25dgh61 10.3205/25dgh61 urn:nbn:de:0183-25dgh619 Meeting Abstract Kellenberger Kellenberger Carla C

Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Schweiz

author Hüsler Hüsler Léonie L

Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Schweiz

author Schmitt Schmitt Stefanie S

Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Schweiz

author Hug Hug Urs U

Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Schweiz

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 20251016 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0633 61 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Handchirurgie 65. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Handchirurgie Endoprothetik der Hand – Gemeinsame Sitzung DGH & DAHTH Würzburg 20251016 20251018 25dgh61 TextQuestion: The operative treatment of thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis has recently undergone a paradigm shift due to excellent early results of CMC-I prosthesis. However, with limited long-term outcomes beyond 10 years and challenges faced by earlier implants generations, careful consideration of their indications remains essential.This study presents the experiences of a teaching hospital’s hand surgery team over the first 5 years of implanting Touch® type CMC-I prosthesis, focusing on challenges and complications as “lessons learned”. Methods: In our clinic, all patients who received a CMC-I prosthesis from 2019 to 2025 were identified. 182 cases were reviewed, involving 134 women, 48 men (average age 62 y, range: 40–80 y). Indications inculuded rhizarthrosis stages 2 or 3. Procedures were mainly outpatient under axillary plexus anaesthesia. Surgical technique involved: dorsal access between EPL and EPB, dorsal capsule resection, circumferential release of the MC I base, removal of trapezial osteophytes and radiologically guided cup drilling. Most cases involved a conical cup and a 15° angled neck. Postoperative care included rigid splinting for a week, followed by standardised therapy with a Comfort Cool brace and mobilisation, and initiation of load-bearing after 6 weeks, if X-ray controls were unremarkable.Beyond strength and mobility measurements, perioperative and postoperative complications and challenges were recorded. The analysis focuses on “lessons learned” rather than classic CROMs.Results: Complications occurred in 25.2% (46/182) of the cases. Revision surgery was required in 9.3% (17 patients). Issues included trapezium fractures (3) and dislocations due to incorrect cup placement (5). 4 cases needed a repositioning, while 2 required conversion to RSI arthroplasty. Tendinitis was observed in 22 cases, degeneration of the STT joint in 6 and MCP joint in 3 cases, respectively. Other complications included heterotopic ossifications (3), implant failure including polyethylene fracture (1) and neuropathic pain (8). While most were managed conservatively, some required surgical revision such as a 1st extensor compartment release, MCP joint arthrodesis, reoperation or neurolysis.Conclusion: Results from the first five years of implanting CMC-I prothesis align with existing literature. We highlight challenges and the surgeon’s progression to guide less experienced colleagues in anticipating and avoiding issues or complications. 0 0 0 0