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.

Complications after surface replacing and silicone PIP arthroplasty: an analysis of 703 implants.

INTRODUCTION: The aim was to analyse complications after surface replacing and silicone proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All complications, reoperations (subsequent intervention without implant modification) and revisions (subsequent surgery with implant modification or removal) were extracted out of our registry for two cohorts: (1) Patients who received a surface replacing arthroplasty at the PIP joint using the CapFlex-PIP prosthesis and (2) patients who received a PIP silicone implant. Furthermore, radiographs were evaluated for deviations from the longitudinal finger axis. RESULTS: In our registry, 279 surface replacing implants and 424 silicone implants have been documented. The overall complication rate was 20% for surface replacements and 11% for silicone arthroplasties (p ≤ 0.01) with soft tissue-related events being the most prevalent in both groups. Reoperations were significantly more frequent after surface replacement (5.4%) than silicone arthroplasty (0.5%; p ≤ 0.001), while the revision rates did not differ significantly (4.4% and 3.3%, respectively; p = 0.542). Postoperative axis deviations were significantly less frequent in the surface replacement group (19% versus 58% for silicone arthroplasty; p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: We recommend using a surface replacing implant in fingers with preoperative axis deviations and correctable anatomical situation, bearing in mind the higher risk of a second surgery. However, treatment outcomes also need to be considered before choosing one implant over another.

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.

Dubious space for Artelon joint resurfacing for basal thumb (trapeziometacarpal joint) osteoarthritis. A systematic review.

Introduction: Trapeziometacarpal arthritis is a common and disabling condition. There is no evidence in the literature of superiority of one surgical procedure over others. Several prosthetic implants have been introduced to preserve joint mobility. Sourced of data: We searched the on Medline (PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus databases using the combined keywords 'artelon', 'thumb', 'carpometacarpal', 'trapeziometacarpal' and 'rhizoarthrosis'; 11 studies were identified. Areas of agreement: The use of Artelon implant is not recommended because of its high revision rate and worse outcomes compared to conventional techniques. Areas of controversy: Inert materials subjected to compressive and shearing forces could produce debris and subsequent inflammatory response. There is debate in the published scientific literature regarding the role of preoperative antibiotic profilaxis and post-surgery inflammatory response. Growing points: Standard techniques such as trapeziectomy alone or combined with interposition or suspensionplasty offer effective treatment for thumb basal joint arthritis. Areas timely for developing research: Several prosthetic implants show promising results in terms of pain relief and functional request, but there is a need of long-term randomized controlled trials to demonstrate their equivalence, and eventually superiority, compared to standard techniques.

Articular Surgery of the Ischemic Hand in Systemic Scleroderma: A Vascular Basis for Arthrodesis and Arthroplasty.

Hallmark deformities of systemic scleroderma are early onset and progressively disabling flexion contractures of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints often in conjunction with extension or, less frequently, flexion contractures of the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints. Although surgical correction is generally recommended, a prevailing reluctance for operative treatment exists owing to the inherent ischemia of the disease with its potentially compromised healing capacity. Nonetheless, with recognition and preservation of the tenuous but well-defined and constant periarticular vascular networks of the PIP and MCP joints, articular reconstruction with uncomplicated wound healing can prove consistently successful for patients with scleroderma. This article describes the authors' preferred methods of PIP arthrodesis vascularized by the dorsal cutaneous arterial network and MCP silicone implant arthroplasty perfused by the dorsal metacarpal arterial plexus.

Radiological and histological analysis of two replaced interphalangeal joints with active subchondral bone resorption in erosive hand osteoarthritis: a novel mechanism?

The aim of this study was to describe the histological features of erosive hand osteoarthritis (EHOA), which is considered an aggressive subset of hand osteoarthritis (OA) characterized by severe local inflammation and degeneration of the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints. Two patients with EHOA underwent replacement with a cement-free press fit ceramic prosthesis of a proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ). Clinical and radiological data were collected and histological examination was performed. Radiological examination with histological correlation showed complete erosion of the articular cartilage with focal presence of peripheral fibrocartilaginous resurfacing, sclerosis, and remodeling of the exposed bone, osteoclastic activity with resorptive lacunae in the subchondral bone and around degenerative fibromyxoid pseudocysts, coarse trabeculation of the cancellous bone, and marginal osteophytes. The synovial membrane showed non-specific mild hypertrophy and mildly cellular fibromyxoid stroma. The histological findings in patients with EHOA suggest a pathogenesis of cartilage resorption from the subchondral bone, via osteoclastic-mediated activity and formation of periarticular reactive fibrocartilaginous proliferation with partial resurfacing of the articular surface.

A modular surface gliding implant (CapFlex-PIP) for proximal interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis: a prospective case series.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the one-year postoperative clinical and patient-rated outcomes in patients receiving proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty with a modular surface gliding implant, CapFlex-PIP. METHODS: 10 patients each with primary osteoarthritis of a single PIP joint were assessed preoperatively (baseline), at 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after CapFlex-PIP arthroplasty for lateral stability and range of motion of the affected digit. In addition, patients rated their pain using a numeric rating scale and function and overall assessment of their treatment and condition using the quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) and Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM) questionnaires, respectively. RESULTS: The mean baseline active mobility of the affected PIP joint increased from 42° to 51° by one year, although this change was not significant. Patients reported reduced pain at one year, which was statistically significant. There was also a significant improvement between baseline and one-year QuickDASH (43 points vs 15 points, respectively) and PEM scores (51 vs 25 points, respectively). Absent or low lateral instability was observed in 9 joints at follow-up. All implants remained intact over the one-year postoperative period and there was no migration, osteolysis, or implant fracture. After study completion, 2 patients underwent tenolysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experienced a significant reduction in pain and a trend towards increased mobility. All implants showed complete osteointegration without evidence of radiological migration. Lateral stability improved. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Metacarpophalangeal Joint Arthroplasty in the Setting of Trauma.

PURPOSE: To report the outcome of pyrocarbon metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint implants with traumatic nonreconstructible articular cartilage loss. METHODS: We performed a review of all patients at a single institution who underwent a pyrocarbon MCP joint arthroplasty performed after an acute injury. Of 820 MCP joint arthroplasties performed, 10 were performed in 7 patients for open MCP joint trauma within 24 hours of the initial injury. Six were hemi- and 4 were total arthroplasties. The mean follow-up was 4 years. All injuries were the result of a direct laceration over the MCP joint. RESULTS: There were no cases of revision or postoperative infection. Mean total arc of motions for the MCP, proximal interphalangeal, and distal interphalangeal joints were 56° (30° to 70°), 76° (40° to 100°), and 50° (21° to 70°), respectively. Postoperative mean grip, oppositional pinch, and appositional pinch strengths were 28, 9, and 11 kg, respectively. All patients except one reported no or mild pain at the last follow-up. Half of the patients required a tenolysis. CONCLUSIONS: MCP joint arthroplasty was performed safely in the setting of acute complex open MCP joint trauma. Patients had preservation of adequate MCP joint motion and experienced little pain. MCP arthroplasty should be a consideration in cases of open MCP joint trauma to preserve motion, prevent pain, and avoid fusion. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

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.

Intraoperative Periprosthetic Fractures in Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: To examine the frequency, risk factors, and postoperative outcomes associated with intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty. METHODS: We examined 382 consecutive PIP joint arthroplasties in 205 patients. Procedures were performed from 1998 to 2012. The patients were identified and outcomes were collected through a single institution's total joints registry, collecting additional information not contained in the prospectively collected registry through medical record examination. Multiple outcomes were analyzed relating to the fractures, the hard surgical outcomes, finger function, and radiographic findings. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing Kaplan-Meier survival models, log-rank tests, univariate analysis, Student t test and Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Intraoperative periprosthetic fracture occurred in 5% (n = 20) of 383 PIP joint arthroplasties. All of the patients who had an intraoperative fracture were women. Lower body mass index and a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis were associated with a significantly higher risk of intraoperative fracture. The use of pyrocarbon implants also significantly increased fracture risk. At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, there were no refractures in the patients who sustained an intraoperative fracture. Six patients underwent revision surgery, with a 2- and 5-year survival rate free of revision surgery of 76% and 64%, respectively. These rates were not significantly different from those without intraoperative fractures. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between patients with or without an intraoperative fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative fractures occur in about 5% of PIP joint arthroplasties. These periprosthetic fractures do not appear to influence outcomes, including revision surgery, refracture rate, or other early complications. Female sex, lower body mass index, rheumatoid arthritis, and the use of pyrocarbon implants were associated with increased risk for intraoperative fractures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This information may help decrease fracture risk and help surgeons identify and treat the fractures when they do occur. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

Prosthetic Arthroplasty Versus Arthrodesis for Osteoarthritis and Posttraumatic Arthritis of the Index Finger Proximal Interphalangeal Joint.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of prosthetic arthroplasty versus arthrodesis to treat index finger proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthritis. METHODS: Patients with osteoarthritis or posttraumatic arthritis of index finger PIP joints were evaluated. Digit range of motion, grip and pinch strength, patient-rated pain and satisfaction scores, Michigan Hand Questionnaire scores, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 79 finger PIP joints were followed for a median of 67 months overall (72 months for arthroplasty and 8 months for the arthrodesis group). Sixty-five were treated with arthroplasty and 14 with arthrodesis. Patients undergoing arthroplasty experienced no significant postoperative change in PIP joint range of motion whereas all preoperative PIP joint motion was eliminated after arthrodesis. Patients undergoing arthroplasty experienced significant postoperative improvement in opposition pinch. In contrast, patients undergoing arthrodesis experienced significant improvement in both opposition and apposition pinch. There were no differences in pain relief, satisfaction, or Michigan Hand Questionnaire scores between treatment groups. Patients undergoing arthroplasty had a significantly greater mean number of complications per year and mean number of complications in the first year postoperatively. There was a 4.3 times increased risk of complication in patients undergoing arthroplasty versus arthrodesis, and Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a shorter time to first complication among patients undergoing arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: The decision for prosthetic arthroplasty versus arthrodesis in the index finger of patients with osteoarthritis or posttraumatic arthritis must be made with patient goals in mind and in light of greater risk of complications associated with arthroplasty.

Pyrocarbon Metacarpophalangeal Joint Arthroplasty in Noninflammatory Arthritis: Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To report the outcomes, complications, and survivorship of pyrocarbon metacarpophalangeal joint arthroplasty in noninflammatory arthropathy at a minimum 5-year follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective review of 51 implants in 36 patients 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: There were 35 index and 16 middle fingers. The average follow-up was 103 months (range, 60-172 months). The mean arc of motion was 54° (range, 20° to 80°). There was no difference in grip strength between operated and nonsurgical side. Six implants were revised, and 3 of these required additional surgery. The average Patient Evaluation Measure and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were 27 (range, 10-54) and 29 (range, 0-57), respectively. Mean visual analog scores for pain, satisfaction, and appearance were all 1 with the respective ranges being 0-7, 0-4, and 0-6. Most implants were Herren grade 1 lucency with the remaining 5 proximal and 12 distal implants being grade 2. Mean subsidence in the proximal component was 2 mm (range, 0-4 mm) and 1 mm (range, 0-3 mm) in the distal component. The degree of loosening or subsidence did not correlate with outcome. Implant survival as assessed by Kaplan-Meier was 88% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Good pain relief, a functional range of motion, and high satisfaction were seen in the majority of patients. All implant revisions were performed within 18 months of the index procedure. This may represent technical issues rather than problems with the implant.

Surface replacement arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint using the SR PIP implant: long-term results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term results of proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint surface replacement arthroplasty for arthritis using the SR PIP implant (Small Bone Innovations, New York, NY). METHODS: This is a long-term retrospective analysis of results in 39 of 43 joints first reported in 2008. Subjective results were based upon a mailed questionnaire. Active range of motion was measured by a certified hand therapist, and x-rays were obtained to analyze changes occurring since the first study. RESULTS: The average follow-up time was 9.3 years. The average active PIP joint arc of motion in the present cohort of patients went from 64° at the first report (2008) to 56° at this time. Radiographic comparisons revealed no major changes since the first study. Ten of 11 revisions were done for pain due to loosening and were performed at an average of 20 months after the primary procedure. No further revisions were necessary in the interim. Overall, subjective measures of satisfaction and symptomatic and functional improvement remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Surface replacement arthroplasty using the SR PIP implant continues to be an option for patients with osteoarthritis of the PIP joint. Long-term subjective and objective outcomes are comparable to those reported using other implants. This and other studies suggest that this procedure is not appropriate for most rheumatoid joints. In the interim between studies, we saw a reduction in the average PIP joint arc of motion, although this change did not reach statistical significance. Our original revision incidence of 26% has not changed. Subjective evaluation and radiologic findings did not change between studies. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Revision Proximal Interphalangeal Arthroplasty: An Outcome Analysis of 75 Consecutive Cases.

PURPOSE: To examine the outcomes and complications associated with revision proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty. METHODS: An analysis of 75 consecutive revision PIP joint arthroplasties in 49 patients, performed between 1998 to 2012, was performed. The mean age at the time of surgery was 58 years. Thirty-two patients had a history of prior PIP joint trauma, and 18 patients had rheumatoid arthritis. There were 12 constrained (silicone) implants and 63 nonconstrained implants (34 pyrocarbon and 29 metal-plastic). RESULTS: Over the 14-year period, 19 (25%) fingers underwent a second revision surgery. Second revision surgeries were performed for infection, instability, flexion contracture, and heterotopic ossification. The 2-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 80%, 70%, and 70%, respectively, for patients requiring a second revision for PIP joint arthroplasty. Worse outcomes were seen with postoperative dislocations, pyrocarbon implants, and when bone grafting was required. Two operations were complicated by intraoperative fractures, but neither required stabilization. Sixteen patients undergoing revision surgery experienced a postoperative complication, including 2 infections, 1 postoperative fracture, 3 cases of heterotopic ossification, and 10 PIP joint dislocations. The volar approach and the use of a pyrocarbon implant was associated with increased rates of heterotopic ossification, whereas preoperative instability increased the rates of PIP joint dislocation following revision. At a mean of 5.3 years (range, 2-10 years) follow-up, 98% of patients had good pain relief but decreased PIP joint total arc of motion. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty in the revision setting represents a challenge for surgeons. Revision arthroplasty was associated with a 70% 5-year survival but with a high incidence of complications. Instability was associated with worse outcomes. In this series, silicone and metal-polyethylene implants had lower rates of implant failure and postoperative complications than ones made from pyrocarbon.

Revision arthroplasty for failed silicone proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: indications and 8-year results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the indications for revision of silicone proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasties, to analyze the results of revision surgery, and to determine which specific patient concerns were most successfully addressed by revision surgery. METHODS: This study combined a cross-sectional evaluation of the patients' condition after revision surgery and a retrospective chart review. All patients who had revision surgery of their PIP silicone arthroplasty in our clinic between 1999 and 2009 were invited for clinical follow-up. We reviewed their medical records, took radiographs, and recorded the active flexion and extension, pain, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-four revisions in 27 patients were performed, and we were able to examine 20 patients with 24 arthroplasties clinically. The average follow-up was 4.3 years after revision and 8.3 years following primary surgery. The main indications for revision surgery were pain and restricted active range of motion, with or without implant breakage, predominantly in the index and middle fingers. Patients were fairly satisfied with the outcome of the revision surgery and reported only mild residual pain. Patients whose indication for revision was a restricted active range of motion increased active flexion from 33° before the revision to 71° following the operation. Patients who required revision for a large ulnar deviation deformity (mean, 33°) still had a residual deviation of 15° at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Revision surgery after failed silicone proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty was most successful in patients with severe postoperative stiffness. Pain was relieved, and patients were fairly satisfied with the results of the revision. Ulnar deviation could not be corrected completely. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Long-term results of Swanson silicone arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: To review the long-term outcome of the Swanson silicone arthroplasty in the osteoarthritic proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint at a single institution. METHODS: We identified 51 patients who had undergone PIP joint Swanson silicone arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and included in the study only those 22 patients (38 joints) who responded and could follow up. These patients returned for follow-up evaluation at an average of 10 years (range, 2-24 y). Subjective outcomes were assessed using the Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, visual analog pain scale, and Likert questionnaire scores. Clinical and radiographic objective data were collected by measuring range of motion and coronal plane deformation and assessing final radiographs. RESULTS: Silicone arthroplasty at the PIP joint consistently provided pain relief in patients who returned for follow-up. The average Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 17 and the average pain visual analog scale score was 0.4. The Likert questionnaire revealed that on average, patients agreed or strongly agreed that they would have surgery again, would recommend surgery to another patient, and were satisfied at an average of 10 years after surgery. Patients had neutral responses when they rated appearance, functional improvement, and range of motion. Objectively, range of motion (flexion arc of 50°) did not significantly change from the preoperative flexion arc (55°). Radiographically, 31 implants had deformation, including 21 with implant fracture. There were 3 revisions for symptomatic implant fractures and 1 implant was removed for infection. There was no correlation between radiographs and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite unchanged range of motion and considerable radiographic implant deformation or fracture, patients obtained consistent pain relief and satisfaction. With an implant survivorship of 90% at average of 10 years postoperatively, silicone implant arthroplasty remains our treatment of choice for the symptomatic osteoarthritic PIP joint. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Silicone proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis using a volar approach.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the short-term clinical and radiographic outcome of a silicone proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint implant using a volar approach in patients with primary osteoarthritis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 36 proximal PIP joints that were replaced with Avanta silicone implants in 26 patients. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of primary osteoarthrtitis of the PIP joint and failure to respond to conservative treatment. Clinical asessment included range of motion, patient satisfaction, and pain scores. The Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire was administered at final follow-up. Radiographs were reviewed for alignment and implant fracture. Complications were also recorded. RESULTS: After an average follow-up of 18 months (range, 12-60 mo), pain relief was markedly reduced in all patients, decreasing from a mean score of 7.2 preoperatively to 0.4 postoperatively. The arc of active motion of the PIP joint improved from 33° to 72°. Satisfaction averaged 4.8 on a 5-point Likert scale, and all patients stated they would repeat the surgery. The median final average Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 7 (range, 4-12). Radiograph review showed 2 implant fractures at 1 and 2 years after surgery, respectively, but without clinical changes. The average deformity in the coronal plane changed from 12° (range, 8° to 18°) preoperatively to 4° (range, 3° to 8°) postoperatively, whereas the average flexion contracture changed from 18° (range, 10° to 30°) to 0° (all patients achieved full active extension). No other complications were observed. No revision surgery has been needed to date. CONCLUSIONS: The volar approach to PIP joint silicone arthroplasty offers the advantages of maintaining the integrity of the extensor mechanism, providing pain relief, and improving postoperative range of motion with minimal complications. However, further research is needed to determine the long-term efficacy of this implant. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Proximal interphalangeal joint replacement: resurfacing pyrocarbon versus silicone arthroplasty.

Prosthetic replacement of the proximal interphalangeal joints is an operative treatment for osteoarhtritis, to preserve the range of motion and the function of the hand. The purpose of this study is to detect the differences regarding pain and function between a silicone implant using a volar approach and a resurfacing implant, placed through a dorsal approach. Patients were reviewed clinically and scored. We found no significant differences in outcome between the two types of implants. However, the complication rate in the resurfacing group was significantly higher. Also, the economic cost of both implants was significantly different. The resurfacing implants were more expensive than the silicone implants.

Osseointegrated silicone finger prosthesis using dental implants: a renovated technique.

AIM AND BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, we come across patients with traumatically amputated or congenitally missing partial or complete fingers that can be restored using microsurgical replantation or transplantation procedures. However, in some cases this might not be possible due to systemic or local factors and the lost or missing part has to be replaced prosthetically to offer psychological and functional wellbeing. These prostheses can be constructed with various materials like acrylics or silicone retained with the help of auxiliary aids. However, these prostheses cause some hindrance in performing functions like writing, typing, etc. The aim of the present trial was to ameliorate the existing design of implant supported finger prosthesis. TECHNIQUE: Distal phalange of middle finger replaced with implant supported silicone finger prosthesis is modified by utilizing a metal framework to support silicone material to improve rigidity while working. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: We could achieve a good function, esthetics and tactile sensibility with this modified design. Whenever, feasible this design can improve the performance and patients feel a deep sense of satisfaction and improved self-esteem with this modified prosthesis.

[Do artificial joints perform in the hand?]. / Funktionieren Kunstgelenke an der Hand?

For selected indications and implantation by an experienced hand surgeon, we can answer "in principle: yes". Through artificial joints in the hand, especially of the finger joints, a significant reduction in pain can usually be achieved. Compromises must be made with respect to mobility. Age, general condition, underlying disease, requirements and expectations must be considered in the indication. In appropriate patient selection, we have positive experience with high patient satisfaction after implantation of artificial joints in the hand.