoperative imaging to see if Stage IV was missed
STT fusion is appropriate treatment if conservative fails
Acknowledge that pantrapezial arthritis may not have been fully appreciated initially
COMMON TRAPS
✗Do not assume the trapeziectomy failed without investigating other causes
✗Do not immediately revise the LRTI - find the pain source first
✗Do not forget that Stage IV disease includes STT arthritis
✗Do not perform revision surgery without diagnostic injection confirmation
✗Do not miss de Quervain tenosynovitis as a simple treatable cause
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"How do you assess the STT joint on preoperative imaging?"
"Describe the technique for STT fusion"
"What if the problem is incomplete trapezium removal?"
"How would you manage a radial sensory neuroma?"
"What are the outcomes of STT fusion after previous trapeziectomy?"
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Scenario 4: Stage II Decision-Making

EXAMINER

"A 55-year-old female office worker has Stage II CMC arthritis. She has had splinting and two corticosteroid injections over 8 months with temporary relief but pain returns. She asks if she should have surgery now or continue with injections."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a Stage II CMC arthritis case at the borderline between conservative and surgical management. My approach would be to have a shared decision-making discussion with her. **Assessment of conservative treatment:** - She has had 8 months of non-operative management - Splinting and two injections provided temporary relief - Pain is recurrent, suggesting ongoing symptoms **Stage II treatment considerations:** - Stage II is the transition zone: can be treated conservatively or surgically - Conservative treatment succeeds in 40-60% of patients - Those who fail conservative treatment are surgical candidates **My discussion with her:** 1. **Option 1: Continue conservative management** - Can try third corticosteroid injection (up to 3 is reasonable) - Continue splinting, activity modification - Hand therapy for strengthening and adaptive techniques - Accept that pain may recur 2. **Option 2: Proceed with surgery** - Stage II can be treated surgically with good outcomes - Trapeziectomy with LRTI is standard - Success rate 90%+ for pain relief - Recovery is 3-6 months **Factors favoring surgery:** - Failure of 8 months of conservative treatment - Recurrent pain despite injections - Impact on activities of daily living and quality of life - Patient preference and motivation **Factors favoring continued conservative treatment:** - Office worker (low manual demand) - Some temporary relief from injections - May respond to third injection or therapy optimization - Surgery is irreversible **My recommendation:** I would explain that both options are reasonable for Stage II disease. If her symptoms significantly impact her quality of life and she has exhausted conservative options, surgery is justified. The outcomes for Stage II are excellent. However, if she is managing with intermittent injections and is not ready for surgery, continued conservative management with close follow-up is acceptable. I would support her decision either way, ensuring she understands the recovery from surgery and realistic expectations.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Stage II is the borderline - both conservative and surgical are acceptable
8 months is adequate conservative trial
Shared decision-making based on patient's quality of life and preferences
Surgery has excellent outcomes for Stage II (90%+)
Conservative management can continue if patient prefers
Emphasize that progression to Stage III is not inevitable but can occur
COMMON TRAPS
✗Do not force surgery on a patient who wants to continue conservative treatment
✗Do not say she must progress to Stage III before surgery is indicated
✗Do not promise that conservative treatment will prevent progression
✗Do not fail to assess her functional limitations and expectations
✗Do not forget to discuss realistic recovery timeline (3-6 months)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"At what point would you definitely recommend surgery?"
"What is the evidence for success of conservative management in Stage II?"
"If she chooses surgery, would you modify your technique for Stage II vs. Stage III?"
"What are the predictors of failure of conservative management?"
"How do you counsel patients on the natural history of untreated CMC arthritis?"

MCQ and Exam Practice Points

High-yield facts for MCQs:

  1. Epidemiology:

    • Most common site of osteoarthritis in the hand
    • Female to male ratio 15:1
    • Affects 33% of postmenopausal women
  2. Anatomy:

    • Saddle joint (sellar joint) with biaxial motion
    • Anterior oblique ligament (beak ligament) is primary stabilizer
    • 16 ligaments described around CMC joint
    • Contact stress during pinch: 120 kg/cm²
  3. Pathophysiology:

    • Initial event is AOL attenuation or failure
    • Leads to dorsoradial subluxation
    • Abnormal kinematics cause cartilage degeneration
  4. Clinical examination:

    • Grind test is pathognomonic: axial compression with rotation
    • Squaring of thumb base from subluxation and osteophytes
    • Adduction contracture reduces first web space
  5. Eaton-Littler classification:

    • Stage I: widening, no narrowing
    • Stage II: narrowing, osteophytes less than 2mm
    • Stage III: severe narrowing, osteophytes greater than 2mm
    • Stage IV: pantrapezial arthritis (STT joint involved)
  6. Imaging:

    • Robert view (Bett view) is best radiograph for staging
    • True AP of CMC joint with forearm pronated
  7. Treatment:

    • Stage I-II: conservative first (splinting, NSAIDs, injection)
    • Stage III-IV: surgery if conservative fails
    • Trapeziectomy with LRTI is gold standard
    • Success rate 90-95% for pain relief
  8. Surgical techniques:

    • LRTI: FCR most common donor tendon (half width harvested)
    • Simple trapeziectomy has equivalent outcomes but higher subsidence
    • Arthrodesis: best for young male manual laborers (maximal strength)
    • CMC arthroplasty: higher revision rate (10-15%)
  9. Complications:

    • Radial sensory nerve injury: 5-10%
    • Subsidence: 20-30% simple trapeziectomy, less than 10% LRTI
    • Nonunion after arthrodesis: 5-10%
  10. Outcomes:

    • Pain relief in 90-95% with LRTI
    • Pinch strength recovers to 80-90% of contralateral
    • Maximal improvement at 6-12 months

Common exam scenarios:

  • Stage III disease with failed conservative treatment → LRTI
  • Young male laborer → arthrodesis
  • Persistent post-operative pain → assess for STT arthritis (Stage IV)
  • Stage II disease → conservative vs. surgical (shared decision)

Australian Context

Epidemiology: CMC arthritis prevalence in Australia is similar to international data, affecting approximately 30-35% of women over age 60. The increasing aging population has led to rising surgical rates for this condition across Australian hand surgery centers.

Management considerations: Trapeziectomy with or without LRTI is the standard of care in Australian hand surgery practice. The Australian Hand Surgery Society recommends careful patient selection for CMC arthroplasty given limited long-term data. Arthrodesis is reserved for high-demand patients such as manual laborers in trades who require maximal pinch strength for return to work.

Healthcare access: Public hospital waiting lists for elective hand surgery can range from 6-12 months, while private patients may have shorter wait times. Rehabilitation support is available through both public and private systems, though access varies between metropolitan and rural regions. NSAIDs and corticosteroid injections are readily available for conservative management.

THUMB CMC ARTHRITIS

High-Yield Exam Summary

Key Anatomy

  • •Saddle joint (sellar) - biaxial motion: flexion/extension + abduction/adduction
  • •Anterior oblique ligament (AOL/beak ligament) - PRIMARY stabilizer, prevents dorsoradial subluxation
  • •16 ligaments total described, AOL most important
  • •High contact stress: 120 kg/cm² during pinch
  • •Small articular surface (1-2 cm²) predisposes to arthritis

Eaton-Littler Classification

  • •Stage I: Normal/widened space, synovitis, stress view shows subluxation → Conservative
  • •Stage II: Narrowing, osteophytes less than 2mm → Conservative trial, surgery if fails
  • •Stage III: Severe narrowing, osteophytes greater than 2mm, CMC only → Surgery (LRTI gold standard)
  • •Stage IV: Stage III + STT joint arthritis (pantrapezial) → Surgery addressing all joints

Clinical Examination

  • •GRIND TEST: axial compression + rotation of MC = pain/crepitus (PATHOGNOMONIC)
  • •Squaring of thumb base (subluxation + osteophytes)
  • •Adduction contracture (reduced first web space)
  • •Thenar atrophy in advanced cases
  • •Pinch strength reduced (compare to contralateral)

Imaging

  • •Robert view (Bett view): TRUE AP of CMC joint - BEST for staging
  • •Eaton stress view: resisted pinch shows dynamic subluxation
  • •PA and lateral hand views
  • •Assess STT joint for Stage IV disease

Conservative Treatment

  • •Thumb spica splinting (activities + night)
  • •NSAIDs (oral or topical)
  • •Activity modification
  • •Corticosteroid injection (up to 3 attempts)
  • •Hand therapy (strengthening, adaptive equipment)
  • •Success in 40-60% of Stage I-II patients

Surgical Options

  • •Trapeziectomy + LRTI: GOLD STANDARD, 90-95% success, FCR tendon most common donor
  • •Simple trapeziectomy: equivalent outcomes, higher subsidence (20-30% vs less than 10%)
  • •Arthrodesis: young male laborers, MAX strength (100%+), loses motion, nonunion 5-10%
  • •CMC arthroplasty: emerging, higher revision (10-15%), not yet standard
  • •Recovery: 4 weeks splint, ROM at 4 weeks, strengthen 8-12 weeks, full recovery 6-12 months

LRTI Technique

  • •Complete trapeziectomy (no fragments)
  • •Harvest HALF of FCR tendon (or entire APL)
  • •Suspensionplasty: drill MC base, weave tendon, anchor to MC2 or through FCR tunnel
  • •Interposition: remaining tendon rolled into space as spacer
  • •Prevents subsidence and bone-on-bone contact

Complications

  • •Radial sensory nerve injury: 5-10% (paresthesia, neuroma)
  • •Subsidence: 20-30% simple, less than 10% LRTI (often asymptomatic)
  • •CRPS: 1-5% (early ROM prevents)
  • •Persistent pain: incomplete trapezium, STT arthritis, de Quervain
  • •Arthrodesis: nonunion 5-10%, MCP hyperextension/arthritis long-term

Exam Viva Answers

  • •Stage III failed conservative → Recommend LRTI, discuss simple trapeziectomy equivalent evidence
  • •Young male laborer → Arthrodesis for MAX strength, accept loss of motion
  • •Persistent pain post-op → DDx: STT arthritis (Stage IV), de Quervain, nerve, incomplete removal
  • •Stage II → Shared decision: surgery justified if failed conservative, or continue if managing
  • •Difference LRTI vs simple → Subsidence lower with LRTI but outcomes equivalent at 1 year

High-Yield Numbers

  • •33% of postmenopausal women affected
  • •15:1 female to male ratio
  • •90-95% surgical success rate
  • •80-90% pinch strength recovery
  • •120 kg/cm² contact stress during pinch
  • •4 weeks immobilization, 6-12 months full recovery
Quick Stats
Reading Time142 min
Related Topics

Animal Bites

Anterior Interosseous Nerve Anatomy

Blood Supply of the Forearm

Boutonniere Deformity