Long-Term Implant Fracture Rates Following Silicone Metacarpophalangeal Joint Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the long-term survival rates of silicone metacarpophalangeal (MCP) arthroplasties between two major implants in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, using implant fracture as an end point. We also evaluated the difference in postoperative function between patients with fractured and intact implants as a secondary objective. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 372 fingers of 133 hands that underwent silicone MCP arthroplasty between January 2000 and June 2019 (mean follow-up, 7.6 years). The survival rates of Swanson-type and Sutter-type implants were compared, using implant fracture as the end point after a radiographic evaluation. Clinical measures and upper limb functional assessments using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score were performed in the nested cohort. RESULTS: The 10.6-year survival rates for implant fracture of Swanson- and Sutter-type implants were 86.2% and 9.4%, respectively, with significantly higher survival noted for Swanson-type implants. The Sutter-type implant showed increased susceptibility to fracture in all four fingers compared to the Swanson-type implant. Implant fractures were primarily observed at the stem-hinge junction. There were no significant differences in upper limb function between the fractured and intact implant groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sutter-type implants were found to be more prone to fracture compared with Swanson-type implants. However, implant fractures did not significantly affect upper limb function. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis IV.

Surface replacing arthroplasty of a post-traumatic stiff and deviated proximal interphalangeal joint in an adolescent.

This case report describes the 4-year outcomes of proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty in a 14-year-old girl with a stiff joint after trauma. At follow-up, active range of motion was 35°, she was pain-free and satisfied with the outcome. Implant arthroplasty seems to be a valuable option for young patients with persistent post-traumatic stiff and deviated PIP joints to-at least temporarily-increase quality of life.

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.

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.

Risk factors for limited improvement after total trapeziometacarpal joint arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Trapeziometacarpal (TMC) osteoarthritis can be painful and cause disability for patients. Total joint replacement of the TMC joint provides a pseudo arthrosis with good restoration of the thumb motion and pain relief in most patients. But there is also a risk of no improvement following the operation. The purpose of this study was to identify patients at risk of no clinically important improvement following operative treatment of osteoarthritis of the TMC joint. METHODS: We included 287 consecutive patients (225 women, 62 men) treated with total joint replacement of the TMC joint due to osteoarthritis with a mean age of 58.9 years (range 41-80) in a prospective cohort study. We collected information preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively on disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score (DASH), grip strength and pain at rest and activity on a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: We found a statistically significant improvement in DASH from 42.0 to 15.9 (p < 0.001), VAS at rest from 3.5 to 0.6 (p < 0.001), VAS at activity from 7.9 to 2.5 (p < 0.001) and grip strength from 21.6 kg to 27.6 kg (p < 0.001) 12 months after the operation, when analysed as a group. There was an increased risk of no clinically important improvement in hand function for patients with preoperative high preoperative grip strength. Also, we found an increased risk of no clinically important improvement in female patients when using VAS as outcome. CONCLUSION: However, we were unable to detect one isolated preoperative predictor as indicator of successful result after operative treatment of TMC osteoarthritis, and as so it was not possible to establish a clinical valid tool for patient selection before surgery. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study. The study needed no approval from The Regional Committee of Biomedical Research Ethics as the data was collected, as part of our normal pre- and postoperative clinical pathway, but the study is part of an outcome study of the results after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) of the TMC joint registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01554748). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01554748). Registered 15 March 2012.

Two-component surface replacement implants compared with perichondrium transplantation for restoration of Metacarpophalangeal and proximal Interphalangeal joints: a retrospective cohort study with a mean follow-up time of 6 respectively 26 years.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to compare the long-term outcome after perichondrium transplantation and two-component surface replacement (SR) implants to the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints. METHODS: We evaluated 163 joints in 124 patients, divided into 138 SR implants in 102 patients and 25 perichondrium transplantations in 22 patients. Our primary outcome was any revision surgery of the index joint. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 6 years (0-21) for the SR implants and 26 years (1-37) for the perichondrium transplants. Median age at index surgery was 64 years (24-82) for SR implants and 45 years (18-61) for perichondium transplants. MCP joint survival was slightly better in the perichondrium group (86.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 69.4-100.0) than in the SR implant group (75%; CI 53.8-96.1), but not statistically significantly so (p = 0.4). PIP joint survival was also slightly better in the perichondrium group (80%; CI 55-100) than in the SR implant group (74.7%; CI 66.6-82.7), but below the threshold of statistical significance (p = 0.8). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, resurfacing of finger joints using transplanted perichondrium is a technique worth considering since the method has low revision rates in the medium term and compares favorable to SR implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (Therapeutic).

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.

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.

Denervation for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and functional outcomes of proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint denervation using a volar approach in the treatment of PIP joint osteoarthritis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 11 cases treated from June 2007 to June 2016. The patients were identified and outcomes collected through a single institution's registry, collecting demographic data, comorbidities, preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Disorders of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. RESULTS: The ring finger was the most commonly treated. The VAS for pain improved from 7.8 to 1.4, and the DASH questionnaire improved from 43.6 to 8.7. The PIP joint active range of motion also improved from 52° to 79°. Two patients reported postoperative digital paresthesia that resolved spontaneously. There were no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal interphalangeal joint denervation is a safe technique. It achieves good clinical results and, in case of failure, a more traditional and aggressive operation remains possible. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Midterm Clinical and Radiographic Follow-Up of Pyrolytic Carbon PIP Arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The use of pyrolytic carbon arthroplasty (PCA) for the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint is controversial. The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic midterm outcomes of PIP joint PCA. METHODS: Patients were contacted after PIP PCA at 6.4 ± 1.9 years (mean ± SD). Evaluation included grip and pinch strength and digital range of motion (ROM). Radiographs and patient reported outcomes surveys were obtained. RESULTS: This study included 29 PIP joint PCA devices implanted in 23 hands among 19 patients. Seven devices underwent subsequent procedures. Three were removed and revised to silicone implants because of 2 dislocations and one implant migration. One underwent revision to a larger distal component. Three required soft tissue surgical revisions in which the implant was retained (one flexor digitorum superficialis tenodesis and 2 capsulectomies). At the time of latest follow-up, there was 86.2% original implant survivorship. The most recent radiographic review of the remaining 26 implants revealed 2 swan neck deformities and 2 implant migrations. Postoperative grip (38.4 ± 16.8 lb) and pinch (13.8 ± 2.7 lb) strength were 92% and 91%, respectively, of nonsurgical grip and pinch strength. Final mean ROM (range) for the metacarpophalangeal joint was 82.1° (60° to 100°) and for the PIP joint was 60.6° (20° to 110°). Mean outcome scores were: visual analog scale, 1.6 (± 2.4), Michigan Hand Questionnaire, 71.6 (± 17.6), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, 24.7 (± 14.5). CONCLUSIONS: Midterm follow-up (mean, 6.4 years) for 29 PCA implants in 19 patients revealed a surgical revision rate of 24.1%. Of the 29 implants, 13.8% were removed at a mean of 4.6 years (range, 1.3-7.9 years). Strength, ROM, and pain relief were all satisfactory. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

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.

[Anatomy of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal finger joint with respect to arthroplasty]. / Anatomie des Fingergrund- und -mittelgelenks unter Berücksichtigung der Endoprothetik.

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.

[Arthroplasty at the proximal interphalengeal joint]. / Gelenkersatz am Fingermittelgelenk.

BACKGROUND: For the treatment of deformed finger middle joints that occur as a result of osteoarthritis or inflammatory and post-traumatic destruction, artificial joint replacement is an option to arthrodesis. Hereby mobility can be obtained, which is why this method generally has a higher acceptance. DISCUSSION: What clinical and subjective results can be expected after artificial finger middle joint replacement and what is the expected complication rate for the different types of joints? MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present our experiences with artificial joint replacement with various implants over the past decades as well as promising new developments of the last 10 years. RESULTS: The silicone implant still remains the gold standard in joint replacement. For these implants, good long-term results and low revision rates have been documented. Due to the soft flexible material, however, lateral stability and preoperatively-existing axis deviations seem problematic. Initial studies with modular resurfacing implants appear promising and may eventually replace the silicone spacer over the long term. Consequently, long-term results of these modern implants are pending. CONCLUSIONS: Painful osteoarthritis of the finger joint can be treated well with motion-preserving artificial joints. The complication rate appears to be decreasing. New generation modular surface prostheses seem to be relatively equal to the silicone spacer in terms of long-term outcomes.

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.

Postoperative Rehabilitation Following Thumb Base Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of rehabilitation for patients who underwent first carpometacarpal joint (CMC-1) arthroplasty, with emphasis on early active mobilization. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Articles written in English that described the postoperative regimen (including immobilization period/method and/or description of exercises/physical therapy, follow-up 6wk) on CMC-1 arthroplasty were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was used as guidance in this review, and methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. Randomized studies were additionally scored using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-seven studies were included consisting of 1015 participants, in whom 1118 surgical procedures were performed. A summary of the components of postoperative rehabilitation used in the included studies of CMC-1 osteoarthritis is presented for different surgical interventions. We found that early active recovery (including short immobilization, early initiation of range of motion and strength exercises) provides positive outcomes for pain, limitations in activities of daily living, and grip and pinch strength, but comparative studies are lacking. Furthermore, 3 postoperative exercises/therapy phases were identified in the literature-the acute phase, the unloaded phase, and the functional phase-but again comparative studies are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Early active recovery is used more often in the literature and does not lead to worse outcomes or more complications. This systematic review provides guidance for clinicians in the content of postoperative rehabilitation for CMC-1 arthroplasty. The review also clearly identifies the almost complete lack of high-quality comparative studies on postoperative rehabilitation after CMC-1 arthroplasty.

Failed Thumb Carpometacarpal Arthroplasty: Common Etiologies and Surgical Options for Revision.

Carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasty surgery, although modifications have occurred over time, continues to be commonly performed and has provided patients with their desired pain relief and return of function. The complications of primary surgery, although relatively rare, can present in various clinical ways. An understanding of the underlying anatomy, pathology of coexisting conditions, and specific techniques used in the primary surgery is required to make the best recommendation for a patient with residual pain following primary CMC arthroplasty. The purpose of this review is to provide insights into the history of CMC arthroplasty and reasons for failure and to offer an algorithmic treatment approach for the clinical problem of persistent postoperative symptoms.

Understanding Patient Preferences in Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Surgery for Osteoarthritis: A Conjoint Analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare preferences for arthroplasty versus arthrodesis among patients with proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint osteoarthritis (OA) by quantifying the patient-assigned utility of each operation's attributes. METHODS: We undertook a multistep process to identify relevant surgical attributes, including a literature review, surgeon survey, and pretest patient pilot test to build a set of discrete choice experiments. Patients with PIP joint osteoarthritis were identified using a single university electronic medical record and were recruited via electronic message or postcard. Participants completed a demographic survey and 11 discrete choice experiments designed using Sawtooth Software's Discover tool. Utility and importance scores were generated for each attribute. RESULTS: Pretest analysis identified out-of-pocket cost, joint stiffness, need for future surgery, change in grip strength, and total recovery time as the most important surgical attributes. Initial response rate to the conjoint survey was 75% and survey completion rate was 61%. The study sample was predominantly white (91%) and female (72%), mean age 64.3 years (range, 34-90 years), and mean daily pain score was 4.32 (range, 0-10). Attribute importance scores demonstrated that joint stiffness (32%) and grip strength (29%) were most important to patients. Cost (17%) and need for future surgery (19%) were intermediate patient-preference drivers. Recovery time was the least important attribute (2%). CONCLUSIONS: In aggregate, patients prefer surgical attributes characteristic of arthroplasty (ability to preserve joint motion and grip strength) relative to those associated with arthrodesis (decreased need for reoperation, lower costs, and shorter reoperation times). TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic/Decision Analysis III.

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.

Sick Leave After Surgery for Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Population-Based Study.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing surgery for thumb carpometacarpal (CMC1) osteoarthritis often require sick leave owing to postoperative immobilization, pain, and decreased function. Our goal was to evaluate the amount of sick leave after surgery for 2 common CMC1 arthroplasty procedures. METHODS: Using registry data from the Skåne region of southern Sweden, cross-linked with employment data showing person-specific sick leave, 2 cohorts of CMC1 surgical patients, between ages 40 and 59 years, were examined. These comprised all persons undergoing soft tissue arthroplasty and prosthetic implant arthroplasty from 2004 to 2012 identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, and surgical codes. These subjects were analyzed against an age- and sex-matched reference population cohort. RESULTS: Surgical cohorts of 326 and 169 subjects undergoing soft tissue and prosthetic CMC1 arthroplasty, respectively, were compared with reference populations of 1,110 and 574 persons. Surgical subjects had a pronounced increase in sick leave in the first 2 months after surgery, followed by diminishing days of leave over time. Mean sick leave time after soft tissue arthroplasty was 202 days in women and 170 days in men. Following prosthetic arthroplasty, mean sick leave was 177 days in women and 188 in men. When we excluded those with documented sick leave in the month before surgery (owing to preoperative CMC1 disability or other medical issues), the mean postoperative sick leave decreased to 137 days in women and 125 days in men after soft tissue arthroplasty compared with 109 and 94 days in women and men after prosthetic implant arthroplasty, and this difference was significant. There were no differences in the length of sick leave between sexes and no correlation with age. CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue arthroplasty and implant arthroplasty for patients with CMC1 osteoarthritis are both associated with substantial sick leave time, indicating the impact of surgery on return to work. There were no differences in sick leave by sex or age. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.