{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026013771996939557, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009946442234123947, 'mean_word_length': 5.258373205741627, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of diaphyseal and metaphyseal techniques of ulna shortening

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare two techniques of ulna shortening for ulnocarpal abutment. The technique performed initially was diaphyseal osteotomy. Subsequently, a metaphyseal osteotomy was performed to avoid the drawbacks related to the plate. The study group consisted of 29 patients: 13 with diaphyseal and 16 with metaphyseal osteotomies. The pre-operative diagnosis was ulnocarpal abutment in all cases. The results were graded according to the scoring system of Chun and Palmer and patients’ self-assessment. Both rankings were related to indications, age, gender, occupation, and surgery. Final follow-up occurred at a median of 54 (range 15–144) months after surgery. There was no delayed union or non-union, necrosis of the ulnar head, or infection. Pain relief was the main benefit. Both techniques gave similar outcomes for pain relief, satisfaction, and objective results. The shortening was significantly greater in the metaphyseal group without any apparent consequence on function or pain. No screw removal was needed after metaphyseal osteotomy; in contrast, plate removal was required in all patients. We conclude that both techniques are valuable alternatives for treating ulnocarpal abutment.