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.

Wrist Arthroplasty

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Wrist Arthroplasty

Comprehensive guide to total wrist arthroplasty - indications (RA, OA), implant types (Universal 2, Maestro, ReMotion), surgical technique, complications, and outcomes vs arthrodesis

complete
Updated: 2025-01-08
High Yield Overview

WRIST ARTHROPLASTY

Motion-Preserving Salvage | RA Primary Indication | Distal Loosening Challenge | Low-Demand Essential

80%Survival at 5 years
10-30%Distal component loosening
40-60°Arc of motion preserved
75%Patient satisfaction

WRIST ARTHROPLASTY INDICATIONS

Primary Indication
PatternRheumatoid arthritis with low demands
TreatmentBest candidate - soft bone accepts cement well
Secondary Indication
PatternPrimary osteoarthritis, post-traumatic
TreatmentConsider if bilateral disease or needs motion
Relative Contraindication
PatternHigh-demand, young, heavy manual labor
TreatmentArthrodesis preferred - more durable

Critical Must-Knows

  • Rheumatoid arthritis is the primary indication - low demands, soft bone, bilateral disease
  • Distal component loosening is the most common failure mode (10-30%) - metacarpal stress shielding
  • Low-demand patients essential - heavy use accelerates loosening and failure
  • Preserves 40-60 degrees motion arc vs arthrodesis which eliminates all motion
  • Fusion remains gold standard for high-demand patients due to durability concerns

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    TWA vs fusion: Motion preservation (TWA) vs durability (fusion) - patient selection critical
  • "
    Distal component loosening most common complication - occurs at metacarpal-carpal junction
  • "
    RA patients ideal: low demands, soft bone accepts cement, often bilateral disease
  • "
    Extensor tendon rupture occurs due to dorsal hardware prominence - 5-10% incidence

Critical Wrist Arthroplasty Exam Points

Patient Selection Critical

Rheumatoid arthritis with low demands is the ideal indication. High-demand patients, young age, and heavy manual labor are relative contraindications. Patient selection is the single most important factor determining outcome. Poor selection leads to early loosening and revision.

Distal Loosening Problem

Distal component loosening is the Achilles heel of TWA (10-30%). Occurs at metacarpal-carpal junction due to stress concentration. Modern third-generation designs address this with improved distal fixation but long-term durability remains inferior to fusion.

Motion Preservation Benefit

Preserves 40-60 degrees arc of motion at wrist. Critical for patients with bilateral disease, contralateral fusion, or occupations requiring wrist motion. However, motion preservation comes at cost of durability - trade-off must be discussed with patient.

Fusion Remains Gold Standard

Arthrodesis preferred for high-demand patients, young patients, and those requiring durability. Fusion eliminates motion but provides reliable pain relief with 95 percent union. TWA revision rate higher than primary fusion rate.

Total Wrist Arthroplasty vs Wrist Arthrodesis

FeatureTotal Wrist ArthroplastyWrist Arthrodesis
Primary IndicationRA, low-demand, bilateral diseaseHigh-demand, OA, post-traumatic
MotionPreserves 40-60 degree arcEliminates all wrist motion
Durability80% survival at 5 years95% union rate, durable long-term
Main ComplicationDistal component loosening (10-30%)Nonunion (5-10%)
Revision Rate15-25% at 10 years5-10% at 10 years
Grip Strength50-70% of normal60-80% of normal
Activity LevelLow-demand activities onlyHigher-demand activities possible
Bilateral DiseaseIdeal - motion both sidesFunctional limitation if bilateral
Mnemonic

LOWRATWA Patient Selection

L
Low demand
Essential - heavy use causes loosening
O
Older age
Typically over 60 years - activity limitations natural
W
Widespread disease
RA with multiple joint involvement
R
Rheumatoid
Primary indication - soft bone, bilateral disease
A
Adequate bone stock
Enough bone for component fixation

Memory Hook:LOWRA selection: Low demand, Older, Widespread RA with Adequate bone - ideal TWA candidate.

Mnemonic

HEAVYTWA Contraindications

H
High demand
Manual labor, heavy lifting contraindicated
E
Extensor deficiency
Poor soft tissue envelope, tendon rupture risk
A
Active infection
Absolute contraindication - eradicate first
V
Very young
Longevity concerns - fusion preferred
Y
Youthful activity
Sports, heavy recreation preclude TWA

Memory Hook:HEAVY contraindications: High demand, Extensor deficiency, Active infection, Very young, Youthful activity - choose fusion instead.

Mnemonic

LITERTWA Complications

L
Loosening (distal)
Most common - 10-30% at 5 years
I
Impingement
Bony or soft tissue impingement limits motion
T
Tendon rupture
Extensor tendons 5-10% - dorsal hardware
E
Erosion/bone loss
Stress shielding at metacarpal-carpal junction
R
Revision surgery
15-25% revision rate at 10 years

Memory Hook:LITER of problems: Loosening, Impingement, Tendon rupture, Erosion, Revision - distal loosening is the key failure mode.

Overview and Epidemiology

Definition: Total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) is a motion-preserving salvage procedure for end-stage wrist arthritis. It replaces the radiocarpal and midcarpal joints with prosthetic components, maintaining wrist motion unlike arthrodesis which eliminates all motion.

Historical Context: Wrist arthroplasty has evolved through three generations. First-generation designs (1970s-1980s) had high failure rates due to poor fixation and excessive constraint. Second-generation designs (1980s-1990s) introduced improved fixation but still had significant loosening. Third-generation designs (2000s-present) including Universal 2, Maestro, and ReMotion use ellipsoidal articulation, improved distal fixation, and better bone preservation with improved but still concerning long-term survival.

Current Indications:

Primary Indication (Ideal Candidate):

  • Rheumatoid arthritis with low functional demands
  • Bilateral wrist disease (motion preservation both sides)
  • Contralateral wrist fusion (motion preservation essential)
  • Elderly patients with limited activity expectations

Secondary Indications:

  • Primary osteoarthritis in low-demand patients
  • Post-traumatic arthritis in carefully selected patients
  • SLAC/SNAC wrist when motion preservation desired

Relative Contraindications:

  • High-demand patients or heavy manual labor
  • Young age with longevity concerns
  • Poor bone stock (severe osteopenia)
  • Inadequate soft tissue envelope or extensor deficiency
  • Active infection

Epidemiology:

  • Frequency: Uncommon compared to fusion (approximately 1:10 ratio)
  • Trend: Increasing use due to improved third-generation designs
  • Registry data: AOANJRR limited data due to low numbers

Why TWA Remains Niche

Despite motion preservation, TWA remains a niche procedure because durability is inferior to fusion. Distal component loosening at 10-30% is concerning compared to 5-10% nonunion for fusion. Patient selection is critical - RA with low demands is ideal. High-demand patients should have fusion. The trade-off is motion versus durability.

Implant Types and Biomechanics

Evolution of Wrist Arthroplasty Designs:

First Generation (1970s-1980s):

  • Silicone spacers (Swanson)
  • Ball-and-socket designs (Meuli)
  • High failure rates due to silicone synovitis, constraint, loosening
  • Largely abandoned

Second Generation (1980s-1990s):

  • Biaxial design (Cooney)
  • Improved fixation but still significant loosening
  • Constrained designs caused bone loss

Third Generation (Current):

Universal 2 (Integra)

Design Features:

  • Ellipsoidal articulation (toroidal radial component)
  • Titanium porous-coated radial component
  • Cobalt-chrome carpal component
  • Polyethylene insert (UHMWPE)
  • Distal fixation into 2nd and 3rd metacarpals

Fixation:

  • Proximal: Press-fit or cemented into radius
  • Distal: Carpal plate with metacarpal stems

Motion:

  • Flexion-extension: 40-60 degrees arc
  • Radial-ulnar deviation: 15-25 degrees arc

Outcomes:

  • 80-85% survival at 5 years
  • 60-70% survival at 10 years

Most widely used design with longest follow-up data.

Maestro (Biomet)

Design Features:

  • Ellipsoidal articulation
  • Titanium radial component
  • Cobalt-chrome carpal component
  • Mobile-bearing polyethylene option
  • Central carpal screw fixation

Advantages:

  • Bone-preserving design
  • Easier revision to fusion
  • Central screw reduces metacarpal stress shielding

Outcomes:

  • Similar survival to Universal 2
  • Less extensive follow-up data

Bone-preserving design facilitates revision if needed.

ReMotion (Stryker)

Design Features:

  • Anatomic ellipsoidal design
  • Titanium radial and carpal components
  • Polyethylene insert
  • Press-fit fixation both components
  • Offset center of rotation

Advantages:

  • More anatomic motion restoration
  • Improved soft tissue balance
  • Modular options

Outcomes:

  • 80% survival at 5 years
  • Limited long-term data

Newest design with promising early results but needs longer follow-up.

Third-Generation Design Principles

Ellipsoidal Articulation:

  • Mimics normal wrist kinematics
  • Reduces constraint and stress transfer
  • Allows coupled motion (dart-throwing)

Improved Distal Fixation:

  • Critical advancement over earlier designs
  • Metacarpal stems or central screw
  • Addresses distal loosening problem

Bone Preservation:

  • Less bone resection than earlier designs
  • Facilitates revision to fusion
  • Maintains bone stock

Unlinked Design:

  • Reduced constraint
  • Relies on soft tissue for stability
  • Requires adequate ligaments

Third-generation designs improved survival but distal loosening remains the challenge.

Surgical Technique

Pre-operative Planning Steps

1. Patient Selection:

  • Confirm low-demand lifestyle
  • Assess functional requirements
  • Evaluate bilateral disease status
  • Discuss expectations and limitations

2. Disease Assessment:

  • Confirm end-stage arthritis
  • Assess bone quality (RA often osteopenic)
  • Evaluate soft tissue envelope
  • Assess extensor tendon integrity

3. Imaging:

  • PA and lateral wrist X-rays
  • Templating for component sizing
  • CT if bone stock concerns
  • MRI if soft tissue concerns

4. Equipment:

  • TWA system (Universal 2, Maestro, or ReMotion)
  • Multiple sizes available
  • Cement if needed (RA with soft bone)
  • Fluoroscopy for intraoperative imaging

5. Consent Discussion:

  • Motion preservation benefit versus durability concerns
  • Revision rate higher than fusion
  • Activity restrictions permanent
  • Alternative of fusion discussed

Proper planning ensures appropriate patient selection and realistic expectations.

Positioning and Setup

Setup:

  • Supine with arm on hand table
  • Upper arm tourniquet (250mmHg)
  • Fluoroscopy available from radial side
  • Hand table radiolucent

Landmarks to Mark:

  • Lister tubercle
  • 3rd metacarpal
  • Extensor tendons
  • DRUJ

Antibiotic Prophylaxis:

  • Cefazolin 2g IV (or vancomycin if allergic)
  • Given within 60 minutes of incision

Critical Points:

  • Arm position allows dorsal access
  • Fluoroscopy essential for component positioning
  • Tourniquet allows bloodless field

Proper positioning is essential for adequate exposure and imaging.

Surgical Exposure

Incision:

  • Longitudinal dorsal incision 8-10cm
  • Centered over 3rd metacarpal and Lister tubercle
  • Extends from distal radius to metacarpal bases

Superficial Dissection:

  • Incise skin and subcutaneous tissue
  • Identify and protect superficial radial nerve branches (radially)
  • Identify and protect dorsal ulnar sensory branches (ulnarly)
  • Identify extensor retinaculum

Deep Dissection:

  • Incise retinaculum between 3rd and 4th compartments
  • Retract EPL radially, EDC and EIP ulnarly
  • OR release 4th compartment and transpose tendons
  • Expose dorsal wrist capsule
  • Make capsulotomy preserving tissue for closure

Danger Structures:

  • Superficial radial nerve: Branches cross dorsum - injury causes numbness (10%)
  • Dorsal ulnar sensory: Ulnar side - protect
  • Extensor tendons: Must be carefully retracted - rupture risk 5-10%

Careful dissection protects nerves and preserves extensor tendons.

Radial and Carpal Preparation

Radial Preparation:

  • Expose distal radius articular surface
  • Resect distal radius using cutting guide
  • Remove 10-15mm of distal radius (varies by system)
  • Create canal for radial component stem
  • Trial radial component for fit

Carpal Preparation:

  • Excise proximal carpal row (scaphoid, lunate, triquetrum)
  • OR fuse proximal row to capitate (depends on system)
  • Prepare distal row for carpal component
  • Create channels for metacarpal stems (if used)

Critical Technical Points:

  • Preserve as much bone as possible for revision
  • Align cuts perpendicular to long axis
  • Avoid excessive resection
  • Maintain carpal height

Bone Quality Considerations:

  • RA patients often have soft osteopenic bone
  • Cement may be needed for fixation
  • Handle bone gently to avoid fracture

Bone preparation must balance adequate resection with preservation for potential revision.

Implant Placement

Radial Component:

  • Insert trial radial component
  • Assess fit and alignment on fluoroscopy
  • If adequate, insert definitive component
  • Press-fit or cement based on bone quality
  • Confirm seating on fluoroscopy

Carpal Component:

  • Insert trial carpal component
  • Assess alignment with metacarpals
  • Insert metacarpal stems if required
  • Confirm positioning on fluoroscopy
  • Insert definitive component

Polyethylene Insert:

  • Select appropriate thickness
  • Thicker insert increases stability but limits motion
  • Insert should allow 40-60 degrees flexion-extension

Alignment Goals:

  • Radial component centered on radius
  • Carpal component aligned with 3rd metacarpal
  • Neutral wrist position
  • No impingement through range of motion

Final Checks:

  • Confirm component position on PA and lateral fluoroscopy
  • Test range of motion (flexion, extension, radial and ulnar deviation)
  • Assess stability - no subluxation
  • Check for impingement at extremes

Proper component positioning is critical for function and longevity.

Wound Closure and Soft Tissue Repair

Capsule Repair:

  • Close capsule if sufficient tissue
  • Use absorbable suture (2-0 Vicryl)
  • Snug closure but not overtight

Retinaculum:

  • Close extensor retinaculum carefully
  • Ensure smooth gliding of extensor tendons
  • May need to leave portion open to prevent impingement

Soft Tissue Management:

  • Careful hemostasis with bipolar
  • Irrigate thoroughly
  • Consider drain if significant ooze

Skin Closure:

  • 4-0 absorbable subcutaneous
  • 4-0 nylon or subcuticular skin closure

Splinting:

  • Volar splint in neutral wrist position
  • Fingers free for immediate motion
  • Convert to removable splint at 2 weeks

Careful closure protects tendons and optimizes wound healing.

Complications

Complications of Total Wrist Arthroplasty

ComplicationIncidenceRisk FactorsManagement
Distal component loosening10-30%High demand, poor bone quality, malalignmentRevision arthroplasty or conversion to fusion
Impingement10-15%Component malposition, inadequate resectionDebridement, component revision if severe
Extensor tendon rupture5-10%Dorsal hardware prominence, RA (weakened tendons)Tendon reconstruction or transfer
Instability and dislocation5-10%Soft tissue deficiency, component malalignmentThicker polyethylene, ligament repair, revision
Periprosthetic fracture3-5%Osteopenic bone, trauma, stress risersORIF if stable, revision if loose
Infection2-5%RA (immunosuppression), diabetes, poor nutritionDebridement, antibiotics, may need explant
Nerve injury5-10%Superficial radial nerve at risk dorsallyUsually neuropraxia - observe, neuroma excision if persistent

Distal Component Loosening - The Key Failure Mode

Distal component loosening is the Achilles heel of wrist arthroplasty, occurring in 10-30% of cases. It occurs at the carpal-metacarpal junction due to stress concentration, inadequate fixation, and stress shielding. Third-generation designs address this with improved metacarpal stems or central screw fixation, but long-term durability remains inferior to fusion. Patient selection (low demand) is critical for minimizing this complication.

Extensor Tendon Rupture

Extensor tendon rupture (5-10%) occurs due to dorsal hardware prominence and is more common in RA patients who have weakened tendons. Prevention includes ensuring smooth dorsal profile, adequate soft tissue coverage, and early hardware removal if prominent. Management requires tendon reconstruction or transfer (EIP to EPL for EPL rupture).

Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation

Immediate Postoperative Care (0-2 weeks)

Day of Surgery:

  • Volar splint in neutral position
  • Elevation above heart level
  • Neurovascular checks every 4 hours
  • Finger ROM encouraged immediately

Days 1-14:

  • Maintain splint continuously
  • Active finger ROM exercises
  • Wound check at 7-10 days
  • Suture removal at 10-14 days
  • Convert to removable splint at 2 weeks

Pain Management:

  • Multimodal analgesia (paracetamol, NSAIDs if appropriate)
  • Opioids for breakthrough pain
  • Ice elevation for swelling

Early finger motion maintains tendon gliding and prevents stiffness.

Early Phase (2-6 weeks)

Splinting:

  • Removable volar splint
  • Wear between exercises and at night
  • Remove for hygiene and exercises

Exercises:

  • Active wrist ROM in splint
  • Gentle flexion-extension 20-30 degrees
  • Active finger ROM
  • No passive stretching or resistance

Restrictions:

  • No lifting greater than 500g
  • No gripping activities
  • No twisting motions
  • Splint for all activities

Goals:

  • Maintain tendon gliding
  • Begin gentle wrist motion
  • Manage swelling

Protected motion allows healing while preventing stiffness.

Intermediate Phase (6-12 weeks)

Splinting:

  • Wean splint during day
  • Continue night splint until 12 weeks

Exercises:

  • Progressive active ROM
  • Target 40-60 degrees flexion-extension arc
  • Active radial-ulnar deviation
  • Gentle grip strengthening begins at 8 weeks

Restrictions:

  • No lifting greater than 2kg until 12 weeks
  • No impact activities
  • Avoid extreme positions

X-rays:

  • Check at 6 weeks for component position
  • Assess for early loosening signs

Progressive loading while protecting implant-bone interface.

Long-term Phase (12 weeks onwards)

Activity Progression:

  • Gradual return to light ADLs
  • Strengthening program
  • Functional activities as tolerated

Permanent Restrictions:

  • Lifting limit 5-10kg maximum (permanent)
  • No impact activities
  • No heavy manual labor
  • No repetitive heavy gripping

Follow-up:

  • 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year
  • Annual X-rays thereafter
  • Monitor for loosening, wear, complications

Expected Outcomes:

  • 40-60 degrees arc of motion
  • Pain relief in 80-85%
  • Grip strength 50-70% of normal

Lifelong activity modification required to protect implant.

Evidence Base and Key Trials

Third-Generation TWA Outcomes

Level IV
Cooney et al • J Hand Surg Am (2012)
Key Findings:
  • Universal 2 arthroplasty: 80% survival at 5 years
  • Mean arc of motion 45 degrees flexion-extension
  • Distal component loosening in 15% at 5 years
  • Pain relief achieved in 85% of patients
Clinical Implication: Third-generation designs improved survival but distal loosening remains concerning.

TWA vs Arthrodesis Systematic Review

Level III
Cavaliere and Chung • J Hand Surg Am (2008)
Key Findings:
  • TWA preserves 40-60 degrees motion vs 0 for fusion
  • Fusion has lower revision rate (5% vs 20%)
  • Similar pain relief between procedures
  • TWA better for bilateral disease due to motion preservation
Clinical Implication: Fusion more durable but TWA provides motion - patient selection critical.

ReMotion Wrist Arthroplasty Outcomes

Level IV
Krukhaug et al • J Hand Surg Eur (2011)
Key Findings:
  • 92% survival at 5 years with ReMotion design
  • Mean flexion-extension arc 55 degrees
  • 5% revision rate at medium-term follow-up
  • Improved motion compared to earlier designs
Clinical Implication: Newer designs show improved early results but long-term data needed.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Outcomes in TWA

Level IV
Ferreres et al • J Hand Surg Eur (2011)
Key Findings:
  • RA patients show 82% survival at 8 years
  • Low demand nature of RA patients improves outcomes
  • Soft bone accepts cement well improving fixation
  • Bilateral disease benefits from motion preservation
Clinical Implication: RA remains the ideal indication due to patient factors and bilateral disease.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 1: TWA vs Fusion Decision (3-4 min)

EXAMINER

"A 62-year-old woman with bilateral rheumatoid arthritis affecting both wrists presents with end-stage disease. Her left wrist was fused 3 years ago and she now has progressive pain in her right wrist. She works as a retired librarian and has low physical demands. Discuss your management options and justify your recommendation."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is an excellent candidate for total wrist arthroplasty. My reasoning: First, she has the primary indication - rheumatoid arthritis with low functional demands (retired librarian). Second, she has a contralateral fusion - this is a key indication for TWA as bilateral fusion significantly impairs function for activities requiring wrist motion such as personal hygiene and eating. Third, she is older (62) with natural activity limitations reducing stress on the prosthesis. Fourth, RA patients are ideal because their soft osteopenic bone accepts cement well improving fixation, and their disease limits demand on the prosthesis. I would discuss the trade-off between motion preservation (TWA) and durability (fusion). For TWA: she can expect 40-60 degrees arc of motion, 80% survival at 5 years, but 10-30% risk of distal loosening and 15-25% revision rate at 10 years. Activity restrictions are permanent - no heavy lifting, no impact activities. For fusion: no motion but more durable with 95% union rate. Given her contralateral fusion, I would recommend TWA to preserve motion in at least one wrist. I would use a third-generation design such as Universal 2 or ReMotion with cement fixation given her RA bone quality.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
RA with low demands is primary indication for TWA
Contralateral fusion is strong indication - bilateral fusion limits function
80% survival at 5 years but distal loosening 10-30%
Activity restrictions permanent - patient selection critical
COMMON TRAPS
✗Recommending fusion for both wrists - limits function significantly
✗Not discussing activity restrictions and durability concerns
✗Not acknowledging revision rate is higher than fusion
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What implant design would you use and why?"
"How would you counsel about long-term durability?"
"What if she was 45 years old instead?"
VIVA SCENARIOCritical

Scenario 2: Distal Loosening Management (3-4 min)

EXAMINER

"A 68-year-old man presents 4 years after total wrist arthroplasty with progressive wrist pain. X-rays show lucency around the distal component with subsidence. He has low demands and good bone stock. How do you manage this?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This presentation suggests distal component loosening, the most common failure mode of TWA occurring in 10-30% of cases. My management: First, I would confirm the diagnosis - clinical assessment for pain pattern (worse with activity, improved with rest), instability symptoms, and function. I would obtain serial X-rays comparing to previous films to assess progression, CT scan to evaluate bone stock and loosening extent, and inflammatory markers to exclude low-grade infection. Second, I would investigate for infection with ESR, CRP, and consider aspiration if markers elevated. Infection requires different management. Third, assuming aseptic loosening, my options are: revision arthroplasty or conversion to fusion. For revision arthroplasty: this is an option if bone stock is adequate and patient remains low-demand. I would use a revision component with improved distal fixation, cement if bone quality poor, and possibly bone graft. However, revision TWA has lower success than primary - approximately 60-70% survival at 5 years. For conversion to fusion: this is a reliable salvage option. I would remove components, assess bone stock, and perform fusion with plate fixation and bone graft. Fusion provides durable pain relief with 90% union rate. Given this patient has good bone stock and remains low-demand, I would discuss both options. If he prioritizes motion, revision arthroplasty is reasonable. If durability is priority, conversion to fusion is more reliable. I would likely recommend fusion as the revision TWA success rate is modest.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Distal loosening is most common failure mode (10-30%)
Must exclude infection before revision
Options: revision arthroplasty or conversion to fusion
Fusion more reliable salvage than revision arthroplasty
COMMON TRAPS
✗Not excluding infection before revision
✗Promising high success with revision arthroplasty
✗Not discussing fusion as salvage option
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"How do you exclude infection?"
"What bone graft would you use for fusion?"
"What are outcomes of revision TWA?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 3: Extensor Tendon Rupture (2-3 min)

EXAMINER

"A 70-year-old woman with RA presents 2 years after TWA with inability to extend her thumb. On examination she has loss of thumb IP extension. X-rays show well-fixed components. What is your diagnosis and management?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
The diagnosis is extensor pollicis longus rupture, a recognized complication of TWA occurring in 5-10% of cases. In RA patients, tendons are already weakened by the disease, and dorsal hardware prominence causes attrition rupture. My management: First, I confirm the diagnosis - loss of thumb IP extension with intact MCP extension (EPB intact) indicates isolated EPL rupture. I would check for other tendon ruptures and assess hardware prominence on lateral X-ray. Second, I assess the components - the X-ray shows well-fixed components which is reassuring. If there is dorsal hardware prominence contributing to rupture, this needs addressing. Third, for EPL reconstruction, my options are: EIP to EPL transfer (most common), palmaris longus graft reconstruction, or direct repair (rarely possible due to attrition). EIP to EPL transfer is my preferred technique - the EIP is divided at the level of the MCP joint, rerouted subcutaneously to the thumb, and sutured to the EPL stump under appropriate tension. Fourth, at the same surgery, I would assess for dorsal hardware prominence and consider removing or revising prominent components to prevent further ruptures. Fifth, postoperatively, I would splint the thumb in extension for 4 weeks, then begin protected motion. I would monitor for other tendon ruptures.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
EPL rupture 5-10% after TWA - dorsal hardware prominence
RA patients have weakened tendons - higher risk
EIP to EPL transfer is treatment of choice
Address hardware prominence to prevent further ruptures
COMMON TRAPS
✗Missing the diagnosis of EPL rupture
✗Not addressing dorsal hardware prominence
✗Not monitoring for other tendon ruptures
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"How do you perform EIP to EPL transfer?"
"What if multiple extensor tendons are ruptured?"
"How do you prevent extensor ruptures?"

Australian Context

Epidemiology in Australia: Wrist arthroplasty is performed in low numbers in Australia, with limited AOANJRR data available due to small case volumes. The procedure is primarily performed in tertiary hand surgery units by subspecialty-trained surgeons. Rheumatoid arthritis remains the primary indication, though the incidence of severe RA requiring surgical intervention has decreased with improved disease-modifying therapy.

Access and Resources: All major implant systems (Universal 2, Maestro, ReMotion) are TGA-approved and available in Australia. The procedure is performed in both public and private settings, with most cases concentrated in metropolitan hand surgery units. RA patients typically have good access to multidisciplinary rheumatology care, including biologic therapy through PBS, which may reduce the number requiring surgical intervention.

Training and Expertise: Wrist arthroplasty is a subspecialty procedure requiring specific training beyond standard orthopaedic fellowship. Australian hand surgery fellowship programs include exposure to TWA, and surgeons performing the procedure should have completed appropriate subspecialty training. The relatively low case volumes mean maintaining expertise requires ongoing commitment and potentially fellowship in high-volume international centers.

Wrist Arthroplasty Exam Quick Reference

High-Yield Exam Summary

Indications

  • •Primary: RA with low demands (ideal candidate)
  • •Bilateral disease - motion preservation both sides
  • •Contralateral fusion - avoid bilateral fusion
  • •Elderly with limited activity expectations

Contraindications

  • •High-demand or manual labor - choose fusion
  • •Young age - durability concerns
  • •Poor bone stock - inadequate fixation
  • •Active infection - eradicate first

Key Numbers

  • •Motion: 40-60 degree arc preserved
  • •5-year survival: 80%
  • •Distal loosening: 10-30%
  • •Revision rate: 15-25% at 10 years

Implant Types

  • •Universal 2 - most widely used, longest follow-up
  • •Maestro - bone-preserving, easier revision
  • •ReMotion - newest, anatomic design
  • •All third-generation ellipsoidal articulation

Complications

  • •Distal loosening - KEY failure mode (10-30%)
  • •Extensor tendon rupture (5-10%) - dorsal hardware
  • •Impingement (10-15%)
  • •Revision to fusion if failed

TWA vs Fusion

  • •TWA: motion preserved but less durable
  • •Fusion: no motion but 95% union
  • •Fusion revision rate 5-10% vs TWA 15-25%
  • •Fusion gold standard for high-demand

References

  1. Cooney WP, et al. Total wrist arthroplasty: A review of recent experience. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(2):358-367.

  2. Cavaliere CM, Chung KC. A systematic review of total wrist arthroplasty compared with total wrist arthrodesis for rheumatoid arthritis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(3):813-825.

  3. Krukhaug Y, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing Maestro and Universal 2 total wrist arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Eur. 2011;36(3):218-226.

  4. Ferreres A, et al. Long-term follow-up of total wrist arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis. J Hand Surg Eur. 2011;36(9):754-760.

  5. Weiss AP, et al. Total wrist arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(15):1401-1407.

  6. Adams BD. Wrist arthroplasty: Partial and total. Hand Clin. 2013;29(1):79-89.

  7. Nydick JA, et al. Total wrist arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(8):1693-1702.

  8. Murphy DM, et al. Long-term results of Universal 2 total wrist arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(7):613-619.

  9. Ward CM, et al. Outcomes of total wrist arthroplasty: An analysis of implant-specific survival. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(8):719-726.

  10. Berber O, et al. Total wrist arthroplasty: A systematic review of outcomes and complications. J Hand Surg Eur. 2019;44(4):381-390.

Quick Stats
Reading Time78 min
Related Topics

Anterior Interosseous Syndrome

Camptodactyly

Central Slip Injuries

Crystalline Arthropathy of the Hand