A Comparative Study of 2-Corner, 3-Corner, and 4-Corner Arthrodesis for Midcarpal Arthritis

Abstract

Background: Four-corner fusion (4CF) is a common treatment for midcarpal arthritis; however, alternatives including 2-corner fusion (2CF) and 3-corner fusion (3CF) have been described. Limited literature suggests 2CF and 3CF may improve range of motion but have higher complication rates. Our objective is to compare function and patient-reported outcomes following 4CF, 3CF, and 2CF at our institution. Methods: Adult patients undergoing 4CF, 3CF, and 2CF from 2011 to 2021 who attended at least one follow-up were included. Four-corner fusion patients were compared with those who underwent either 3CF or 2CF using staple fixation. Outcomes include nonunion rate, reoperation rate, progression to wrist fusion, range of motion, and patient-reported pain, satisfaction, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores. Results: A total of 58 patients met inclusion criteria. There were 49 4CF and 9 2CF or 3CF patients. Nonunion rates, progression to wrist fusion, and repeat surgery for any indication were not significantly different among groups. Range of motion (flexion-extension, radial-ulnar deviation) and grip strength at postoperative visits were not significantly different. Significantly more 4CF patients required bone grafting. Pain, overall satisfaction, and DASH scores were similar. Conclusions: Although prior studies suggest increased risk of nonunion and hardware migration after 2CF/3CF, we did not observe higher complication rates compared with 4CF. Range of motion, strength, and patient-reported outcomes were similar. While 4CF is traditionally the procedure of choice for midcarpal fusion, we found that when using a staple fixation technique, 2CF and 3CF have comparable clinical and patient-reported outcomes yet decrease the need for autologous bone grafting.