A 16-Year Journey in the Study of Rheumatoid Hand Disease:

Trends in Proximal Interphalangeal and Metacarpophalangeal Joint Arthroplasty Utilization Using Statewide Databases

Background: Arthritis can have profound debilitating effects on the hand secondary to finger deformities and pain. Arthroplasty of the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) can be performed to reduce pain while maintaining joint range of motion. Methods: We used outpatient surgery registries from the states of California and Florida to assess the trends of arthroplasty across several recent years and to determine if the outcomes differ based on disease etiology. Results: We found that there has been a steady decline in number of MCP arthroplasty procedures performed annually between 2005 and 2011 while PIP arthroplasty procedures peaked in 2007 and have since also declined. There was an overall complication rate of 2.4% and no difference in cardiac, respiratory, deep venous thrombosis and infection between patients with osteoarthritis and other arthritic etiologies. However, the risk of device failure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is found to be significantly higher than for patients with osteoarthritis (p < 0.01). Conclusions: PIP and MCP arthroplasty are safe procedures with an overall low complication rate. The increased risk of device related complications observed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis can be used to appropriately counsel this patient population regarding post-operative expectations and prognosis.

Collaboration in Hand Surgery: Experiences From Silicone Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Finger Replantation and Amputation Challenges in Assessing Impairment, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness, Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial, and Surgery of the Ulnar Nerve

Outcomes research has historically been driven by single-center investigations. However, multicenter studies represent an opportunity to overcome challenges associated with single-center studies, including generalizability and adequate power. In hand surgery, most clinical trials are single-center studies, with few having randomized controls and blinding of both participants and assessors. This pervasive issue jeopardizes the integrity of evidence-based practice in the field. Because healthcare payers emphasize applying the best available evidence to justify medical services, multicenter research collaborations are increasingly recognized as an avenue for efficiently generating high-quality evidence. Although no study design is perfect, the potential advantages of multicenter trials include generalizability of the results, larger sample sizes, and a collaboration of experienced investigators poised to optimize protocol development and study conduct. As the era of single-center studies shifts toward investment in multicenter trials and clinical registries, investigators will inevitably be faced with the challenges of conducting or contributing to multicenter research collaborations. We present our experiences in conducting multicenter investigations to provide insight into this demanding and rewarding frontier of research.

Mitigating Biases in a Cohort Study: A Critical Examination of the Silicone Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis Study

Research bias, or the systematic errors of a study, can arise before, during, or after a trial ends. These biases hinder the internal validity of the study, which is the accuracy of a study's conclusions regarding the effects of an intervention on a given group of subjects. With the growing use of evidence-based medicine, there is a demand for high-quality evidence from the research community. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are considered the highest level of evidence, followed by individual randomized controlled trials. However, most surgical trials cannot be conducted as randomized controlled trials because of factors such as patient preferences and lack of equipoise among surgeons. Therefore, surgical trials may lack features that are held as important standards for high-quality evidence, such as randomization and blinding. To demonstrate the biases that surgical trials may encounter, the authors examined a prospective cohort study, the Silicone Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis study. The authors focus on the challenges that arise during a surgical trial, including the design, implementation, and methods used to report the clinical evidence. By recognizing and addressing obstacles that exist in research, investigators will provide health care providers with high-quality evidence needed to make well-informed, evidence-based clinical decisions.