RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previously published research describes short-term outcomes after proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty, however, long-term outcomes are scarce. Therefore, we evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after a follow-up of at least five years following PIP joint arthroplasty. METHODS: We used prospectively gathered data from patients undergoing PIP joint arthroplasty with silicone or surface replacement implants. Time points included preoperative, one year, and at least five years postoperatively. We were able to include 74 patients. Primarily, we focussed on patient satisfaction with the treatment outcome, measured using a validated 5-point Likert scale. Secondary outcomes included the question whether patients would undergo the same surgery again, the assessment of factors associated with (dis)satisfaction, the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), and the number of reoperations. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was seven years (SD 1.2, range 5-11 years). Patient satisfaction was excellent in 14 (19%), good in 17 (23%), reasonable in 18 (24%), moderate in 10 (14%), and poor in 15 (20%) patients. Seventy-three percent of patients (n=54) would undergo the same procedure again. We found no factors associated with (dis)satisfaction. All MHQ scores improved significantly in the first year after surgery and did not deteriorate afterward. Sixteen (16%) fingers required a reoperation, of whom 3 (4%) needed a prosthesis replacement. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes seven years post-PIP implant surgery ranges from moderate to good for many patients, with a notable proportion expressing dissatisfaction. Patient-reported outcomes improve primarily within the first year and remain stable at five years or more. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.