Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 22, 2025
The Modified Single-working Portal Technique Using Lasso-loop Stitch with Needle for Arthroscopic Subscapularis Repair
Published on: August 8, 2025
Four-Corner Arthrodesis Versus Proximal Row Carpectomy for Scapholunate Advanced Collapse: A Systematic Literature
Kamil M Amer1, Jennifer E Thomson, Michael M Vosbikian
1From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ.
Background:
Scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC) of the wrist is one of the most common patterns of degenerative arthritis in the wrist. Surgical intervention is warranted for individuals with symptomatic SLAC and degenerative disease that affects the radioscaphoid joint. The most popular options for motion-preserving reconstruction and treatment of this disease include 4-corner arthrodesis and proximal row carpectomy. The purpose of this article was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify any differences in the clinical outcomes of 4-corner arthrodesis and proximal row carpectomy for the treatment of SLAC.
Methods:
An electronic literature search of PubMed, Embase, OVID, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of 4-corner arthrodesis versus proximal row carpectomy for the treatment of SLAC. Primary outcome measures included flexion/extension range of motion, grip strength, and level of pain.
Results:
Eight studies encompassing 311 patients met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis indicated that when compared with 4-corner arthrodesis, patients who underwent proximal row carpectomy had statistically significantly increased flexion/extension range of motion by 6.2 degrees, significantly increased grip strength by 1.52%, and reduced level of pain by 0.3.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrated that in comparative studies, there was a statistical difference favoring proximal row carpectomy to 4-corner arthrodesis for the treatment of SLAC. Although these differences were statistically significant, they remain very small and lack clinical relevance. This study further supports that both of these treatment options are equivalent for the treatment of this disease. Although not clinically significant, compared with 4-corner arthrodesis, patients treated with proximal row carpectomy had increased range of motion, increased grip strength, and decreased pain. Limitations to these findings are the small number of studies available and the increased heterogeneity between the studies. Further studies need to be conducted to confirm these findings.
