Cemented versus uncemented surface replacement arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint with a mean 5-year follow-up

Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: current trends and evidence-based practice

Arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) has evolved since its inception over 60 years ago. This review examines the indications for surgery, highlights the differences in current arthroplasty designs, variances in surgical techniques, clinical controversies, current implant outcomes data and salvage options for the failed implant. Overall, PIPJ implant arthroplasty is a good and reliable option for symptomatic PIPJ degenerative, post-traumatic or inflammatory arthritis given the proper clinical setting. If current techniques for implantation and rehabilitation are followed, predictable pain relief and satisfactory function can be anticipated. The purpose of this review article is to examine the current evidence-based indications for PIPJ arthroplasty and examine the reported, implant-specific outcomes of this procedure. Various techniques and rehabilitation strategies will also be outlined.

Pyrolytic Carbon Hemiarthroplasty for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthritis, Long-Term Follow-Up

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term clinical, subjective, and radiographic results of pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthritis at a single institution.

METHODS

Patients treated with a pyrolytic carbon hemiarthroplasty between 2005 and 2015 were contacted for a clinical follow-up visit. Patients were assessed before surgery, one year after surgery, and again after a mean of 11 years (range: 6-16 years). Objective outcomes were assessed with grip strength, pinch strength, and range of motion (ROM). Subjective outcomes were assessed by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (performance and satisfaction), and Visual Analog Scale pain scores at rest and during activity. Radiographic assessments were completed according to Sweets and Stern as modified by Wagner et al.

RESULTS

A total of 68 fingers in 52 patients underwent PIPJ hemiarthroplasty. Thirty-six arthroplasties in 29 patients were available for the long-term follow-up, five patients had died, and the remaining cases were contacted by phone. Three cases were lost to follow-up. Preoperative diagnoses included 41 fingers with osteoarthritis or posttraumatic arthritis, and 27 fingers with inflammatory arthritis. Eight cases had undergone revision at the time of follow-up, and the 10-year implant survival was 72%. The revisions were performed after a mean of two years after surgery. Three patients had undergone soft-tissue procedures. Visual Analog Scale pain scores, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure scores improved significantly compared with that before surgery. Grip strength and pinch grip remained unchanged. However, PIPJ ROM deteriorated significantly one year after surgery, when compared with that before surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty of the PIPJ has an acceptable long-term implant survival, and the significant improvement in pain scores and patient-reported outcomes is maintained over time. Pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty could be a viable option in the management of PIPJ arthritis. Patients should be advised that PIPJ ROM deteriorates over time.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

What Plastic Surgeons Should Know about Small-Joint Arthroplasty: Is This for Your Practice?

SUMMARY

This article reviews the state of the art for arthroplasty of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints. Arthritis that affects these joints can result in significant pain and compromised function. The authors review indications for arthroplasty for each joint, types of implants to consider, technical considerations, patient expectations, and outcomes and complications.

Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty for Fracture

Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasties can be performed in the setting of acute comminuted fracture, chronic fracture presentations, and posttraumatic arthritis. These surgeries provide excellent pain relief and patient satisfaction but patients should be cautioned not to expect an improvement in motion postoperatively. Despite high rates of minor complications and radiographic loosening, these implants have good rates of long-term survival with most revisions occurring in the early postoperative period. They provide viable alternatives to arthrodesis, osteotomy and amputation in the appropriate patient.

Proximal interphalangeal joint prosthetic arthroplasty

Surgical treatment of the painful proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint has evolved considerably over the past century. If arthrodesis has long been the gold standard and remains so for some, prosthesis would meet patient demand: mobility and indolence. Faced with a demanding patient, the surgeon must decide the indication, the type of prosthesis, the approach, the post-operative follow-up, etc. The history of the development of PIP prostheses demonstrates the complexity of the treatment of the destroyed PIP: appearance of prostheses, evolution and sometimes disappearance from the market for commercial reasons or related to complications. The main objective of this conference is to identify the main indications for prosthetic arthroplasties and to describe the various prostheses available on the market.

Outcome of the MatOrtho arthroplasty for PIP osteoarthritis with a minimum follow-up of two years

The aim of this study is to report the early results of the MatOrtho arthroplasty, a newer generation resurfacing implant of the proximal interphalangeal joint. We performed a prospective cohort review of all MatOrtho arthroplasties implanted between 12/2013 and 05/2018 by a single surgeon at a single institution because of primary osteoarthritis, with a minimum follow-up of two years. Patient demographics, diagnosis, implant revision and other surgical interventions were recorded. Subjective and objective outcomes were evaluated, including range of motion, Patient Reported Outcome Measures and radiographic assessment. A total of 34 implants were inserted in 25 patients. Two implants were lost to follow-up. Pain scores improved significantly (mean VAS pre- op 7, mean VAS post-op 1, p < 0.05). Active range of motion improved in 83% (25/30) of joints, with a mean improvement of the total arc of motion of 25 degrees. On radiographic assessment, no signs of circumferential lucency or subsidence were observed. Additional surgery was necessary for three out of 32 implants, including implant removal in two cases. 93.75% (30/32) implants survived after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Our results confirm that at least at short term follow up, the MatOrtho PIP arthroplasty can be a successful procedure with high patient satisfaction and functional improvement.

Rehabilitation after proximal interphalangeal joint replacement: A structured review of the literature

Proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty is an unsolved biomechanical challenge despite advances in materials and new implant designs. This leads to a high rate of complications. Moreover, there is heterogeneity in postoperative management according to the literature. The present structured review examined the therapeutic strategies utilized by physiotherapists to restore a functional finger chain and prevent postoperative complications following PIP joint replacement. Patients undergoing primary total PIP joint arthroplasty of the index, ring, middle or little finger were included. Articles published from 2008 onwards, in French or English, and reporting on PIP joint replacement and postoperative management, were included. Therapeutic strategies were organized according to the surgical approach. Details of splint strategies, mobilization and muscle strengthening and management of postoperative complications were collected. Forty-eight studies, 3 of which provided a description of surgical techniques, were included. In relation to hand function, most authors advocated joint mobilization (n = 45) and some recommended muscle strengthening (n = 4). Static (n = 43) and dynamic splints (n = 14) and buddy taping (n = 12) were frequently recommended to prevent and manage postoperative complications. Few studies (n = 13) reported wound assessment or control of postoperative edema. Precise recommendations concerning therapeutic strategies following PIP joint arthroplasty cannot be made based on available evidence. Specific protocols for rehabilitation following PIP joint replacement need to be clarified in future research.

Factors Associated with Reoperation after Pyrocarbon Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty for the Arthritic Joint: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction  The rate of reoperation after pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty ranges from 5.9 to 37% and complications such as radiographic loosening, deformity, dislocation, and stiffness are common. Because of the limited amount of knowledge around these problems, we evaluated factors associated with reoperation after pyrocarbon PIP arthroplasty. Materials and Methods  We retrospectively included all adult patients that underwent primary PIP pyrocarbon implant arthroplasty between 2002 and 2016 at one institutional system. A total of 45 patients, with a mean age of 55 (standard deviation: 14), underwent 66 PIP arthroplasties. To address for within individual correlations, we only included fingers treated at patients' initial surgery ( n = 54) in our statistical analysis. These patients were predominantly diagnosed with noninflammatory arthritis 73% ( n = 33). Arthroplasty was performed upon 10 index, 22 middle, 20 ring, and 2 small fingers. Results  The reoperation rate after pyrocarbon PIP arthroplasty was 30% over a median follow-up of 25 months (interquartile range: 8.7-54). Indications for reoperation consisted of subluxation ( n = 6), stiffness ( n = 5), swan-neck deformity ( n = 3), and soft tissue complications ( n = 2). Younger age ( p = 0.025), male sex ( p = 0.017), and noninflammatory arthritis ( p = 0.038) were associated with a higher reoperation rate. Conclusion  In this study, our reoperation rate after pyrocarbon PIP arthroplasty was 30%. This study suggested that younger patients, males, and patients with noninflammatory arthritis are at higher risk of reoperation. We recommend considering these factors when selecting candidates for pyrocarbon arthroplasty. Future studies should focus on prospectively researching these factors in comparison with other implants.

Silicone and Pyrocarbon Artificial Finger Joints

Artificial finger joint design has been developed through different stages through the past. PIP (proximal interphalangeal) and MCP (metacarpophalangeal) artificial finger joints have come to replace the amputation and arthrodesis options; although, these artificial joints are still facing challenges related to reactive tissues, reduced range of motion, and flexion and extension deficits. Swanson silicone artificial finger joints are still common due to the physician's preferability of silicone with the dorsal approach during operation. Nevertheless, other artificial finger joints such as the pyrocarbon implant arthroplasty have also drawn the interests of practitioners. Artificial finger joint has been classified under three major categories which are constrained, unconstrained, and linked design. There are also challenges such as concerns of infections and articular cartilage necrosis associated with attempted retention of vascularity. In addition, one of the main challenges facing the silicone artificial finger joints is the fracture occurring at the distal stem with the hinge. The aim of this paper is to review the different artificial finger joints in one paper as there are few old review papers about them. Further studies need to be done to develop the design and materials of the pyrocarbon and silicone implants to increase the range of motion associated with them and the fatigue life of the silicone implants.

[Implant arthroplasty in the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal finger joints]

BACKGROUND

 Osteoarthritic changes in the finger joints are common, especially in the elderly population. Without adequate treatment, these changes can lead to pain, joint deformity, instability or impaired motion. Operative treatment options can be divided into prosthetic joint replacement, joint fusion and denervation.

PATIENTS/MATERIAL AND METHOD

 During the last decades, various prosthetic implant designs have appeared on the market. This article provides an overview of implant evolution, current implants, clinical results and promising technical novelties.

RESULTS

 Due to favourable clinical long-term results, low revision rates and low costs, the proven silicone spacer has been the gold standard since the 1960 s. In the index and middle finger, lateral stability is crucial to providing a counter bearing to the thumb for a strong key pinch. Medullary-anchored prostheses and modular surface replacement designs have a higher intrinsic stability and may thus be advantageous in the index and middle finger. These implants show promising clinical medium-term results.

CONCLUSION

 In the past, technical novelties from big joint replacements could not automatically be translated to the finger joints and other parts of the hand. However, new trends such as customised or 3D-printed prosthetic implants are slowly beginning to gain importance in hand surgery.

Trends in Primary Proximal Interphalangeal Joint System and Revisions for Osteoarthritis of the Hand in the Medicare Database

Background: Proximal interphalangeal arthroplasty (PIPA) has been indicated for patients suffering from osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. Although there is extensive literature showing the outcomes of PIPA, there is paucity in the literature regarding trends of PIPA in patients with OA of the hand. The purpose of this study was to determine annual primary utilization and revision PIPA trends within the Medicare population with the use of an administrative database. Methods: A retrospective query was performed using the Medicare Standard Analytical Files from the PearlDiver database. Patients undergoing primary and revision PIPA with hand OA were queried using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, and Current Procedural Terminology coding. Primary outcomes analyzed included annual and revision utilization of PIPA and demographic comparison of age, gender, and geographic location. Statistical analysis was primarily descriptive. An α value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The query returned 10 191 patients who underwent primary and revision PIPA between 2005 and 2013. Calculated annual growth rate for primary and revision PIPA was 2.40% and -0.03%, respectively (P < .001). Patients between the ages of 70 and 74 years represented most of the patients undergoing a primary PIPA, whereas patients between 65 and 69 years most commonly underwent a revision procedure. Regionally, primary and revision PIPA were most commonly performed in the South. Conclusion: The data demonstrate an increased use of primary PIPA utilization for patients with OA, whereas revision PIPA decreased. The increased use indicates the increasing demand for PIPA in the United States.

Surface Replacement Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty: A Case Series

Background: In 2012, our unit published our experience with a pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) implant. Due to high subsidence rates, a decision was made to change to a cemented surface replacement proximal interphalangeal joint (SR-PIPJ) implant. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the change to a cemented implant would improve the subsidence rates. Methods: Retrospective review of all patients who had a cemented SR-PIPJ arthroplasty performed from 2011 to 2013 with at least 12 months follow-up. Results: A total of 43 joints were included with an average follow-up of 26.5 months. There was a significant (P = .02) improvement in arc of motion with an average satisfaction score of 3.3 (satisfied patient). Subsidence was noted in 26% of joints with a significant difference in range of motion (P = .003) and patient satisfaction (P = .001) between the group with and without subsidence. Conclusions: The change to a cemented implant resulted in satisfied patients with an improvement in range of motion. The rate of subsidence improved but remains unacceptably high.

Outcomes of Surface Replacement Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty Using the Self Locking Finger Joint Implant: Minimum Two Years Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The Self Locking Finger Joint (SLFJ) implant is a new type of surface replacement implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate midterm clinical outcomes of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) arthroplasty with the SLFJ implant.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 26 PIP joint arthroplasties using the SLFJ implant in 17 patients with osteoarthritis or posttraumatic osteoarthritis. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion, grip strength and key pinch, radiographic findings, and complications were evaluated. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, course of pain, and patient satisfaction were obtained.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 44 months (range, 24-76 months). The average active PIP joint arc of motion improved from 36° before surgery to 44° after surgery. Grip strength and key pinch showed no statistical difference between preoperative and postoperative assessments. The average DASH score and VAS score improved from 40 to 15 and from 5 to 1, respectively. Overall patient satisfaction was 94%. Ninety percent of implants showed osteointegration, and there were no radiographic signs of migration and loosening. Three joints (12%) showed abnormal heterotopic bone formation. Four joints (15%) had secondary surgery-1 joint needing joint head and socket replacement and 3 joints needing contracture release.

CONCLUSIONS

Our minimum 2 years of follow-up evaluation of the SLFJ implant PIP joint arthroplasty demonstrated good pain relief and good overall patient satisfaction while maintaining joint range of motion. The SLFJ implant showed good osteointegration. Further longer-term prospective studies with various types of currently available implants are needed.

Salvaging a Failed Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Implant

Salvaging a failed proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint implant arthroplasty remains a considerable technical and rehabilitation challenge. Experienced arthroplasty surgeons have reported 70% survival of revision PIP implants at 10 years with 25% of patients requiring subsequent revision surgery. At this time, there is no consensus surgical approach or implant proven superior for revision implant arthroplasty of the PIP joint. Secondary arthrodesis or amputation may be required to salvage the failed PIP implant arthroplasty with compromised bone stock or soft tissue envelopes that are inadequate for implant arthroplasty.

Advances in Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty: Biomechanics and Biomaterials

Proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthritis is a debilitating condition. The complexity of the joint makes management particularly challenging. Treatment of PIP arthritis requires an understanding of the biomechanics of the joint. PIP joint arthroplasty is one treatment option that has evolved over time. Advances in biomaterials have improved and expanded arthroplasty design. This article reviews biomechanics and arthroplasty design of the PIP joint.

Implant Arthroplasty for Proximal Interphalangeal, Metacarpophalangeal, and Trapeziometacarpal Joint Degeneration

Arthritis of the hand can result from inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis (OA), or be posttraumatic and can cause pain and debilitation. Arthroplasty serves as 1 surgical option in the surgical management of arthritis and aims to create a pain-free joint with preservation of motion. Although implant arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP), metacarpophalangeal (MCP), and trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joints predictably produce pain relief and high satisfaction, it has historically suffered from high rates of complications. The hinged silicone prosthesis was 1 of the early implants and, in many cases, remains the gold standard. However, problems with deformity correction, implant fracture, and synovitis remain. Implants made of alternative materials such as metal-plastic and pyrocarbon have evolved; however, survivorship and reoperation rates remain a concern. This review details the evolution and current options available for small joint implant arthroplasty involving the MCP, PIP, and TMC joints.

A Systematic Review of Different Implants and Approaches for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after implant arthroplasty for primary degenerative and posttraumatic osteoarthritis of the proximal interphalangeal joint were different according to the implant design and surgical approach. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate outcomes of various types of implant arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis, with an emphasis on different surgical approaches.

METHODS

The authors searched all available literature in the PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles reporting on outcomes of implant arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis. Data collection included active arc of motion, extension lag, and complications. The authors combined the data of various types of surface replacement arthroplasty into one group for comparison with silicone arthroplasty.

RESULTS

A total of 849 articles were screened, yielding 40 studies for final review. The mean postoperative arc of motion and the mean gain in arc of motion of silicone implant with the volar approach were 58 and 17 degrees, respectively, which was greater than surface replacement implant with the dorsal approach at 51 and 8 degrees, respectively. The mean postoperative extension lag of silicone implant with the volar approach and surface replacement with the dorsal approach was 5 and 14 degrees, respectively. The revision rate of silicone implant with the volar approach and surface replacement with the dorsal approach was 6 percent and 18 percent at a mean follow-up of 41.2 and 51 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Silicone implant with the volar approach showed the best arc of motion, with less extension lag and fewer complications after surgery among all the implant designs and surgical approaches.

Radiographic and surgical considerations in arthritis surgery of the hand

Indications for hand surgeries include unremitting joint pain, deformity and stiffness, often secondary to arthritis. Several surgical options are available, including arthrodesis (fusion) and joint arthroplasty. Classically arthrodesis is performed in situations with poor bone stock and supporting soft tissues. Arthroplasty is reserved for patients and joints in which preservation of function is important and bone stock and soft tissue support are adequate. In this article we will review various techniques for arthrodesis and arthroplasty, their post-surgical imaging appearance, including key findings important to surgeons, and the findings that indicate post-surgical complications. Radiographs are the mainstay for postoperative evaluation and will be the focus of the imaging portions of this review. Advanced imaging modalities will be reviewed when applicable.

Outcomes of Surface Replacement Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty Through a Volar Approach: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

The dorsal approach to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint provides the advantage of improved visualization of the articular surface, while the disadvantage of a dorsal approach is the disruption of the central slip and extensor mechanism requiring a delay in range of motion exercises. A volar approach keeps the central slip and extensor mechanism intact, allowing for early range of motion. The goal of this study was to evaluate patient outcomes of surface replacement (SR) PIP joint arthroplasty performed through a volar approach.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients were evaluated with primary osteoarthritis of a single PIP joint and underwent SR arthroplasty using the Stryker SR PIP joint implants. Patients included in this study were exclusively treated through a volar approach. Preoperative range of motion, coronal plan deformity, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), and patient satisfaction were measured and compared with postoperative measurements using a paired Student t test.

RESULTS

The average length of follow-up was 34 months (± 9 months). Postoperative arc of motion for the PIP and distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints measured 87° (±12°) and 36° (±11°), respectively. The average improvement in PIP arc of motion was 58°, DASH score measured 14 (±5), satisfaction measured 4 (±1), and coronal plane deviation measured 2° (±2°). No evidence of implant subsidence was found on postoperative radiographs. Four patients required an extensor tendon tenolysis, and 1 patient suffered a superficial surgical site infection.

CONCLUSION

SR arthroplasty, when performed through a volar approach, allows for early range of motion and greater improvements in arc of motion, DASH score, and patient satisfaction.

MatOrtho proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: minimum 2-year follow-up

The MatOrtho proximal interphalangeal replacement is a cementless cobalt-chromium metal-on-polyethylene mobile-bearing surface replacement arthroplasty. The aim of this study is to report the outcome and complications of this implant at a minimum of 2 years follow-up from a single institution. A retrospective case review was performed on all MatOrtho proximal interphalangeal joint replacements performed with a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Patient demographics, diagnosis, implant revision and other surgical interventions were recorded. Subjective and objective outcomes were evaluated at latest follow-up, including pain scores, range of motion, function and radiographic assessment. A total of 109 implants were inserted in 56 patients. Nine implants (six patients) were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 100 implants, 75 had been undertaken in females. The mean age at time of surgery was 64 years and the principal diagnosis was osteoarthritis in 74%. The mean follow-up was 47 months (range 24-77). Within the group there was a statistically significant diminution in pain. There was also an improvement in functional scores post-operatively. Improvement in range of motion was seen in those joints with a pre-operative range of motion greater than 20°. Radiologically there was no evidence of loosening or of implant subsidence at final follow-up. The revision rate was 13%. Nine joints were revised to the NeuFlex (silicone rubber) prosthesis, three were converted to an arthrodesis and one had exchange of the MatOrtho prosthesis. The survival of the MatOrtho proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty was 85% at a minimum of 2-years follow-up. Patients can be advised that the procedure achieves good pain relief, improvement in functional scores and may improve range of motion. We would, however, caution against this implant's use in joints that are either stiff or have significant deformity and/or instability pre-operatively.

Pyrocarbon Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty: Minimum Five-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To report the outcomes, complications, and survivorship of pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty at a minimum of 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

A review of 97 implants in 72 consecutive patients from our joint arthroplasty database was undertaken. Patient demographics, complications, further surgery, and implant revision were recorded. Objective outcome was assessed by grip strength, range of motion, and radiological assessment of alignment, loosening, and subsidence. Subjective outcome was assessed by Patient Evaluation Measure; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and visual analog scores (0, best; 10, worst) for appearance, satisfaction, and pain.

RESULTS

Diagnosis was osteoarthritis in 60 joints, rheumatoid arthritis in 12 joints, psoriatic arthritis in 11 joints, and trauma in 14 joints. The average follow-up was 118 months (range, 60-164 months). The mean arc of motion was 35° (range, 0° to 90°). There was no difference in grip strength between operated and nonoperated side. Of the 97 implants, 36 required additional surgery, of which 14 were revised and 22 required reconstruction around a retained implant. The average Patient Evaluation Measure and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were 33 (range, 10-69) and 35 (range, 0-93), respectively. Mean visual analog scores for pain, satisfaction, and appearance were 2 (range, 0-8), 7 (0-10), and 8 (0-10), respectively. All implants had a lucent line with nearly all classified as either Herren grade 2 or 3. Progressive loosening was seen in 48% of implants. Implant survival as assessed by Kaplan-Meier was 85% at both 5 and 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Good pain relief and maintenance of preoperative arc of motion was achieved with no major deterioration over time. Most implant revisions were performed within 24 months of the index procedure. Currently progressive loosening was not translated into revision surgery. Implant revision rate was higher than with other prostheses.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Advances in small joint arthroplasty of the hand

Substantial effort has been directed at the development of small joint prostheses for the hand. Despite advances in prosthetic joint design, outcomes have been relatively unchanged over the past 60 years. Pain relief and range of motion achieved after surgery have yet to mirror the success of large joint arthroplasty. Innovations in biotechnology and stem cell applications for damaged joint surfaces may someday make prostheses obsolete. The purpose of this review is to describe the current status, ongoing advances, and future of small joint arthroplasty of the hand.

Reconstruction of swan neck deformities after proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The authors report the use of a single slip of the flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) as a hemitenodesis through the A2 pulley in treating swan neck deformities after previous unconstrained proximal interphalangeal joint (PIP) arthroplasty.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was undertaken to identify non-constrained PIP joint arthroplasties that underwent a subsequent soft tissue hemitenodesis for swan neck deformities. The range of motion (ROM), implant design, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical approach were collected. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and patient satisfaction questionnaire were collected.

RESULTS

There were 12 patients with 14 procedures reviewed. There were seven surface replacement arthroplasties (SRA) (cobalt chrome on polyethylene) and eight pyrocarbon prostheses. The primary diagnosis for the initial joint arthroplasty was osteoarthritis (8), post-traumatic (2), and rheumatoid arthritis (5). The primary dorsal approach was a longitudinal split in eleven cases, Chamay in two, and unknown in one case. Nine of the 14 revision procedures had a concomitant dorsal approach to the joint. The average final position intraoperatively was 24.2° of flexion (range 15°-40°). Final ROM was 39° with average follow-up of 30 months. The average postoperative radiographic position was 20.3° flexion with an average of 24.8° hyperextension preoperatively. There was one failure secondary to implant loosening requiring fusion.

DISCUSSION

For patients with a swan neck deformity after PIP arthroplasty, a FDS hemitenodesis provides a treatment option with a low revision rate, retained motion, and maintenance of the original implant with no shortening of the digit.

A prospective, randomized comparison of 3 types of proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

PURPOSE

For surface replacement arthroplasty in proximal interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis, titanium-polyethylene (TI) and pyrocarbon (PY) implants are frequently used. However, their superiority in comparison to the silicone (SI) spacer has not been established. The purpose of this study was to compare these 3 types of implants with regard to outcome.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial was performed. A total of 43 patients (62 proximal interphalangeal joints) had surgery in the 3 participating centers, and each patient was randomly allocated to one of the 3 groups (TI, PY, SI). Range of motion (ROM) and strength were measured before surgery; pain and disability self-assessment and radiographic analysis were also completed. The same examination protocol was planned for 3 months, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery, but some follow-up visits did not take place due to patient death or poor compliance.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time at the final follow-up was 35 ± 3 months (range, 30-41 mo). All implant types led to significant pain reduction at rest and at load. Tip pinch strength was slightly improved by all 3 devices at the 3-year follow-up. No significant improvement in ROM for silicone or resurfacing implants was found. However, when comparing the highest ROM values reached after surgery, the resurfacing devices tended to show superior joint motility compared to silicone spacers, albeit only temporarily and not significantly. Sixteen explantations were necessary: 2 of 18 SI (11%), 7 of 26 TI (27%) and 7 of 18 PY (39%) implants had to be removed. An additional 4 secondary surgical procedures were performed in group TI.

CONCLUSIONS

Surface replacement arthroplasty devices showed a tendency for a temporarily superior maximum postoperative ROM, but markedly higher postoperative complication and explantation rates were observed compared to the silicone spacer implantation.

Pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: outcomes of a cohort study

Pyrocarbon arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint is a relatively new concept. Early studies have been encouraging, reporting improved pain and function, but a largely unchanged arc of motion. Subsidence of the implant is common, but how it relates to outcome has not been analyzed. This study was performed to review the results of 57 pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal implanted joints. Results showed a statistically significant increase in the arc of motion, excellent pain relief, and improved function. Subsidence was observed on radiographs in 40% of joints, but no correlation was found compared with arc of motion or function. The incidence of complications is fairly high and usually related to the peri-articular soft tissues, but they are usually minor and do not require further treatment. From this review, we can recommend the use of this implant for treatment of arthritis of the proximal interphalangeal joint.

Surface replacement arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints: The current state

Surface replacement arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint and metacarpophalangeal joints are becoming popular. Low profile, anatomically designed implants limit the amount of bone removed but need preservation of the collateral ligaments. Pyrocarbon and cobalt-chrome stemmed unconstrained implants on ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene are the two commonly available bearing surfaces. The indications for small joint arthroplasty are degenerative, post-traumatic or rheumatoid arthritis. Early results are encouraging, primarily in patient satisfaction and pain relief, but are based on low numbers. The main concerns are progressive loss of range due to implant settling, dislocation, squeaking and poor osteo-integration with the appearance of a radiolucent line at the bone-implant interface. Our experience suggests that metacarpophalangeal joint replacements consistently give good results.

Reoperations following proximal interphalangeal joint nonconstrained arthroplasties

PURPOSE

To retrospectively analyze the reasons for reoperations following primary nonconstrained proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty and review clinical outcomes in this group of patients with 1 or more reoperations.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2009, 294 nonconstrained (203 pyrocarbon and 91 metal-plastic) PIP joint replacements were performed in our institution. A total of 76 fingers (59 patients) required reoperation (50 pyrocarbon and 26 metal-plastic). There were 40 women and 19 men with an average age of 51 years (range, 19-83 y). Primary diagnoses included osteoarthritis in 35, posttraumatic arthritis in 24, and inflammatory arthritis in 17 patients. There were 21 index, 27 middle, 18 ring, and 10 small fingers. The average number of reoperations per PIP joint was 1.6 (range, 1-4). A total of 45 joints had 1 reoperation, 19 had 2, 11 had 3, and 1 had 4.

RESULTS

Extensor mechanism dysfunction was the most common reason for reoperation; it involved 51 of 76 fingers and was associated with Chamay or tendon-reflecting surgical approaches. Additional etiologies included component loosening in 17, collateral ligament failure in 10, and volar plate contracture in 8 cases. Inflammatory arthritis was associated with collateral ligament failure. Six fingers were eventually amputated, 9 had PIP joint arthrodeses, and 2 had resection arthroplasties. The arthrodesis and amputation rates correlated with the increased number of reoperations per finger. Clinically, most patients had no or mild pain at the most recent follow-up, and the PIP joint range-of-motion was not significantly different from preoperative values. Pain levels improved with longer follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperations following primary nonconstrained PIP joint arthroplasties are common. Extensor mechanism dysfunction was the most common reason for reoperation. The average reoperation rate was 1.6, and arthrodesis and amputation are associated with an increasing number of operations. Overall clinical outcomes demonstrated no significant change in range of motion, and most patients had mild or no pain.

Surface replacement arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint using a volar approach: case series

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes (range of motion, function, and pain relief) of the volar approach to proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) in active, high-demand patients.

METHODS

A single surgeon performed PIP SRA in 6 joints using a volar approach. Patients with posttraumatic arthritis or osteoarthritis of the PIP joint were included. Range of motion, postoperative key pinch and grip strength, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire data were collected. Complications, component integration, and use of cement were noted. Average follow-up was 35 months (range, 12-66 mo).

RESULTS

Total arc of motion averaged 33° before surgery and improved significantly in all patients, for an average postoperative arc of motion of 60°. Grip strength averaged 30 kg in the affected hand and 35 kg in the contralateral hand after surgery. Postoperative key pinch strength averaged 6 and 7 kg in ipsilateral and contralateral hands, respectively. The average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score after surgery was 14. No coronal plane deformity or postural deformity was observed. Good component integration and stability were observed in all 5 cemented joints. The only noncemented joint demonstrated progressive subsidence of both components.

CONCLUSIONS

The volar approach to PIP SRA can result in excellent range of motion, function, and pain relief with minimal complications in active patients with osteoarthritis or posttraumatic arthritis. The volar approach offers the advantages of maintaining the integrity of the extensor mechanism and allowing early postoperative motion. This case series demonstrates compelling data for a prospective, randomized study comparing dorsal and volar approaches to PIP SRA in patients with osteoarthritis and posttraumatic arthritis.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Arthrodesis as a salvage for failed proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

PURPOSE

To review the rate of fusion, complications, and subjective outcome measures of proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis after failed implant arthroplasty.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review identifying patients from 1990 to 2009 who underwent proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis for implant arthroplasty failure. All types of implants were included. We reviewed clinical notes and radiographs identifying patient history, implant type, revisions before arthrodesis, method of arthrodesis, rate of union, time to union, and complications. We used the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire to assess patients' function and perceived clinical outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 13 joints in 8 patients (6 female, 2 male) identified with an average clinical follow-up of 6.5 years (range, 1.0-12.3 y) were available for study. The average time from joint replacement to salvage for all implant types was 9.3 years (range, 1.6-32.2 y). Eight of the 13 fingers achieved union. The average time to union was 5.8 months (range, 1-11 mo). Eight of 13 fingers underwent removal of K-wires, tension band, or both. Excluding hardware-related problems, there were 4 additional complications in 4 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage of failed proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty remains a challenging clinical problem. Although achieving solid fusion with arthrodesis is not completely reliable or without complication, patients' subjective and functional outcomes demonstrate fair to good results.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Complications of small joint arthroplasty

Arthritis in the small joints of the hand can be treated with arthrodesis or arthroplasty. Arthrodesis has known risks of infection, pain, and nonunion. Distal interphalangeal (DIP) arthroplasty has been successful in preserving motion and alleviating pain for distal DIP, proximal interphalangeal, and metacarpophalangeal joints. Unfortunately, complications arise that limit the success of surgery. Silicone implants have been reliable for many years but still present with the risks of infection, implant breakage, stiffness, and pain. Newer implant designs may limit some of these complications, but present with unique problems such as dislocations and loosening. It is not yet clear as to which type of implant provides the most reliable results, although implant arthroplasty appears to give better function than arthrodesis. Silicone arthroplasty does not lead to silicone synovitis and is a reliable procedure. Pyrocarbon implants are showing some promise, particularly in the osteoarthritic patient.

Correlation of pain relief with physical function in hand osteoarthritis: randomized controlled trial post hoc analysis

Introduction

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are recommended for the relief of pain associated with hand osteoarthritis (OA) but do not alter the underlying structural changes that contribute to impaired physical function. The current analysis examined the relationship of pain relief with measures of function and global rating of disease in patients with hand OA.

Methods

This was a combined analysis of 2 prospective, randomized, double-blind, 8-week, multicenter, parallel-group studies comparing diclofenac sodium 1% gel with placebo gel (vehicle) in patients with radiographically confirmed mild to moderate hand OA. Patients (n = 783) aged ≥ 40 years applied diclofenac sodium 1% gel (2 g) or vehicle to each hand 4 times daily for 8 weeks. Outcome measures included pain intensity assessed on a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS); the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) subscales for pain, stiffness, and physical function (100-mm VAS); and a global rating of disease (100-mm VAS). Change in VAS pain intensity from baseline to week 8 was categorized (<0%, 0%-<15%, 15%-<30%, 30%-<50%, 50%-<70%, and ≥ 70%) without regard to treatment and compared in each category with the mean change from baseline in each AUSCAN subindex and the global rating of disease. Pearson correlations between changes in outcome measures from baseline to week 8 were calculated.

Results

Changes in VAS pain intensity were accompanied by similar changes in AUSCAN scores and global rating of disease. Pearson correlations confirmed significant associations (P < 0.001) between change in VAS pain intensity and changes in AUSCAN pain (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.81), AUSCAN function (r = 0.75), AUSCAN stiffness (r = 0.66), and global rating of disease (r = 0.76).

Conclusions

Pain relief correlated with improvements in physical function, stiffness, and global rating of disease in patients with hand OA, irrespective of treatment. This suggests that pain or anticipation of pain inhibits physical function and influences patient perception of disease severity in hand OA. These results also suggest that any intervention to relieve the pain of hand OA may improve function and patient perception of disease severity, despite the absence of a disease-modifying mechanism of action.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00171652, NCT00171665.