DRUJ Hemiresection-Interposition Arthroplasty (Bowers) — Procedure Outcomes & Post-operative Rehabilitation

Topic scope: post-operative rehabilitation after hemiresection-interposition arthroplasty (HIT) of the distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) — the Bowers procedure — for painful DRUJ arthritis (degenerative, post-traumatic, or inflammatory). The arthritic portion of the ulnar head is partially resected and a soft-tissue spacer is interposed, preserving the TFCC, ulnar styloid and ulnar soft-tissue attachments so the distal ulna remains supported. This is a joint-reshaping arthroplasty, not a repair or reconstruction: the rehab is therefore an early-rotation pathway built around a short protected settling phase, then prioritised restoration of forearm pronation/supination, then graded loading — not months of construct protection.

Defining principle of the rehab here: the operation exists to restore pain-free forearm rotation, and nothing is sutured under tension that must heal protected for months. The deliberate restraint is a brief splinted phase (commonly an above-elbow / Muenster-type splint limiting forearm rotation for ~2-3 weeks in the isolated case) to let the soft-tissue interposition and capsule settle. After that, early active pronation/supination is the explicit priority — rotation is the function the operation restores. The single load to respect throughout is rotational/axial loading of the distal ulna, which provokes the characteristic failure mode: painful ulnar-stump instability and radioulnar convergence. The main branch point that lengthens the protected phase is a concurrent procedure (TFCC repair, distal radius osteotomy, extensor reconstruction).

A. PROCEDURE OUTCOMES (hemiresection-interposition arthroplasty)

The Bowers HIT is a long-established, generally reliable salvage for the arthritic DRUJ. The evidence base is level IV (retrospective cohorts and case series, no randomised trials), but it is consistent across decades: most patients gain durable pain relief and improved, stable forearm rotation, with the principal residual concern being ulnar-stump instability / radioulnar convergence under load.

• The original Bowers series established the procedure and its rationale. Bowers' 1985 description (38 patients, mean ~2.5 yr) reported stable, painless rotation in the great majority — in rheumatoid patients ~85% achieved stable painless rotation (pronation ~84°, supination ~77°), and degenerative/post-traumatic patients achieved painless rotation averaging ~80° in each direction. The technique was explicitly designed to preserve the functional ulnocarpal ligament complex [Bowers, J Hand Surg Am 1985]. Level IV (foundational case series).
• Long-term outcomes are durable but with a defined complication rate. A long-term cohort (66 patients, mean follow-up 8.6 years) reported low residual pain (median NRS 1/10), an overall complication rate of ~14% and reoperation ~8%; reported complications included stylocarpal impingement, ulnar subluxation, exostoses and tendon rupture. Inflammatory-arthritis patients had lower pain than post-traumatic patients (median 0 vs 5). The same series found PIN neurectomy associated with improved pain scores [HIT long-term outcome study, Hand (N Y) 2019]. Level IV (cohort).
• Forearm rotation, grip and pain all improve measurably. A capsuloretinacular HIT series (21 wrists, mean ~2 yr 10 mo) reported significant gains: pronation 56.8°→83.0°, supination 60.0°→82.0°, grip 66.0%→87.4% of the contralateral side, VAS pain 62→23 mm, DASH 37.7→25.0, PRWE 48.1→24.4, with no post-operative DRUJ instability reported in that series [HIT capsuloretinacular series, J Wrist Surg 2023]. Level IV (cohort).
• HIT sits within a family of DRUJ salvage options (Darrach distal ulna resection, Sauvé-Kapandji arthrodesis-pseudarthrosis, matched/hemiresection variants, and ulnar-head implant arthroplasty), each with its own instability/convergence profile; HIT's selling point is preservation of the ulnar support structures to reduce stump instability versus a formal Darrach [Bowers 1985; Glowacki, Hand Clin 2005; Chidgey, JAAOS 1995; Rekant, Hand Clin 2012; Murray, Hand Clin 2011]. Mechanistic / narrative-review.

B. REHABILITATION / THERAPY EVIDENCE

There is no trial-level evidence for any specific rehabilitation regimen after DRUJ HIT. Protocols are surgeon- and technique-derived expert consensus, reported as the post-operative methods of the outcome series and operative-technique articles above. The consensus is consistent on its key features.

• A brief protected settling phase, not prolonged immobilisation. In the isolated hemiresection (no distal radius osteotomy, no TFCC repair), a long-arm plaster splint for ~10 days followed by a removable Muenster splint for a further 2-3 weeks is typical; cohort series report an upper-arm cast ~3 weeks then a forearm cast 1-2 weeks. Where a distal radius osteotomy or TFCC repair is added, immobilisation is longer (e.g. a long-arm cast in ~45° supination for ~4 weeks) [Pillukat & van Schoonhoven, Oper Orthop Traumatol 2009; HIT capsuloretinacular series, J Wrist Surg 2023]. Weak / expert consensus.
• Early forearm rotation is the explicit priority once protection ends. The whole point of the operation is rotation, so active pronation/supination is pursued early and frequently. Some protocols further limit end-range rotation by splint for ~4 more weeks after the cast comes off before unrestricted motion and load [Pillukat & van Schoonhoven 2009]. Weak / expert consensus.
• Loading is added last, watching for the characteristic failure mode. Range and load are returned to normal after the rotation-limited window; the specific thing to watch is painful ulnar-stump instability and radioulnar convergence under axial/rotational load, which is the biomechanically demonstrated weak point of distal-ulna procedures [Sauerbier et al., J Hand Surg Br 2002; Douglas et al., J Hand Surg Am 2014; Barret et al., Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2020]. Mechanistic (biomechanical) + consensus.
• Finger, thumb, elbow and shoulder motion from day one is standard to prevent stiffness, as in any forearm/wrist immobilisation pathway. Consensus.

Recovery trajectory (expected, evidence-anchored)

(Phase windows mirror the precautions and phase tables in the patient protocol; they are typical expert-consensus guides, not trial-derived deadlines, and lengthen with concurrent procedures.)

C. KEY CONTROVERSIES / EVIDENCE QUALITY

1. HIT vs Darrach. The Darrach (complete distal ulna resection) is simpler but sacrifices the ulnar support structures and is more prone to painful proximal ulnar-stump instability and radioulnar convergence, especially in younger, higher-demand or post-traumatic patients. HIT preserves the TFCC/styloid/attachments to mitigate this — but biomechanical work shows HIT also converges under load, just to a different degree, so convergence is a spectrum, not a HIT-vs-Darrach binary [Sauerbier et al., J Hand Surg Br 2002; Douglas et al., J Hand Surg Am 2014]. Darrach remains reasonable in low-demand/elderly patients. *Moderate (biomechanical
2. cohort).*
3. HIT vs Sauvé-Kapandji. Sauvé-Kapandji fuses the DRUJ and creates a controlled proximal pseudarthrosis, preserving the ulnar head/buttress for the carpus; it is often favoured where ulnar translation of the carpus is a concern (e.g. rheumatoid), but it too can develop painful proximal-stump instability. Long-term Sauvé-Kapandji and modified-Sauvé-Kapandji series report durable function with that caveat [Reissner et al., J Hand Surg Eur 2021; Zimmermann et al., Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003]. Choice is patient- and pathology-specific, not evidence-mandated. Moderate.
4. HIT vs ulnar-head (implant) replacement. Implant ulnar-head arthroplasty is an alternative — particularly for failed resection/instability salvage — restoring a load-bearing buttress, but it adds implant-specific complications. Long-term implant series report good outcomes; it is increasingly used to rescue a painful, unstable stump after resection-type procedures [Kakar et al., J Hand Surg Am 2010; Adams, Hand Clin 2010; Watts et al., Hand Clin 2010; Rekant, Hand Clin 2012]. Moderate.
5. The rehab regimen itself is consensus, not trial-derived. No RCT compares immobilisation length, rotation timing or loading progression after HIT. The "brief protection → early rotation → graded load" structure is inferred from technique articles and the methods of level-IV outcome series. Exact phase timings are typical, not deadlines, and shift with concurrent procedures. Weak / expert consensus.
6. Patient selection drives results. Inflammatory-arthritis patients report lower residual pain than post-traumatic patients in long-term follow-up; adjunct PIN neurectomy is associated with better pain scores. Both point to outcome being substantially a selection/technique matter, not a rehab one [HIT long-term cohort, Hand 2019]. Moderate (within level-IV data).

D. EVIDENCE STRENGTH FLAGS (summary)

• STRONG (RCT / SR): none. There are no randomised trials of DRUJ HIT or of its rehabilitation.
• MODERATE: the biomechanical basis of radioulnar convergence / ulnar-stump instability under load across distal-ulna procedures (cadaveric studies); the comparative trade-offs among HIT / Darrach / Sauvé-Kapandji / ulnar-head replacement (consistent cohort + mechanistic data).
• LEVEL IV (cohort / case series — the outcome evidence): pain relief, grip recovery (~85-90% contralateral), pronation/supination gains (toward ~80° each), ~14% complication and ~8% reoperation rates, durability to ~8-9 years. Consistent but uncontrolled and surgeon-reported.
• WEAK / EXPERT CONSENSUS (the rehab regimen): the specific brief-protection → early-rotation → graded-load programme, the Muenster/above-elbow splint choice, the ~2-3 week protected window, and all exact phase timings — derived from technique articles and the methods sections of level-IV series, lengthened by concurrent procedures. No comparative rehab evidence exists.

CITATIONS

RAG corpus (180,000+ Orthopaedic articles)

• Glowacki KA. Hemiresection arthroplasty of the distal radioulnar joint. Hand Clin. 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2005.08.002
• Sauerbier M, Fujita M, Hahn ME, et al. The dynamic radioulnar convergence of the Darrach procedure and the ulnar head hemiresection interposition arthroplasty: a biomechanical study. J Hand Surg Br. 2002. DOI: 10.1054/jhsb.2002.0763
• Douglas KC, Parks BG, Tsai MA, et al. The biomechanical stability of salvage procedures for distal radioulnar joint arthritis. J Hand Surg Am. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.03.028
• Barret H, Lazerges C, Chammas P, et al. Modification of matched distal ulnar resection for distal radio-ulnar joint arthropathy: analysis of distal instability and radio-ulnar convergence. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.07.008
• Chidgey LK. The distal radioulnar joint: problems and solutions. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1995. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-199503000-00005
• Murray PM. Current concepts in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis of the distal radioulnar joint. Hand Clin. 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2010.10.002
• Lee SK, Hausman MR. Management of the distal radioulnar joint in rheumatoid arthritis. Hand Clin. 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2005.08.009
• Ozer K. Management of complications of distal radioulnar joint. Hand Clin. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2014.12.003
• Zimmerman RM, Jupiter JB. Instability of the distal radioulnar joint. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2014. DOI: 10.1177/1753193414527052
• Rekant M. Distal ulna arthroplasties. Hand Clin. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2012.08.016
• Watts AC, Hayton MJ, Stanley JK. Salvage of failed distal radioulnar joint reconstruction. Hand Clin. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2010.05.004
• Kakar S, Swann R, Perry K, et al. Distal radioulnar joint implant arthroplasty: a long-term outcome analysis. J Hand Surg Am. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.05.010
• Adams BD. Complications of wrist arthroplasty. Hand Clin. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2010.01.006
• Reissner L, Schweizer A, Unterfrauner I, et al. Long-term results of the Sauvé-Kapandji procedure. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2021. DOI: 10.1177/17531934211004459
• Zimmermann R, Gschwentner M, Arora R, et al. Treatment of distal radioulnar joint disorders with a modified Sauvé-Kapandji procedure: long-term outcome with special attention to the DASH questionnaire. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-003-0529-5
• Nypaver C, Bozentka DJ. Distal radius fracture and the distal radioulnar joint. Hand Clin. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2021.02.011
• Pillukat T, van Schoonhoven J. Die Hemiresektions-Interpositionsarthroplastik des distalen Radioulnargelenks nach Bowers [The hemiresection-interposition arthroplasty of the distal radioulnar joint]. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s00064-009-1913-2

DRUJ hemiresection literature (URLs)

• Bowers WH. Distal radioulnar joint arthroplasty: the hemiresection-interposition technique. J Hand Surg Am. 1985;10(2):169-178. https://www.jhandsurg.org/article/S0363-5023(85)80100-3/abstract (PMID: 3980927)
• Hemiresection interposition arthroplasty of the distal radioulnar joint: a long-term outcome study. Hand (N Y). 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1558944719873430. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8461192/
• Hemiresection capsuloretinacular interposition arthroplasty for distal radioulnar joint osteoarthritis. J Wrist Surg. 2023. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771341. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11606672/
• Mid- to long-term functional results after Bowers' hemiresection interposition arthroplasty of the distal radio-ulnar joint. PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35238965/
• Pillukat T, van Schoonhoven J. The hemiresection-interposition arthroplasty of the distal radioulnar joint (operative technique). Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2009. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00064-009-1913-2 (PMID: 20058126)
• Ulnar head hemiresection with interposition and extensor reconstruction — surgical technique. OrthOracle. https://www.orthoracle.com/library/ulnar-head-hemiresection-with-interposition-and-extensor-reconstruction/