Abstract
Introduction:
Traditional surgical treatments for wrist osteoarthritis, such as arthrodesis or arthroplasty, are invasive and irreversibly compromise joint motion. Wrist denervation offers a less invasive alternative aimed at pain relief while preserving mobility. However, its durability remains uncertain. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether wrist denervation prevents further osteoarthritis-related wrist surgery in the mid- to long-term.
Methods:
This prospective multicentre study included patients with symptomatic wrist osteoarthritis who underwent wrist denervation after failed non-surgical treatment between 2012 and 2024, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The primary outcome was procedure success, defined as the proportion of wrists not requiring further osteoarthritis-related surgery. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale (0–100) scores for pain and function, patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure.
Results:
One hundred and twelve patients (114 wrists) were included. At a median follow-up of 4 years (1–13), 86% of wrists did not undergo further osteoarthritis-related surgery after denervation. Most reoperations occurred within 2 years. Mean visual analogue scale pain score at rest significantly improved from 48 (SD 28) preoperatively to 26 (SD 29) (reduction: 22 points). Mean visual analogue scale function significantly improved from 55 (SD 26) to 69 (SD 24) (improvement: 14 points). Patient satisfaction was rated as good or excellent in 60%, and 82% were willing to undergo the same treatment again.
Conclusion:
Wrist denervation yields durable symptom relief and can, in many cases (86%), prevent further osteoarthritis-related surgery in patients with wrist osteoarthritis over a median 4 year follow-up.
Level of Evidence:
II
Keywords
Introduction
Osteoarthritis of the wrist is a common and disabling cause of chronic pain and functional loss (Kloppenburg and Kwok, 2011). Initial management includes hand therapy, activity modifications, splinting, analgesics and corticosteroid injections (Hochberg et al., 2012; Le Nen et al., 2011). When these measures fail, surgical options such as partial wrist fusion, proximal row carpectomy or arthroplasty are considered, all of which are salvage procedures that reduce pain at the cost of joint motion and require substantial recovery time (Tieman et al., 2021).
Wrist denervation is an attractive alternative, as it aims to relieve pain while preserving motion and function by resecting sensory articular branches. Dellon (2009) popularized wrist denervation as a relatively minimally invasive technique with comparatively short recovery and the option to proceed to arthrodesis or arthroplasty if symptoms persist. Wilhelm (1966) first described total wrist denervation through multiple incisions, whereas Berger (1998) later introduced partial denervation of the anterior and posterior interosseous nerves via a single dorsal approach. Observational studies suggest that both total and partial wrist denervation provide meaningful pain reduction and high patient satisfaction, without clear superiority of one technique over the other (Chin et al., 2020; Pedrotti et al., 2024; Tieman et al., 2021).
Despite its advantages, wrist denervation is often regarded as a non-sustainable intervention that may only delay, rather than prevent, further osteoarthritis-related surgery. The present study evaluates the mid- to long-term outcomes of wrist denervation specifically in patients with wrist osteoarthritis. The primary objective is to determine the success of wrist denervation, defined as the proportion of patients who avoid further osteoarthritis-related surgery after failed non-surgical treatment. Secondary outcomes include pain, function and patient satisfaction, and factors associated with unsuccessful denervation are explored.
Methods
Study design
A prospective multicentre study was conducted at several specialized hand surgery and therapy clinics in the Netherland (Xpert Clinics). The study protocol was approved by the local medical research ethics committee, and all participants provided informed consent prior to enrolment. The study was performed in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines (von Elm et al., 2007).
Patients
Patients eligible for inclusion were adults with symptomatic wrist osteoarthritis who underwent wrist denervation between March 2012 and June 2024, with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 12 months. The diagnosis of wrist osteoarthritis was established by a hand surgeon certified by the Federation of European Societies for Surgery of the Hand (FESSH), based on clinical evaluation, physical examination and radiographic imaging. All procedures were performed by these FESSH-certified hand surgeons, corresponding to expertise levels of 3 and 4 as defined by Tang and Giddins (2016). Surgical intervention was reserved for patients who did not achieve adequate symptom relief following non-surgical management, including splinting, hand therapy or intra-articular injections. Wrist denervation was offered as a minimally invasive, motion-preserving surgical option. The decision to proceed with denervation in these patients reflected a joint choice by the treating surgeon and patient; accordingly, the study cohort represents a selected subgroup of the broader wrist osteoarthritis population in whom non-surgical treatment had failed and who were both eligible for, and elected to undergo, wrist denervation. Included patients were classified according to the primary site of osteoarthritis: radiocarpal, midcarpal and distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ), These categories were used in descriptive and subgroup analyses.
Patients were excluded if they had undergone any major concurrent surgical procedures at the time of denervation that were expected to substantially confound outcomes, such as additional bone resection, bone replacement procedures or ligament reconstructions. In contrast, patients who underwent minor concurrent procedures were retained, as these interventions were considered unlikely to have meaningful impact on the effect of denervation. To evaluate any potential influence of these minor procedures, which were performed in a small number of patients, subgroup and risk factor analyses were conducted.
Surgical technique
The sensory innervation of the wrist joint is illustrated in Figure 1 (Tieman et al., 2021). Partial wrist denervation consisted of resection of the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) alone or in combination with the anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) through a single 2 cm transverse dorsal incision, placed 3–5 cm proximal to the wrist crease. After opening the fourth extensor compartment and retracting the tendons ulnarly, the PIN was identified adjacent to the posterior interosseous vessels, and a 4 cm segment was excised. Through a small window in the interosseous membrane, the AIN was then accessed and resected (Figure 2) (Tieman et al., 2021). Total wrist denervation extended this procedure by adding two incisions: a dorso-ulnar incision at the level of the ulnar head to expose the dorsal branch of the ulnar nerve and resect its small articular branches to the wrist joint, and a palmar-radial incision over the radial artery at the level of the wrist crease to resect the perivascular tissue around the radial artery and the articular branches of the radial sensory nerve, lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve and palmar cutaneous branch of the median nerve. In both procedures, wounds were closed in layers, a soft dressing was applied, no splint was used and immediate mobilization was encouraged.
The sensory innervation of the hand and wrist joints (reproduced with permission from Tieman et al., 2021).
Schematic illustration of the surgical technique for partial wrist denervation (reproduced with permission from Tieman et al., 2021).
The choice between partial and total wrist denervation was left to the discretion of the treating surgeon and reflected surgeon experience, preference and clinical judgement rather than predefined criteria. No standardized algorithm or disease-pattern-based protocol was used across centres. Both techniques were routinely applied in clinical practice.
Data collection and outcome measures
Data collection involved routine outcome assessments at baseline and up to 12 months after wrist denervation surgery. In July 2025, all patients were contacted for mid- to long-term follow-up data collection, defined as at least 12 months after wrist denervation. At this time, patients were asked whether they had undergone, or were scheduled to undergo, any further osteoarthritis-related wrist surgery since their denervation owing to ongoing or recurrent symptoms, and they were invited to complete the patient-reported outcome measures once again.
The primary outcome was the success rate of wrist denervation, defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo further osteoarthritis-related wrist surgery because of persistent or recurrent wrist symptoms. The occurrence of further osteoarthritis-related surgery was determined from medical records and patient responses to follow-up questionnaires. This was chosen as a pragmatic, clinically meaningful endpoint reflecting failure of symptom control after denervation, rather than as a purely objective marker of disease progression.
Secondary analyses were performed in the subgroup of patients who did not undergo reoperation to evaluate long-term pain, function and satisfaction. Pain and functional outcomes were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–100) for pain at rest, pain during activity and function. The VAS scores were routinely collected preoperatively and up to 12 months postoperatively, with additional long-term data obtained through follow-up questionnaires administered ⩾12 months after denervation. Pain scores ranged from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst imaginable pain) and function scores ranged from 0 (worst possible wrist function) to 100 (best possible wrist function). For VAS function, patients were asked the following question: ‘how have you experienced the function of your hand and wrist during the past week?’ For pain, a score of 33 or lower was considered acceptable (patient acceptable symptom state, PASS), and for function, a score of 70 or higher was set as satisfactory. Patient satisfaction was measured using the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, which rates satisfaction as excellent, good, reasonable, mediocre or poor, and records willingness to undergo the same treatment again (yes or no) (De Ridder et al., 2021). Mid- to long-term follow-up VAS scores and satisfaction rates were collected only from patients who did not undergo further surgery during follow-up, as subsequent surgery would confound the evaluation of the original treatment effects.
Patient demographic information, including age at operation, sex, hand dominance, affected side, duration of symptoms and occupational intensity (unemployed, light, moderate or heavy physical labour), was collected from electronic medical records and intake questionnaires. Range of motion (ROM) was not systematically assessed as a standardized protocol at all participating centres, and ROM measurements that were performed in routine care were documented too inconsistently to be included as a reliable outcome measure in the analysis. Surgical details, including the specific procedure performed, any additional interventions and postoperative complications, were also recorded. Complications were classified according to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM, 2020) Complications in Hand and Wrist Conditions (ICHAW) classification.
Statistical analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic and clinical characteristics, with categorical variables presented as counts and percentages, and continuous variables as means with standard deviations (SD) or medians with ranges, based on data distribution. The primary outcome, the success rate after wrist denervation, was calculated as the proportion of patients not requiring further osteoarthritis-related surgery, with a 95% confidence interval, and visualized using a Kaplan–Meier survival curve to present outcomes over time.
A linear mixed model was used to compare the mean VAS scores over time, with time included as a continuous variable. The proportion of patients achieving the PASS threshold for pain and threshold for function was calculated. Patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure were also summarized descriptively.
A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify risk factors for unsuccessful wrist denervation in the overall cohort. For the primary outcome, all denervation procedures were therefore analysed as a single group. In addition, exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to examine associations between baseline characteristics (site of degeneration, presence of concurrent minor procedures at the time of denervation and denervation technique) and patient-reported outcomes at latest follow-up. Given the non-randomized allocation of denervation technique (partial vs. total) and limited subgroup sizes, differences between subgroups were summarized descriptively and interpreted with caution.
A non-responder analysis compared baseline characteristics between patients who completed questionnaires (responders) and those who did not (non-responders) using unpaired t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Fisher’s exact tests and chi-square tests as appropriate. In addition, we used standardized mean differences to quantify imbalance independent of sample size (Cohen, 1988). Little’s (1988) test assessed whether data were missing completely at random.
P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant, and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used.
Results
This study included 112 patients who underwent wrist denervation after failed non-surgical treatment, involving a total of 114 wrists. Baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1. The median follow-up period was 4.3 years (range, 1–13.2 years), and all patients were contacted for mid- to long-term outcome assessment (Table 2). The response rate for questionnaires at latest follow-up was 89% (101/114); non-responder analysis revealed only minor differences in baseline variables, and Little’s test confirmed that data were missing completely at random (Table S1).
Baseline characteristics.
Concurrent procedures included: synovectomy, 14; trapeziometacarpal denervation, 4; removal of osteosynthesis material, 3; pisiformectomy, 2; osteophyte excision, 1.
n: Number of patients or wrists; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range; DRUJ: distal radioulnar joint.
Mid- to long term clinical outcomes following wrist denervation.
n: Number of patients or wrist joints; SD: standard deviation; VAS: visual analogue scale.
Treatment success
Treatment success, defined as the absence of further osteoarthritis-related surgery after wrist denervation, was achieved in 86% of wrists (98/114; 95% CI: 78 to 92) at a median of 4 years postoperatively. Figure 3 depicts the Kaplan–Meier curve for successful wrist denervation over time.
Kaplan–Meier survival curve demonstrating the proportion of osteoarthritic wrists requiring no further osteoarthritis-related surgery (reoperation) over time. At a median follow-up of 4 years, 14% required a reoperation. The shaded grey area represents the 95% confidence interval. Censored indicates patients who had not undergone a reoperation at the time of last follow-up. (m: months, y: years).
For the 16 wrists requiring further osteoarthritis-related surgery, the median time to reoperation was 13 months (range, 3–38). Almost all reoperations occurred within the first 2 years (15/16). Further operations included proximal row carpectomy (n = 6), ulnar styloid resection (n = 1), wrist arthrodesis (n = 6), wrist prosthesis (n = 1) and ligament reconstruction aimed at restoring joint alignment and reducing mechanical stress on the arthritic joint (n = 3).
Pain, function and satisfaction
Secondary outcomes, including pain, function and satisfaction, were evaluated only in the subgroup of patients who did not undergo further osteoarthritis-related surgery.
The mean preoperative VAS pain score at rest was 48 (SD 28; n = 65), which decreased to 26 (SD 29; n = 85) at a median follow-up of 4 years, corresponding to a mean reduction of 22 points (p < 0.001) (Figure 4). Sixty-two per cent of wrists (53/85) achieved a VAS score at rest of ⩽33, exceeding the established PASS threshold for acceptable pain. For pain during activity, the mean VAS decreased from 68 (SD 24; n = 65) preoperatively to 41 (SD 30; n = 85), representing a mean reduction of 27 points (p < 0.001) (Figure 4). Forty-five per cent of wrists (38/85) reached the PASS threshold (VAS ⩽ 33).
Changes in mean visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores (at rest and during activity) and function scores over time (preoperatively, 6 weeks, 3 months, 12 months, and latest follow-up) in osteoarthritis patients undergoing wrist denervation. The most substantial improvement was observed within the first 6 weeks after surgery. The shaded area represents the 95% confidence interval, with individual patient results depicted in light blue. Data shown pertain only to patients who did not require reoperation during follow-up.
The mean preoperative VAS function score was 55 (SD 27; n = 45), which improved to 69 (SD 24; n = 85) at final follow-up, corresponding to an increase of 14 points (p = 0.040) (Figure 4). Sixty-two per cent of wrists (53/85) reached a score of ⩾70, meeting the accepted threshold for satisfactory wrist function.
Regarding patient satisfaction, 27% of patients rated their outcomes as excellent; 33% as good; 18% as fair; 14% as mediocre; and 8% as poor. Overall, 82% would choose to have the same treatment again.
Complications
The overall complication rate was 14%, with most complications classified as minor. ICHAW grade 1 complications, occurring in 10% of wrists (11/114), primarily required non-surgical management: splinting alone (six cases), splinting combined with hand therapy (four cases) and hand therapy alone (one case). ICHAW grade 2 complications were observed in 4% (5/114), including two corticosteroid injections and three infections treated with oral antibiotics. The majority of patients (86%) experienced no complications.
Risk factor and subgroup analysis
Risk factor analysis did not identify significant predictors of treatment failure, including age, sex, operated side, employment status, site of joint degeneration (radiocarpal, midcarpal, DRUJ), concurrent surgery or denervation technique (partial or total) (Table S2).
Subgroup analyses evaluated success, pain, function and satisfaction according to denervation type, site of osteoarthritis and the presence or absence of concurrent minor surgery. Both partial and total wrist denervation yielded similar success rates (86%), with partial denervation showing slightly better postoperative pain and function scores (Table 3). Postoperative outcomes were broadly comparable across sites of osteoarthritis (Table S3) and between cases with and without concurrent minor surgery (Table S4). No formal statistical differences could be established owing to limited power and are therefore presented as exploratory.
Subgroup analysis of outcomes after wrist denervation per wrist denervation technique.
n: Number of patients or wrist joints; VAS: visual analogue scale.
Discussion
This prospective multicentre study shows that, at a median follow-up of 4 years, 86% of wrists remained free from further osteoarthritis-related wrist surgery after wrist denervation. These findings challenge the traditional perception of wrist denervation as a temporary or purely delaying intervention and instead suggest that, in many cases, it can prevent further osteoarthritis-related surgery while preserving wrist mobility and function. The results apply specifically to patients with symptomatic wrist osteoarthritis in whom non-surgical treatment has failed and who, together with their surgeon, opted for wrist denervation. In addition, denervation surgery offers several advantages, it is minimally invasive, offers faster recovery, has a low complication rate with only minor adverse events as demonstrated this cohort and does not preclude later salvage procedures if needed (Tieman et al., 2021). Given these advantages, now supported by this study’s evidence that denervation also provides lasting benefit, wrist denervation should be more frequently considered in the management of wrist osteoarthritis for whom non-surgical treatment is no longer sufficient.
Existing literature on long-term outcomes after wrist denervation is limited, with most previous studies being retrospective, involving smaller cohorts or including heterogenous patient populations with a mix of underlying wrist pathologies, rather than focusing specifically on osteoarthritis. Reported reoperation rates after wrist denervation typically range from 20 to 35% (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2019; Schweizer et al., 2006; Swärd et al., 2022). The present prospective multicentre study is characterized by its larger cohort, exclusive focus on patients with wrist osteoarthritis and exclusion of major concurrent wrist surgery, therefore, assessing the isolated effect of denervation in patients with wrist osteoarthritis. This study found an even lower reoperation rate of only 14%, providing evidence for the lasting efficacy of wrist denervation in this population. Additionally, the study found that when wrist denervation fails, it most often does so within the first 2 years postoperatively, suggesting that patients who maintain benefit beyond this period are likely to experience sustained relief.
Furthermore, wrist denervation resulted in significant improvements in pain at rest and during activity in the non-reoperation subgroup. Mean VAS pain scores were lower at rest (mean 26) than during activity (mean 37), indicating that while wrist denervation reduces pain, complete pain relief, especially during loading, is often not achieved. Accordingly, 38 and 55% of patients did not achieve the PASS threshold for pain at rest and during activity, suggesting that a proportion of patients continue to experience clinically relevant pain after denervation. Postoperative pain scores after denervation are also not as low as those reported following wrist salvage procedures such as a proximal row carpectomy, where VAS pain scores of 0.8–2.3 (scale 0–10) have been described (Meulendijks et al., 2024). Nevertheless, the value patients place on preserving wrist function is highlighted by the finding that 82% would choose to undergo the denervation surgery again.
Function scores also improved significantly after wrist denervation in the no reoperation subgroup, although the effect was less pronounced than for pain relief. This modest functional gain is consistent with the procedure’s mechanism, which targets pain rather than reversing the structural loss of motion caused by progressive osteoarthritis. In this study, function was measured with a VAS scale ranging from 0 (worst imaginable wrist function) to 100 (best possible wrist function), which is simple and intuitive but not commonly used. Employing widely used, validated instruments such as the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) or Patient Rated Wrist Hand Evaluation (PRWE) would have facilitated comparison with existing literature. Moreover, ROM was not consistently recorded across all participating centres and therefore could not be analysed. A systematic review reported an average 12% improvement in ROM after wrist denervation in a heterogenous population, whereas several studies focusing on wrist osteoarthritis have shown little or no change in ROM after partial wrist denervation, suggesting that the principal benefit of denervation lies in pain reduction with preservation rather than improvement of function or motion (Abdelaziz et al., 2019; Hofmeister et al., 2006; Pedrotti et al., 2024; Sgromolo et al., 2018; Swärd et al., 2022).
For surgeons and patients opting for wrist denervation, an important question remains: which technique, partial or total, should be preferred? In this cohort, partial and total denervation showed similar success, pain, function and satisfaction, with numerically better pain and function after partial denervation despite comparable baseline scores. Given the non-randomized, preference-based choice of technique and small subgroups, the comparisons are exploratory, but the lack of clear added benefit from the extra dissections in total denervation supports partial denervation a simpler and effective option in patients with wrist osteoarthritis.
This study includes several limitations. First, there is inherent selection bias: wrist denervation was performed only in patients with failed non-surgical treatment whom the surgeon deemed suitable for surgery and who consented to it, so the findings are not directly generalizable to all patients with wrist osteoarthritis. Second, using further osteoarthritis-related surgery as the primary outcome has limitations, as the decision for another operation is influenced by patient preferences and surgeon judgement and does not represent a purely objective measure of disease progression or treatment failure. Third, secondary outcomes were only assessed in patients who did not undergo further surgery, which may have led to an overestimation of the benefits of wrist denervation. Fourth, the underlying cause of osteoarthritis and radiographic staging were not documented in a sufficiently standardized manner across centres, limiting subgroup-level interpretation. Future studies should prospectively collect such data to identify risk factors for failure and to clarify how specific osteoarthritis patterns and severity stages might guide the indication for denervation. Lastly, there was no control group of patients who did not have surgery or, ideally, underwent sham operation. Therefore, it is uncertain whether pain would have improved in some patients without wrist denervation as a result of natural progression.
In conclusion, wrist denervation can avoid further osteoarthritis-related wrist surgery, with 86% of patients remaining free of further surgery at 4 years follow-up. It appears to be a reliable and less invasive first-line option when non-surgical treatment fails in wrist osteoarthritis, offering motion preservation, fast recovery and low complication rate.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-jhs-10.1177_17531934261468563 – Supplemental material for Durability of wrist denervation for osteoarthritis: a multicentre outcome study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jhs-10.1177_17531934261468563 for Durability of wrist denervation for osteoarthritis: a multicentre outcome study by Esmee Kwee, Niek J Nieuwdorp, Camille Blaaker, Jelle M Zuidam, Richard Arjen Michiel Blomme, Jeronimus (Jeroen) Maria Smit, Kennard Harmsen, Gertjan Halbesma, Guus Maarten Vermeulen, Johannes (Hans) Pieter de Schipper, Jeroen Hein van Uchelen, Oliver Theodor Zöphel, John Sebastiaan Souer, Lisa Esteban Lopez, Alexandra Fink, Rob van Huis, Pierre-Yves Alain Adriaan Pennehouat, Karin Schoneveld, Grada Renée Arends, Reinier Feitz, Lisa Hoogendam, Steven Eric Ruden Hovius, Yara Eline van Kooij, Jaimy Emerentiana Koopman, Mark Johannes Willem van der Oest, Willemijn Anna de Ridder, Ruud Willem Selles, Liz-Tipper Sikking, Harm Pieter Slijper, Marloes Hendrina Paulina ter Stege, Joris Sebastiaan Teunissen, Robbert Maarten Wouters, Nina Louisa Loos, Nienke Helena Adriana Mendelaar, Lyse van Wijk, Ward Rogier Bijlsma, Joost W Colaris, Liron S Duraku, Egberta Petronella, Adriana (Brigitte) van der Heijden, Caroline Anna Hundepool, Jelle Michiel Zuidam and Caroline A Hundepool in Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-jhs-10.1177_17531934261468563 – Supplemental material for Durability of wrist denervation for osteoarthritis: a multicentre outcome study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jhs-10.1177_17531934261468563 for Durability of wrist denervation for osteoarthritis: a multicentre outcome study by Esmee Kwee, Niek J Nieuwdorp, Camille Blaaker, Jelle M Zuidam, Richard Arjen Michiel Blomme, Jeronimus (Jeroen) Maria Smit, Kennard Harmsen, Gertjan Halbesma, Guus Maarten Vermeulen, Johannes (Hans) Pieter de Schipper, Jeroen Hein van Uchelen, Oliver Theodor Zöphel, John Sebastiaan Souer, Lisa Esteban Lopez, Alexandra Fink, Rob van Huis, Pierre-Yves Alain Adriaan Pennehouat, Karin Schoneveld, Grada Renée Arends, Reinier Feitz, Lisa Hoogendam, Steven Eric Ruden Hovius, Yara Eline van Kooij, Jaimy Emerentiana Koopman, Mark Johannes Willem van der Oest, Willemijn Anna de Ridder, Ruud Willem Selles, Liz-Tipper Sikking, Harm Pieter Slijper, Marloes Hendrina Paulina ter Stege, Joris Sebastiaan Teunissen, Robbert Maarten Wouters, Nina Louisa Loos, Nienke Helena Adriana Mendelaar, Lyse van Wijk, Ward Rogier Bijlsma, Joost W Colaris, Liron S Duraku, Egberta Petronella, Adriana (Brigitte) van der Heijden, Caroline Anna Hundepool, Jelle Michiel Zuidam and Caroline A Hundepool in Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-3-jhs-10.1177_17531934261468563 – Supplemental material for Durability of wrist denervation for osteoarthritis: a multicentre outcome study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-jhs-10.1177_17531934261468563 for Durability of wrist denervation for osteoarthritis: a multicentre outcome study by Esmee Kwee, Niek J Nieuwdorp, Camille Blaaker, Jelle M Zuidam, Richard Arjen Michiel Blomme, Jeronimus (Jeroen) Maria Smit, Kennard Harmsen, Gertjan Halbesma, Guus Maarten Vermeulen, Johannes (Hans) Pieter de Schipper, Jeroen Hein van Uchelen, Oliver Theodor Zöphel, John Sebastiaan Souer, Lisa Esteban Lopez, Alexandra Fink, Rob van Huis, Pierre-Yves Alain Adriaan Pennehouat, Karin Schoneveld, Grada Renée Arends, Reinier Feitz, Lisa Hoogendam, Steven Eric Ruden Hovius, Yara Eline van Kooij, Jaimy Emerentiana Koopman, Mark Johannes Willem van der Oest, Willemijn Anna de Ridder, Ruud Willem Selles, Liz-Tipper Sikking, Harm Pieter Slijper, Marloes Hendrina Paulina ter Stege, Joris Sebastiaan Teunissen, Robbert Maarten Wouters, Nina Louisa Loos, Nienke Helena Adriana Mendelaar, Lyse van Wijk, Ward Rogier Bijlsma, Joost W Colaris, Liron S Duraku, Egberta Petronella, Adriana (Brigitte) van der Heijden, Caroline Anna Hundepool, Jelle Michiel Zuidam and Caroline A Hundepool in Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-4-jhs-10.1177_17531934261468563 – Supplemental material for Durability of wrist denervation for osteoarthritis: a multicentre outcome study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-jhs-10.1177_17531934261468563 for Durability of wrist denervation for osteoarthritis: a multicentre outcome study by Esmee Kwee, Niek J Nieuwdorp, Camille Blaaker, Jelle M Zuidam, Richard Arjen Michiel Blomme, Jeronimus (Jeroen) Maria Smit, Kennard Harmsen, Gertjan Halbesma, Guus Maarten Vermeulen, Johannes (Hans) Pieter de Schipper, Jeroen Hein van Uchelen, Oliver Theodor Zöphel, John Sebastiaan Souer, Lisa Esteban Lopez, Alexandra Fink, Rob van Huis, Pierre-Yves Alain Adriaan Pennehouat, Karin Schoneveld, Grada Renée Arends, Reinier Feitz, Lisa Hoogendam, Steven Eric Ruden Hovius, Yara Eline van Kooij, Jaimy Emerentiana Koopman, Mark Johannes Willem van der Oest, Willemijn Anna de Ridder, Ruud Willem Selles, Liz-Tipper Sikking, Harm Pieter Slijper, Marloes Hendrina Paulina ter Stege, Joris Sebastiaan Teunissen, Robbert Maarten Wouters, Nina Louisa Loos, Nienke Helena Adriana Mendelaar, Lyse van Wijk, Ward Rogier Bijlsma, Joost W Colaris, Liron S Duraku, Egberta Petronella, Adriana (Brigitte) van der Heijden, Caroline Anna Hundepool, Jelle Michiel Zuidam and Caroline A Hundepool in Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the patients who contributed to this study by completing questionnaires and consenting to the anonymous use of their data. We also wish to thank the Hand–Wrist Study Group, as well as the staff of Xpert Clinics and Equipe Zorgbedrijven, for their commitment to collecting the routine outcome data that made this research possible.
The collaborators in the Hand–Wrist Study Group are
Richard Arjen Michiel Blomme, MD, Jeronimus (Jeroen) Maria Smit, MD, PhD, Kennard Harmsen, MD, Gertjan Halbesma, MD, Guus Maarten Vermeulen, MD, PhD, Johannes (Hans) Pieter de Schipper, MD, Jeroen Hein van Uchelen, MD, PhD, Oliver Theodor Zöphel, MD, PhD, John Sebastiaan Souer, MD, PhD, Lisa Esteban Lopez, PT, CHT-NL, Alexandra Fink, PT, CHT-NL, MSc, Rob van Huis, PT, CHT-NL, Pierre-Yves Alain Adriaan Pennehouat, PT, CHT-NL, Karin Schoneveld, PT, CHT-NL, MSc, Grada Renée Arends, OT, CHT-NL, MSc, Reinier Feitz, MD, PhD, Lisa Hoogendam, MSc, Steven Eric Ruden Hovius, MD, PhD, Yara Eline van Kooij, PT, CHT-NL, MSc, Jaimy Emerentiana Koopman, MD, Mark Johannes Willem van der Oest, MD, PhD, Willemijn Anna de Ridder, PT, CHT-NL, MSc, Ruud Willem Selles, PhD, Liz-Tipper Sikking, Harm Pieter Slijper, PhD, Marloes Hendrina Paulina ter Stege, MSc, Joris Sebastiaan Teunissen, PhD, Robbert Maarten Wouters, PhD, PT, CHT-NL, Nina Louisa Loos, BSc, Nienke Helena Adriana Mendelaar, MD, Lyse van Wijk, BSc, Ward Rogier Bijlsma MD PhD, Joost W Colaris, MD, PhD, Liron S Duraku, MD, PhD, Egberta Petronella, Adriana (Brigitte) van der Heijden, MD, PhD, Caroline Anna Hundepool, MD, PhD, Jelle Michiel Zuidam, MD, PhD.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the institution’s Medical Research Ethical Committee (METC reference number: MEC-2019-0486).
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects before the study.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
