Prognostic Factors of Arthroscopic Debridement for Central Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex Tears in Adults Younger Than 45 Years: A Retrospective Case Series Analysis

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze factors that affect the treatment outcomes of arthroscopic debridement for central triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) lesions in adults <45 years of age. Methods: A total of 71 patients (mean age, 39 years; range, 20-44 years) who had been arthroscopically diagnosed with central TFCC tears were treated with arthroscopic debridement. Demographic, clinical, and arthroscopic findings were examined and analyzed. The response to treatment, including pain numeric rating scale on an ulnar provocation test; Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and satisfaction with treatment, was assessed at 12-month follow-up. Results: The mean pain numeric rating scale (6.6 ± 3.6 to 2.4 ± 2.0, P <.01) and Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (59.3 ± 15.0 to 33.7 ± 14.1, P <.01) scores exhibited significant clinical improvement at 12-month follow-up. In terms of satisfaction, 43 patients (70.5%) were satisfied (enthusiastic or satisfied) and 18 (29.5%) were dissatisfied (noncommittal or disappointed). In the satisfied group, there were 24 flap and 19 wearing tears, whereas in the dissatisfied group, there were 4 flap and 14 wearing tears (P =.02). The extent of ulnar plus variance on preoperative radiographs also differed between the 2 groups (0.5 ± 1.2 vs 1.7 ± 1.1, P <.01). There were no significant differences in age, gender, hand dominance, or work level between the groups. After controlling for confounding variables, the wearing type tears (odds ratio, 3.4) and greater ulnar plus variance (odds ratio, 2.0) were associated with a higher likelihood of dissatisfaction after arthroscopic TFCC debridement. Conclusions: Although clinical outcome scores showed significant improvement after arthroscopic debridement for central TFCC tears, wearing type tears and greater ulnar plus variance were associated with dissatisfaction and poorer postoperative outcomes after the procedure. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.