Pyrolytic carbon resurfacing arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the proximal interphalangeal joint of the finger

Type of Work and Preoperative Ability to Perform Work Affect Return to Usual Work Following Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The time until return to work (RTW) and possible factors affecting this time after proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty are unknown. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the RTW after PIP joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and assess factors affecting the time until return to their usual work.

METHODS

We used prospectively gathered data from 74 patients undergoing PIP joint arthroplasty with daily hand surgery practice routine outcome collection. Standardized RTW questionnaires were completed at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Return to work was defined as the first time a patient reported returning to work and performing the original work for a minimum of 50% of the original hours a week, as stated in the patient's contract. Second, we evaluated baseline factors affecting the time until RTW.

RESULTS

The probability of RTW within 12 months after surgery was 88%. The median time until RTW was 8 weeks (interquartile range: 4-10). Physical occupational intensity (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.36, P = .001) and the baseline Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire work scores (HR: 1.02, P = .005) were independently associated with RTW.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, patients returned to work after a median of 8 weeks following PIP arthroplasty. Patients with medium or heavy physical occupations returned to work later than patients with light physical occupations. Better patient-reported work outcomes at baseline also led to an earlier RTW. This information can be valuable for providing adequate information during the preoperative consultation.

Metacarpophalangeal Joint Pyrocarbon Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis: An Analysis of 44 Arthroplasties

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to analyze postoperative outcomes in a group of patients who underwent metacarpophalangeal (MCP) arthroplasty using a pyrocarbon prosthesis for noninflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

An analysis of 44 MCP joint arthroplasties in 30 patients with >2 years of follow-up over a 12-year period was reviewed. The mean age was 63 years. The primary operative indication was pain and stiffness from osteoarthritis refractory to nonsurgical management.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 6 ± 3 years, 8 (18%) joints underwent reoperation, including 5 (11%) that underwent revision arthroplasty. The 2- and 5-year rates for survival free of revision arthroplasty were 95% and 93%, respectively. One (2%) operation was complicated by intraoperative fracture. Postoperative complications occurred in 8 (18%) fingers and included ligament/tendon rupture (n = 3) and instability (n = 2). There was significant postoperative improvement in pain levels, MCP arc of motion, pinch strength, and grip strength. At a mean 5 years of radiographic follow-up, 7% had progressive implant instability because of grade 3 or greater loosening. No joints experienced implant instability from progressive subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Metacarpophalangeal arthroplasty using a pyrocarbon implant for osteoarthritis demonstrates an 7% revision rate at 5 years after surgery. Complications lead to reoperation in 1 of 5 arthroplasties. Radiographic evidence of implant instability was uncommon. Overall, patients experienced predictable pain relief and improvements in their range of motion and pinch strength.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

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.

Prosthesis Options for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty in Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Literature investigating the long-term outcomes of prosthesis options for proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty is scarce, with most reports combining indications and underlying pathologies in analyses. In this study, we aim to compare silicone, pyrocarbon and metal prostheses in PIP joint arthroplasty for primary degenerative osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: A review of scientific literature published between 1990 and 2021 was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Relevant studies were screened and the appropriate data was extracted. An evaluation of clinical outcomes (range of motion [ROM] and pain), complications (reoperation) and survival rates for each prosthesis was performed. Results: Twelve studies were included for analysis with a total of 412 PIP joints. ROM was 66.6°, 55.8° and 46.4° for metal, silicone and pyrocarbon implants, respectively. Silicone implants had the best pain score on the visual analogue scale (1.2) followed by the pyrocarbon (2.6) and metal (3.9) groups. Complication rates were lowest in silicone implants (11.3%) compared to 18.5% in pyrocarbon and 22.4% in metal prostheses. Survival did not differ significantly amongst the three groups. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that for patients with primary degenerative OA, PIP joint arthroplasty using a silicone prosthesis can provide greater pain relief with lower complication rates compared to other implant options. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

Outcomes of Pyrocarbon Arthroplasty in Metacarpophalangeal Joints Affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affecting the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint may warrant arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to investigate implant survivorship, complications, radiographic outcomes, and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MCP arthroplasty with a pyrocarbon implant to treat RA.

METHODS

In all, 124 MCP joint pyrocarbon arthroplasties in 40 patients performed to treat RA were reviewed. Operations were at the index (n = 43, 35%), middle (n = 33, 27%), ring (n = 27, 22%), and small (n = 21, 17%) fingers from 1998 to 2009 in 105 (85%) female and 19 (15%) male joints with a mean age of 54 ± 11 years. Mean postoperative follow-up was 6 ± 3 years. All patients achieved at least 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Rates of implant survivorship at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years were 98%, 98%, 90%, and 81%, respectively. Fifteen percent (n = 18) of arthroplasties underwent revision at a mean 5 ± 3 years postoperatively. The overall reoperation rate was 29% (n = 36). Rates of survival from reoperation at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years were 85%, 84%, 76%, and 68%, respectively. Complications occurred in 32% (n = 40). Pain ratings improved postoperatively (P < .01). Arc of motion improved from 37 ± 21 to 43 ± 19 (P = .03). Both appositional and oppositional strength improved after surgery; however, there was no improvement in grip strength (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Metacarpophalangeal arthroplasty with a pyrocarbon implant demonstrated reliable improvement in pain and arc of motion in patients with RA. Complication and overall reoperation rates were high, while 1 in 10 undergo revision within 5 years postoperatively.

Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Purpose: There is a lack of scientific consensus on the best arthroplasty implant option for proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthritis, due to diversity in outcome reporting and measurement methods. The development of a standardized core outcome set (COS) and standard outcome measures could mitigate this issue. This study catalogs the reported outcomes and outcome measures found in PIPJ arthroplasty studies, which can be used in the first step of developing a COS. Methods: A database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (January 1, 2010, to March 10, 2021) was performed to retrieve studies that reported outcomes of the 3 most common primary PIPJ arthroplasty implants: silicone, pyrocarbon, and metal-polyethylene. The primary objectives of this study include reported outcomes and outcome measures. Secondary objectives include clinimetric properties of outcome measures, study design, and implant types. Results: Fifty articles met inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 41 (82%) were case series, 8 (16%) were cohort studies, and 1 (2%) was a randomized control trial. Thirty-three unique outcomes were identified. Fifteen (46%) outcomes were clinician-reported and 26 (79%) were patient-reported. Eighteen unique outcome measures were identified. Of the outcome measures, 15 (83%) were patient-reported, 1 (6%) was clinician-reported, and 2 (11%) were reported by both patients and clinicians. Conclusions: Substantial heterogeneity was found in reported outcomes and outcome measures across studies evaluating PIPJ arthroplasty, impeding knowledge translation. The development of a COS for PIPJ arthroplasty is necessary to help compare and pool data across studies, and advance scientific knowledge.

Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up Assessment of Volar Plate Interposition Arthroplasty for Post-Traumatic Osteoarthritis in Proximal Interphalangeal Joints

This is a retrospective study to evaluate the outcome of volar plate interposition arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint post-traumatic osteoarthritis with a minimum 5-year follow-up. We identified patients receiving volar plate interposition arthroplasty for post-traumatic osteoarthritis in proximal interphalangeal joints. The measurements included the numeric pain scale (on a scale of 0-10), the proximal interphalangeal joint active range of motion, the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, the perioperative radiograph of the involved digit, proximal interphalangeal joint stability, and pinch strength. Eight patients with a median age of 44 years old (interquartile range (IQR): 29.3-56.8) were included in this study. The median follow-up period was 6.5 years (range of 5-11 years). The median numeric pain scale improved from 5 (IQR: 4.3-6.0) preoperatively to 0 (IQR 0-0.8) at the follow-up evaluation (p = 0.011). All digits demonstrated stability during manual stress testing compared to their noninjured counterparts. The median active proximal interphalangeal joint arc of motion improved from 25° to 55° (p = 0.011). The pinch strength of the fingers on the injured hand was weaker than those on the contralateral hand (2.2 Kg vs. 3.7 Kg, p = 0.012). We suggested that volar plate interposition arthroplasty may be an alternative surgical option for post-traumatic osteoarthritis in the proximal interphalangeal joints.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes 1 Year After Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

Implant survival, range of motion, and complications of proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty have been reported often, but patient-reported outcomes are less frequently described. This study evaluated patients' experiences during the first year after proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty, measured with the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). The primary focus was the reduction of patient-reported pain after proximal interphalangeal joint implant placement and the percentage of patients who considered this reduction clinically relevant, indicated by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively; 98 patients completed the MHQ before and at 3 and 12 months after surgery. Our primary outcome was the change in the pain score. An increase of 24 points or more was considered a clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included changes in MHQ total and subscale scores and MCIDs, range of motion (ROM), patient satisfaction with the outcome of the surgery, and complications.

RESULTS

The pain score improved significantly, from 42 (95% confidence interval, 38-46) at baseline to 65 (95% confidence interval, 60-69) at 12 months after surgery. The MCID was reached by 50% (n = 49) of patients. The ROM did not improve, reoperations occurred in 13% (n = 13) of patients, and swan neck deformities only occurred among surface replacement implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most patients undergoing arthroplasty for osteoarthritis experienced significantly less pain after surgery, the pain reduction was considered clinically relevant in only 50% (n = 49) of patients. Patients with high MHQ pain scores before surgery are at risk for postoperative pain reduction that will not be clinically relevant. Likewise, the other subscales of the MHQ improved after surgery, but reached a clinically relevant improvement in only 46% (n = 45) to 63% (n = 62) of patients. This knowledge can be used during preoperative consultation to improve shared decision making.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic IV.

Surgical management of osteoarthritis of the hand and wrist

Osteoarthritis of the hand and wrist is common; varying disease manifestations and a spectrum of symptoms make it imperative to approach treatment strategies in an individualized fashion. In this review, attention is focused upon site specific diagnoses and indications for various surgical treatment strategies.

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.

Mid-term outcomes of pyrolytic carbon humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared with metal humeral resurfacing and metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis in young patients: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in young patients remains an unsolved problem. Humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and stemmed hemiarthroplasty using metallic heads are 2 surgical options that avoid the complications of loosening or wear of the glenoid component seen in total shoulder arthroplasty. Despite the potential benefits, improvement in survivorship has not been demonstrated from joint registry studies or other studies at mid-term follow-up. This is predominantly because of glenoid erosion and pain that occur when the metal resurfaced head articulates with the native glenoid. The use of pyrolytic carbon (pyrocarbon) as a resurfacing material has been proposed as an alternative bearing surface thought to reduce glenoid erosion owing to a marked reduction in wear rates in vitro. This study aimed to compare the survivorship of shoulder hemi-resurfacing using pyrocarbon with shoulder hemi-resurfacing and stemmed hemiarthroplasty using metallic heads.

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for all patients aged <55 years who had undergone a primary shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2019. The outcomes of shoulder procedures using pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing were compared with procedures using metal hemi-resurfacing and metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty. The reasons for revision in each arthroplasty class were analyzed. The analyses were undertaken using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

We analyzed 393 primary shoulder procedures, of which 163 were pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing procedures, 163 were metal hemi-resurfacing procedures, and 67 were metal stemmed hemiarthroplasties.The cumulative percentage of revision at 6 years was 8.9% for pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing, 17.1% for metal hemi-resurfacing, and 17.5% for metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty. Pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing prostheses had a statistically lower revision rate than other hemi-resurfacing prostheses (HR, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.93; P = .032). Pain, prosthesis fracture, and infection were the key reasons for revision. No pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing cases were revised for glenoid erosion. In male patients, pyrocarbon humeral resurfacing had a lower cumulative percentage of revision compared with metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty (HR, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.93; P = .037).

CONCLUSION

Pyrocarbon humeral resurfacing arthroplasty had statistically lower revision rates at mid-term follow-up in patients aged <55 years compared with other hemi-resurfacing procedures.

Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty with the Tactys® prosthesis: Clinical and radiological outcomes at a mean 3.1 years' follow-up

Preliminary results with the Tactys® modular gliding prosthesis for proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) replacement were encouraging, with notable improvement in clinical and functional scores at 1 and 2 years' follow-up. However, a recent study found a trend for deterioration over time. We wanted to check this by analyzing medium-term outcomes. Sixty-four arthroplasties were performed in 48 patients in single facility between January 2015 and January 2020. Clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes were analyzed at short- and medium-term follow-up for 15 of these arthroplasties. Mean follow-up of the 48 patients was 3.1 years. Pain significantly decreased on the numeric rating scale (p < 0.01) and the functional QuickDASH score improved from 67.3 to 55.9 (p < 0.01). Grip and pinch strengths were lower in the operated than in the contralateral hand (p = 0.04 and p = 0.6, respectively). PIPJ active range of motion (ROM) in flexion/extension improved from 44° to 49.4° (p = 0.17). 70% of the 48 patients were satisfied. Fifteen arthroplasties were analyzed at 17 and 61 months' follow-up. Pain relief continued. ROM decreased from 57° to 46° (p < 0.05) and the functional QuickDASH score deteriorated from 25.8 to 54.7 (p < 0.01). Both grip and pinch strength increased, with a significant difference in pinch (p = 0.003). The main complication was swan-neck deformity (46%), with a mean 11 months' onset. Our results confirmed the deterioration trend observed over time in the functional results of the Tactys® prosthesis despite, good patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Pyrocarbon Arthroplasty Implants in the Upper Extremity: A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Pooled Analysis of Complications

BACKGROUND

Growing use of pyrocarbon implants in upper extremity arthroplasty has culminated in a breadth of literature ascertaining outcomes and complications at long-term follow-up. However, at present, the literature remains devoid of studies synthesizing the available evidence for upper extremity surgeons to adequately assess the safety and utility of these implants relative to other available options.

METHODS

A systematic search of the National Library of Medicine, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was performed to determine clinical outcomes and complication and reoperation rates following pyrocarbon arthroplasties in the upper extremity. A breakdown of complication and reoperation rates for each independent joint (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand joints), and according to specific causes necessitating surgery, was also compiled.

RESULTS

A comprehensive summary of functional outcomes following upper extremity pyrocarbon arthroplasties is presented. Overall complication and reoperation rates in the hand and wrist were determined to be 28.2 percent and 17 percent, respectively. The proximal interphalangeal joint was associated with the highest complication rate (42.7 percent), followed by carpometacarpal joint (18.8 percent), metacarpophalangeal joint (17.6 percent), wrist (16 percent), elbow (15.7 percent), and shoulder (12.9 percent). In the hand and wrist, major complications included dislocations and subluxations (8.4 percent), stiffness and limited motion (4.4 percent), deformity (3.1 percent), hardware failure (1.9 percent), fractures (1.7 percent), persistent pain (1.7 percent), and infections (0.9 percent).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of large clinical trials, systematic reviews such as these can help inform clinical guidelines and provide practitioners with an evidence-based reference to improve informed consent.

Systematic review of the introduction, early phase study and evaluation of pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In 2002 a pyrocarbon interphalangeal joint implant was granted Food and Drug Administration approval with limited evidence of effectiveness. It is important to understand device use and outcomes since this implant entered clinical practice in order to establish incremental evidence, appropriate study design and reporting. This systematic review summarised and appraised studies reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty.

METHODS

Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, BIOSIS, CINAHL and CENTRAL from inception to November 2020. All study designs reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty in humans were included. Data extracted included information about study characteristics, patient selection, regulatory (gaining research ethics approval) and governance issues (reporting of conflicting interests), operator and centre experience, technique description and outcome reporting. Descriptive and narrative summaries were reported.

RESULTS

From 4316 abstracts, 210 full-text articles were screened. A total of 38 studies and 1434 (1-184) patients were included. These consisted of three case reports, 24 case series, 10 retrospective cohort studies and one randomised trial. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were stated in 25 (66%) studies. Most studies (n = 27, 71%) gained research ethics approval to be conducted. Six studies reported conflicting interests. Experience of operating surgeons was reported in nine (24%) and caseload volume in five studies. There was no consensus about the optimal surgical approach. Technical aspects of implant placement were reported frequently (n = 32) but the detail provided varied widely. Studies reported multiple, heterogenous outcomes. The most commonly reported outcome was range of motion (n = 37).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified inconsistencies in how studies describing the early use and update of an innovative procedure were reported. Incremental evidence was lacking, risking the implant being adopted without robust evaluation. This review adds to evidence highlighting the need for more rigorous evaluation of how implantable medical devices are used in practice following licencing.

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.

Surface replacing arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint using the CapFlex-PIP implant: a prospective study with 5-year outcomes

The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the 5-year outcomes in patients after proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty using the surface replacing implant, CapFlex-PIP. Ninety-two prosthesis were implanted and 65 patients with 68 implants were available for follow-up. The brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire score improved significantly from 45 (SD 15) before surgery to 71 (SD 17) at 5 years. On the numeric rating scale, pain during activities decreased significantly from 6.4 (SD 1.9) to 1.8 (SD 1.9). Range of motion of the joints increased significantly from 45° (SD 21) to 54° (SD 24). An axis deviation of more than 5° was found in 65% of the joints before surgery, but only in 25% at 5 years. Soft tissue reoperations were performed on eight patients. Four out of 92 implants underwent revision for stiffness or implant loosening. In three implants, the distal component migrated without needing revision. Overall, the CapFlex-PIP implant demonstrates favourable medium-term results in surface replacing arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint.Level of evidence: IV.

Functional Outcomes for Meniscal Allograft Interposition Arthroplasty of the Hand

Background

Osteochondral defects of the carpometacarpal (CMC), metacarpophalangeal (MCP), and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints often necessitate arthrodesis or arthroplasty. Meniscal allograft has been used for large joint resurfacing, but its application to smaller joints is less well understood. We propose its use for hand joint resurfacing as an off-the-shelf alternative to address osteochondral defects and restore articular function.

Methods

Thirty-one patients with osteoarthritis of the CMC, MCP, or PIP joints underwent arthroplasty with meniscal allograft. Patient demographics and operative information were recorded. Preoperative Disability of the Shoulder, Arm, and Hand, Wong Baker pain, grip and pinch strength, and range of motion were compared to postoperative scores at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year.

Results

Twenty-three women and 8 men, mean age 62.8 years, underwent 39 joint reconstructions, including CMC (n = 26), thumb MP (n = 2), thumb IP (n = 2), digit MP (n = 2), and digit PIP (n = 7). At 1 year, mean Disability of the Shoulder, Arm, and Hand scores decreased from 41.3 to 15.6 (P < 0.001) and pain scores from 6.9 to 1.0 (P < 0.001). Grip strength increased from 38.1 to 42.9 (P = 0.017) and radial and palmar abduction from 43.1 to 49.2 (P = 0.039) and 43.7 to 51.6 (P = 0.098), respectively. There were no complications related to the meniscus.

Conclusions

Meniscal allograft represents an alternative to arthrodesis which obviates the need for a donor site and avoids many of the complications inherent to synthetic alternatives. Our early results demonstrate its successful use to reduce subjective pain and disability scores, improve objective strength measures, and maintain range of motion.

[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.

Outcome of proximal interphalangeal joint replacement with pyrocarbon implants: a long-term longitudinal follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the short-, mid-, and long-term results of pyrocarbon PIPJ arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven consecutive patients (9 males, 18 females) had arthroplasty for 32 pyrocarbon PIPJ prostheses. Two patients (two joints) were lost for follow-up. Four implants were removed during follow-up. Fifteen patients (18 implants) were available for a long-term follow-up assessment on average 9.7 (9-10.8) years postoperatively and seven patients with eight implants had telephone interviews to calculate the implant survival and complications. Of the 15 patients who came to the latest follow-up, 12 (14 implants) passed each of the three follow-up visits for short-term (ø 19 months), mid-term (ø 54 months), and long-term follow-up (ø 9.8 years) to compare functional and radiological parameters longitudinally.

RESULTS

In total, seven of the 30 joints (23%) required a revision surgery, all within the first 2 years postoperatively, including three arthrodesis due to early infection or dislocation, and one distal component removal due to primary loosening. Three patients required soft tissue revisions. The implant survival after 9 years was 87%. There was minimal pain at rest throughout the 9-year follow-up analysis; pain with activity was rated 1.9 at the short-term assessment, 1.5 at mid-term, and 1.6 at long-term. The average active range of motion was at short-, mid-, and long-term examination 49°, 50°, and 48° and grip strength averaged 24, 24, and 21 kg, respectively. The DASH score was stable with 35, 36, and 33 points. At the long-term follow-up, all evaluated implants showed radiological signs of implant loosening or migration. According to the PIP joint outcome score, 57% resulted finally in a "good" outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Pyrocarbon PIPJ arthroplasty has a risk of early complications necessitating revision surgeries. In spite of radiological implant migration, good pain relief, grip strength, and high quality-of-life ratings are stable for a long time.

Comparative meta-analysis of pyrocarbon and silicone for joint replacement surgery

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and complications that might be associated with pyrocarbon compared with silicone in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery.

METHODS

The full-text papers about the clinical efficacy of pyrocarbon and silicone were retrieved from multiple databases. Review Manager version 5.0 was adopted for meta-analysis and analyses of sensitivity and bias.

RESULTS

Ultimately, we studied 232 patients across eight studies that met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis suggested a significant difference between the pyrocarbon and silicone groups in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score (standard mean difference (SMD) = 1.48; 95% CI [0.97, 1.99]; P = .009; P for Heterogeneity <0.00001; I = 63%); Visual Analogue Score (VAS) (SMD = 1.68; 95% CI [1.36, 1.99]; P < .00001; P for heterogeneity = 0.01; I = 61%), and the abnormal radiolucent line (RR = 6.66; 95% CI [3.19, 13.89]; P < .00001; P for heterogeneity = 0.87, I = 0%); and ossification development (RR = 0.90; 95% CI [0.56, 1.44], P = .66; P for heterogeneity = 0.94, I = 0%).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that pyrocarbon might be an efficient material compared with silicone for joint replacement surgery, but resulted in poorer functional and pain outcomes compared with silicone.

Results of proximal interphalangeal arthroplasty: border digits versus middle digits

This investigation assessed 106 consecutive primary proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasties performed on border digits: 73 index or 33 little fingers. This was compared with 193 arthroplasties performed in non-border digits: 121 middle or 72 ring fingers. There were 20 proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasties in the border digits that required revision surgery for pain and stiffness (10 digits), dislocation (six digits), implant fracture (one digit), and infection (three digits). Risk of revision surgery was not associated with border digit. The 5-year implant survival rate for the border digits was 81%. There was no significant difference in implant revision rate or joint dislocations between border and non-border digits. We conclude that proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasties performed in border digits had similar pain relief, survivorship, complications, and reoperation rates compared with those performed in non-border digits.Level of evidence: IV.

National Prevalence of Complications and Cost of Small Joint Arthroplasty for Hand Osteoarthritis and Post-Traumatic Arthritis

PURPOSE

Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand is commonly treated using implant arthroplasty. Despite the increasing prevalence of hand OA, population-based evidence regarding the complication profile and associated cost for patients undergoing proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint and metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint arthroplasty are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the complication profiles and variation in cost of care for patients undergoing PIP and MCP joint arthroplasty.

METHODS

We analyzed insurance claims from 2009 to 2016 using the Truven MarketScan Databases for adult patients undergoing a PIP and MCP joint arthroplasty following OA or post-traumatic arthritis diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate the association of patient-level factors and complications at 2 years after surgery. Cumulative direct cost, defined as the cost of the index surgery and 2-year postoperative episode, and patient-level characteristics were examined.

RESULTS

We analyzed a total of 2,859 patients who underwent MCP joint arthroplasty (36%) or PIP joint arthroplasty (64%). On average, these procedures have a 35% complication rate. However, patients undergoing PIP joint arthroplasty were more likely to suffer a prosthetic fracture than patients undergoing MCP joint arthroplasty (3.4% vs 1.5%, respectively). Each complication resulted in an additional cost of $1,076.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide analysis provides a population estimate of the complication profile and associated costs of MCP and PIP joint arthroplasty for hand OA and post-traumatic arthritis. Minimizing postoperative complications after MCP and PIP joint arthroplasty is one avenue to decrease health care costs.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Reconstruction of finger joints using autologous rib perichondrium - an observational study at a single Centre with a median follow-up of 37 years

BACKGROUND

Gratifying long-term results are difficult to achieve when reconstructing osteoarthritic finger joints. Implant surgery is the most commonly used method to restore function and dexterity. However, all types of implant have disadvantages and may be a less favorable option in some cases, especially in young patients with a long expected lifetime and high demands on manual load. Implant related complications as loosening, instability, subsidence and stiffness are the main concerns. In this context, joint reconstruction using rib perichondrium might be a reasonable alternative in selected cases. The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term results of finger joint reconstruction using rib perichondrial transplantation.

METHODS

The study group (n = 11) consisted of eight individuals reconstructed in the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints and three reconstructed in the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints during 1974-1981. All patients were evaluated at clinical visits (median: 37 years after perichondrial transplantation, range: 34-41 years) using radiographs, disability in arm-shoulder-hand (DASH) score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), range-of-motion (ROM) and manual strength (JAMAR).

RESULTS

None of the 11 patients had undergone additional surgery. All of the PIP-joints (n = 8) were almost pain-free at activity (VAS 0,6) (range 0-4), had an average range-of-motion of 41 degrees (range 5-80) and a mean DASH-score of 8,3 (range 1-51). The mean strength was 41 kg compared to 44 kg in the contralateral hand (93%). The three MCP joints were almost pain-free at activity (VAS 0,7), (range 0-1). The ROM was on average 80 degrees (range 70-90) and the mean DASH-score was 2 (range 1-3). The mean strength was 43 kg compared to 53 kg in the contralateral hand (81%).

CONCLUSIONS

Perichondrium transplants restored injured PIP and MCP joints that remained essentially pain-free and mostly well-functioning without need for additional surgeries up to 41 years after the procedure. Additional studies are needed to evaluate long-term results in comparison to modern implants and to better describe the factors that determine the outcome of these procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Therapeutic Study.

Surface Replacement Arthroplasty Using a Volar Approach for Osteoarthritis of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint: Results After a Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

Background: Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) through a volar approach for the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint can preserve the integrity of the extensor tendon, which allows early range of motion (ROM) exercise postoperatively. However, a few reports have shown that the PIP ROM tends to decline with longer follow-up. The goal of this study is to assess the results of at least 5 years of follow-up of SRA through a volar approach and also to investigate the cause of deterioration of ROM with time after SRA through this approach. Methods: Eleven fingers with degenerative osteoarthritis that underwent SRA through the volar approach were examined. ROM of the PIP joint preoperation, 1 year after the surgery, and at final follow-up was measured and statistically analyzed. Also, the relationship between PIP ROM and the osteophyte developed postoperatively was examined. Results: The average follow-up period was 7.3 years. The average PIP ROM of the PIP joints was 52.3° preoperatively, 54.1° at 1 year postoperatively, and 31.1° at the final follow-up. PIP ROM at the final follow-up was significantly decreased compared with that preoperatively or at 1 year postoperatively. Also, the development of an osteophyte was negatively correlated with the ROM of the PIP joint at the final follow-up. Conclusions: PIP ROM after SRA through a volar approach has the tendency to deteriorate with a longer follow-up. Development of an osteophyte is considered to be a main risk factor of deterioration in the cases of SRA through a volar approach.

[Anatomy of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal finger joint with respect to arthroplasty]

BACKGROUND

Precise knowledge of the anatomy and biomechanics of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joint is the basis for both indication and implantation of a finger joint prosthesis. Currently available finger joint prostheses inadequately take into account individual, ethnological, gender, age, and side differences. They can remain compromised despite the possible combination of their components.

OBJECTIVES

To elucidate which problems of finger joint arthroplasty exist due to the anatomy and biomechanics of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints.

METHODS

The anatomy and biomechanics of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joint are described, and the problems and solutions of finger joint arthroplasty are presented.

RESULTS

Despite precise knowledge of the anatomy and biomechanics of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joint, not all problems of finger joint arthroplasty have been solved. However, a modular surface replacement appears promising for the proximal interphalangeal joint.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial joint replacement of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joint is difficult with regard to morphology, small bone dimensions, complex biomechanics, and the strain of the hand. Further improvements, especially in design, should be achieved by exact anatomical imitation.

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.

Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty in Young Patients

INTRODUCTION

This investigation compares the outcomes of proximal interphalangeal (PIP) arthroplasty in patients older than and younger than 60 years.

METHODS

Overall, 299 consecutive, primary PIP arthroplasties were performed over a 14-year period, including 126 arthroplasties performed in patients younger than 60 years. In younger patients group, a higher rate of posttraumatic and inflammatory arthritis was observed.

RESULTS

In patients younger than 60 years, 32 (25%) revision surgeries occurred. Risk of revision surgery was associated with younger age. The 10-year implant survival rate was 72% for the patients younger than 60 years versus 86% for those older than 60 years. Silicone implants decreased the risk of revision surgery, although it was increased in posttraumatic arthritis. The most common complication in young patients was dislocation (n = 21). At a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, pain levels had significantly improved in patients younger than 60 years, and PIP range of motion and pinch strength were maintained. However, older patients had improved PIP motion compared with younger patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger age leads higher revision rates after PIP arthroplasty, particularly in the posttraumatic setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level III.

Total finger joint arthroplasty with a costal osteochondral autograft: up to 11 years of follow-up

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes of total finger joint arthroplasty using a costal osteochondral autograft for joint ankylosis. Twenty-three joints (three metacarpophalangeal joints, 20 proximal interphalangeal joints) in 23 patients (19 men and four women) were treated with a costal osteochondral autograft and were evaluated after a mean follow-up of 77 months (60-138). Mean age was 33 years (18 to 55). Significant improvement in active finger extension/flexion was seen from a preoperative mean of -24°/26° (arc: 2°) to -13°/75° (arc: 63°) at latest follow-up. Mean preoperative Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was initially 24 and improved significantly to 5 at latest follow-up. Conclusion: total finger arthroplasty using a costal osteochondral autograft gave an anatomical and biological reconstruction and provided stable improvement at a mean follow-up of 77 months. Level of evidence: IV.

Complications, reoperations and revisions after proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the prevalence of complications, reoperations (surgeries without implant modifications) and revisions (surgeries with implant modifications) after proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty with pyrocarbon, metal-polyethylene and silicone implants. Thirty-four articles investigating 1868 proximal interphalangeal joints were included. Implant-related complications were associated with 14%, 10% and 11% of the pyrocarbon, metal-polyethylene and silicone implants, respectively, yet these rates were not significantly different from one another. Silicone implants showed more finger deviations (3%) and instabilities (2%) compared with the other implants. Reoperations were fewer for silicone arthroplasties (1%) compared with pyrocarbon (7%) and metal-polyethylene implants (10%). The revision rates of 4%, 3% and 2% were similar for pyrocarbon, metal-polyethylene and silicone implants. Our results indicate that silicone implants remain a valuable option for the treatment of stable proximal interphalangeal joints. Surface replacing implants might be better to correct unstable or deviated proximal interphalangeal joints, although they are associated with a higher risk of reoperations.

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.

Medium-Term Outcomes With Pyrocarbon Proximal Interphalangeal Arthroplasty: A Study of 170 Consecutive Arthroplasties

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the medium-term outcomes of patients undergoing proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty using a pyrocarbon implant.

METHODS

The study comprised an analysis of 170 PIP joint pyrocarbon arthroplasties in 99 patients with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up. Diagnoses included inflammatory arthritis (n = 49), posttraumatic arthritis (n = 29), and osteoarthritis (n = 92). Univariate logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed.

RESULTS

At an average follow-up of 6 years (range, 2-14 years), 58 reoperations (34%) were required, including 36 (21%) involving implant revision surgery. The majority of revisions were performed for either dislocations (n = 16) or pain and stiffness (n = 14). The 5- and 10-year survival-free of revision surgery rates were 79% and 77%, respectively. The risk for revision surgery was higher in patients with posttraumatic arthritis. There were 15 intraoperative complications involving a fracture and 26 postoperative complications, including 21 dislocations. In unrevised implants, patients had significant improvements in their preoperative to postoperative pain levels, with no change in their PIP joint total arc of motion. At a mean radiographic follow-up of 5.4 years, there were 28% with grade 3+ loosening and 36% with progressive implant instability. Implant loosening or progressive instability was not associated with worse pain or PIP joint total arc of motion.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 1 in 5 PIP joint arthroplasties with a pyrocarbon implant will require revision surgery by 5 years, and 1 in 3 will undergo more than 1 operation. Furthermore, 1 in 4 PIP joint arthroplasties will have grade 3+ radiographic loosening and 1 in 3 will have progressive loosening or subsidence by 5 years. These results are particularly concerning in young patients and those with posttraumatic arthritis. Overall, in patients that do not require revision surgery, pain relief was improved and motion maintained.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

[Advances in small joint reconstruction and arthroplasty of the hand]

Since Swanson designed the silicone small joint prosthesis, the material and design of the small joint prosthesis have been constantly innovating. The number of small joint reconstruction and arthroplasty has gradually increased in the past decade. The numerous studies have focused on design and application of new material prosthesis and its long-term effectiveness analysis, in order to overcome prosthesis loosening, shift, dislocation, and poor function problem, at the same time to challenge the difficulty of the small joints revision procedures. Although the small joint prosthesis which has got the overall performance of the Swanson joints and been mature and stable like a knee joints prosthesis has not been obtained, but the small joint development has made revolutionary changes in the treatment of joint diseases, and the prosthesis selection criterion and surgical technique tendency solution have been established. In the future, digital three-dimensional printing, regenerative medicine, and translational medicine will contribute to the development of small joint reconstruction and replacement.

Impact of multi- versus single finger proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: analysis of 249 fingers treated in 15 years

We retrospectively reviewed and compared the outcomes and complications associated with 81 single digit and 168 multi-digit proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasties performed from 1998 to 2012 in 136 patients. Clinical outcomes were assessed with an average follow-up of 5.3 years for single digit and 5.9 years for multi-digit proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty. Comparing single versus multi-digit proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty, the reoperation-free survival was 67% and 68% at 5 years and 56% and 67% at 10 years, respectively. Furthermore, in comparison of single versus multi-digit proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty, the revision-free survival was 80% and 86% at 5 years and 80% and 85% at 10 years, respectively. Given the similar, or even slightly improved, rates of complications, reoperation, and revision surgery, proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty performed on multi-digits results in no worse outcomes compared with single digit proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Implant Arthroplasty: Selection of Exposure and Implant

This review analyzes various surgical exposures and implant designs for proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint pathology. Our literature review found that silicone implants using a volar approach had the best arc of motion, least extension lag, and lowest complication rates compared with all the other implant designs and approaches. Surface replacement arthroplasties had more frequent surgical revisions compared with silicone implants. Continued efforts toward the development of improved PIP joint implants are necessary.

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.

Biomechanical evaluation of pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: An in-vitro analysis

BACKGROUND

Pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty provided patients with excellent pain relief and joint motion, however, overall implant complications have been very variable, with some good outcomes at short-medium-term follow-up and some bad outcomes at longer-term follow-up. Implant loosening with migration, dislocation and implant fracture were the main reported clinical complications. The aim of the present work was to test the hypothesis that the magnitude proximal interphalangeal joint cyclic loads in daily hand functions generates stress-strain behaviour which may be associated with a risk of pyrocarbon component loosening in the long-term.

METHODS

This study was performed using synthetic proximal and middle phalanges to experimentally predict the cortex strain behaviour and implant stability considering different load conditions for both intact and implanted states. Finite element models were developed to assess the structural behaviour of cancellous-bone and pyrocarbon components, these models were validated against experimentally measured cortex strains.

FINDINGS

Cortex strains showed a significant increase at dorsal side and reduction at palmar side between intact and implanted states. Cancellous-bone adjacent to the condylar implant base components suffers a two to threefold strain increase, comparing with the intact condition.

INTERPRETATION

The use of pyrocarbon implant changes the biomechanical behaviour of the joint phalanges and is associated with a potential risk of support cancellous-bone suffer fatigue failure in mid to long term due to the strain increase for cyclic loads in the range of daily hand activities, this risk is more prominent than the risk of bone resorption due to strain-shielding effect.

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.

Current European Practice in the Treatment of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthritis

There are increasing numbers of proximal interphalangeal (PIP) arthroplasties performed in Europe. Meanwhile, most surgeons prefer arthroplasty over arthrodesis. Silastic arthroplasties remain the most widely used implants. The main disadvantage of the Silastic implants is the limited stability they provide. Correction of pre-existing deformation is difficult. Soft tissue handling and postoperative scarring have an influence on the results of PIP arthroplasty. Different surgical approaches are possible. The most popular approach in Europe is dorsal. Different surface replacement implants are on the market in Europe. The main advantage of these implants is the lateral stability provided through their more anatomic form.

Robert Mathys Finger prosthesis of the proximal interphalangeal joint: a retrospective case series of 19 joints in 17 patients

INTRODUCTION

The Robert Mathys (RM) Finger is a hinged type of arthroplasty for the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint that compensates ligament instability. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes and complications of RM Finger arthroplasty of the PIP joint.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective case series of 19 RM Finger arthroplasties of the PIP joint in 17 patients was performed with a median follow-up of 36 months. The active range of motion (AROM) was measured pre-operatively, at the 6-week follow-up, at the termination of hand therapy, and at the final follow-up. Complications were recorded, as well as pain on a visual analog scale (VAS), stability, deformity, pinch strength, the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), and the Patient Global Index of Improvement Questionnaire.

RESULTS

One implant fracture occurred. Another patient had an amputation due to stiffness. For the remaining joints, AROM was 61°. One joint mobilization under local anesthesia, one arthrolysis and two extensor tendon reconstructions were also necessary. Pain at the follow-up was 1.2 on the VAS. Relative pinch strength was 69%. Joint stability was restored in all fingers, although one joint had an ulnar deviation of 15°. Eight fingers developed a snapping phenomenon, of which five had a swan neck deformity. One finger had an extension lag with a Boutonnière deformity. MHQ scores were less compared to the unaffected hand. Fifteen patients rated their outcome as improved compared to their pre-operative condition.

CONCLUSIONS

RM Finger arthroplasty of the PIP joint restores joint stability with AROM improvement, and with low pain, although it has a high rate of complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Pyrolytic Carbon Arthroplasty versus Suspensionplasty for Trapezial-Metacarpal Arthritis

Purpose This study aims to compare outcomes after pyrolytic carbon implant hemiarthroplasty (PH) versus Thompson suspensionplasty (TS) for trapezial-metacarpal (TM) arthritis. Patients and Methods There were 87 arthritic TM joints in 71 patients treated with PH (n = 47 joints, 37 patients) or TS (n = 40 joints, 34 patients). Patients had significantly longer follow-up in the TS group (86.9 months, 25th-75th percentile = 55.6-103.8) versus the PH group (38.4 months, 25th-75th percentile = 23.2-65.8, p < 0.001). Results PH patients maintained higher final grip strength (p = 0.03) and apposition pinch strength (p = 0.01) compared with TS patients. Nelson scores were significantly higher among patients undergoing PH (mean = 50.4, standard deviation [SD] = 24.5) compared with TS (mean = 36.8, SD = 12.5, p < 0.01). There was a significantly higher proportion of complications (p < 0.01), reoperations (p < 0.01), and joint revision surgery (p < 0.01) in patients undergoing PH compared with TS. Controlling for age and sex, there was a 72.8% lower risk of complications (p = 0.02), 87.7% lower risk of reoperations (p = 0.01), and 87.2% lower risk of joint revision surgery (p < 0.01) among patients undergoing TS compared with PH. There was a shorter time to first complication (p < 0.01), reoperation (p < 0.02), and joint revision (p < 0.01) in those undergoing PH compared with TS. Conclusion Both cohorts exhibited functional range of motion and pinch and grip strengths postoperatively, and those undergoing PH began with and maintained higher grip and pinch strength at final follow-up. Those undergoing PH had significantly increased risk of complications, reoperations, and joint revision surgery. Most complications in patients undergoing PH were related to suspected development of scaphotrapezotrapezoidal (STT) arthritis postoperatively. We thus recommend careful evaluation of possible STT arthritis when considering PH arthroplasty. Level of Evidence Level III.

Proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint replacements with pyrolytic carbon implants in the hand

Until the late 1980s, proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint reconstruction had been almost exclusively performed by the use of monobloc silicone spacers and associated with acceptable to good clinical outcomes.

More recently, new materials such as metal-on-polyethylene and pyrocarbon implants were proposed, associated with good short-term and mid-term results.

Pyrocarbon is a biologically inert and biocompatible material with a low tendency to wear. PIP pyrolytic implants are characterised by a graphite core, visible on radiographs and covered by a radiolucent outer layer of pyrocarbon.

New surgical techniques and better patient selection with tailored rehabilitative protocols, associated with the knowledge arising from the long-term experience with pyrocarbon implants, has demonstrated noteworthy clinical outcomes over the years, as demonstrated by recent studies.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:21–27. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160041