Is metaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy superior to diaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy in the treatment of ulnar impaction syndrome? A meta-analysis

Table 1 Search items

Search items
Metaphyseal osteotomy and diaphyseal osteotomy
Distal metaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy and diaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy
Arthroscopic wafer procedures and ulnar shortening osteotomy
Wafer procedures and ulnar shortening osteotomy
Arthroscopic distal ulna resections and ulnar shortening osteotomy

Table 2 General demographic characteristics

Ref.	Types of participants	Selected outcomes
Bernstein et al[4], 2004	MUSO vs DUSO	Ulnar variance; VAS; grip strength; complication rate; secondary procedure rate
Marquez-Lara et al[12], 2017	MUSO vs DUSO	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate; quick DASH score
Sennwald et al[10], 2013	MUSO vs DUSO	Ulnar variance; VAS
Constantine et al[41], 2000	MUSO vs DUSO	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate
Smet et al[11], 2014	MUSO vs DUSO	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate; quick DASH score
Oh et al[9], 2018	MUSO vs DUSO	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate; quick DASH score

MUSO: Metaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy; DUSO: Diaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy; VAS: Visual analog scale.

Table 3 General patient information of the included studies

Ref.	No. of patients	Gender (male/female)	Age (mean yr)	Follow-up time (mo)	After injury (mo)	No. of patients who underwent MUSO	No. of patients who underwent DUSO
Bernstein et al[4], 2004	27	13/14	37.6	17.4	13.8	11	16
Marquez-Lara et al[12], 2017	35	17/18	43.9	18.5	Not reported	14	21
Sennwald et al[10], 2013	29	45277	42.9	54	5.5	16	13
Constantine et al[41], 2000	22	45152	40.5	36	Not reported	11	11
Smet et al[11], 2014	40	45229	40.4	29	Not reported	12	28
Oh et al[9], 2018	42	17/25	53.6	35.5	29.5	19	23

MUSO: Metaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy; DUSO: Diaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy.

Table 4 General demographic characteristics

Ref.	Preoperative ulnar variance (mm)	Pain score (VAS)	Grip strength of the unaffected side (%)	Selected outcomes
Bernstein et al[4], 2004	1.5	Not reported	55.2	Ulnar variance; VAS; grip strength; complication rate; secondary procedure rate
Marquez-Lara et al[12], 2017	3.9	6.5	Not reported	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate; quick DASH score
Sennwald et al[10], 2013	2.6	8	Not reported	Ulnar variance; VAS
Constantine et al[41], 2000	2	Not reported	Not reported	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate
Smet et al[11], 2014	2	Not reported	Not reported	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate; quick DASH score
Oh et al[9], 2018	2.9	5.9	54.1	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate; quick DASH score

VAS: Visual analog scale.

Table 5 Interval group demographic characteristics

Ref.	Preoperative ulnar variance (mm)	Pain score (VAS)	Grip strength of the unaffected side (%)	Selected outcomes
Bernstein et al[4], 2004	1	Not reported	54/56	Ulnar variance; VAS; grip strength; complication rate; secondary procedure rate
Marquez-Lara et al[12], 2017	1.285714	6.64/6.45	Not reported	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate; quick DASH score
Sennwald et al[10], 2013	0.666667	7.3/8.2	Not reported	Ulnar variance; VAS
Constantine et al[41], 2000	0.6	Not reported	Not reported	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate
Smet et al[11], 2014	1.588235	Not reported	Not reported	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate; quick DASH score
Oh et al[9], 2018	1.034483	5.8/6.0	51/ 59	Secondary procedure rate; complication rate; quick DASH score

VAS: Visual analog scale.