Does distal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis affect proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty outcomes in the same finger?

The purpose of this study was to analyse the 1-year outcomes after combining a surface replacing proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty and a distal interphalangeal screw arthrodesis and to compare the combined surgery with proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty alone. To obtain two groups with similar baseline data from our prospective registry, propensity score matching was used to match 23 fingers with the combined operations with 115 fingers with proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty alone. One year after surgery, the mean ranges of motion were 60° (95% CI: 53° to 67°) in the combined group and 63° (95% CI: 60° to 66°) in the control group and did not differ significantly. Grip strength, the brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire and pain also did not differ between the groups 1 year after surgery. All the proximal interphalangeal implants in patients treated with a distal interphalangeal screw arthrodesis remained in situ. Combining proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty with distal interphalangeal arthrodesis leads to 1-year outcomes that are similar to those achieved by proximal interphalangeal joint replacement alone.Level of evidence: III.

Outcomes of Multiple Digit Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Swanson Arthroplasty Done at a Single Operation.

Background: Proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthroplasty using a Swanson implant is commonly used for the treatment of PIPJ arthritis despite newer implants being available. Many patients develop arthritis in more than one digit and some tend to have multiple digits operated on in their lifetime. There is paucity of literature on the outcomes of multiple PIPJ arthroplasty in one sitting. The aim of this study is to determine the outcomes of PIPJ arthroplasty using a Swanson implant done for multiple digits at one sitting. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of multiple Swanson PIPJ arthroplasty during a single operation from 2008 to 2018 in 13 patients (43 arthroplasties). We compared pre- and post-operative results of flexion/extension arcs, grip and pinch strength and questionnaires subsequently compared QuickDASH (Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand), Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM) and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) scores. Data were analysed with a Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Patients on average attended 5.6 hand therapy sessions over 5.1 months post-operatively. Average flexion/extension arc improved from 31.9° pre-operatively to 37.2° post-operatively. Average grip strength increased from 7.2 kg to 10.2 kg. The QuickDASH, PEM and VAS scores improved in keeping with the reported literature. There were no implant failures. Conclusion: We demonstrate similar outcomes for multi-digit Swanson PIPJ arthroplasty compared to the literature for single digit Swanson PIPJ arthroplasty. We conclude that multi-digit arthroplasty in a single operation is safe and effective. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic).

Outcomes of Unconstrained Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Background: Unconstrained pyrocarbon and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty is an increasingly popular alternative to silicone implants and arthrodesis. This systematic review appraises their outcomes. Methods: Thirty studies comprising 1,324 joints (813 pyrocarbon, 511 MoP) were included. Mean patient age was 59 years (38-78) and mean follow-up period was 54 months (12-118). Results: There were mean improvements of 4.5 points (2-6.9) in pain visual analogue score, 10.5° (-26 to 58) in range of motion (ROM), 3.1 kg (-4 to 7) in grip strength, 0.6 kg (-1.5 to 2) in pinch strength and 18 points (-3 to 29) in the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score, with no significant differences between implant types. ROM gains deteriorated over time. Clinical complications were frequent (23%) and significantly more common with pyrocarbon, as were radiographic complications. However, most were mild-moderate and did not necessarily correlate with negative outcomes or dissatisfaction. Overall re-operation rate was 21%, and revision rate 11%, both more frequent with pyrocarbon. Most revisions were within 24 months, beyond which survival was maintained up to 10 years. Conclusions: Unconstrained PIP joint arthroplasty is effective in improving pain scores, active ROM, grip/pinch strength and patient-reported outcome measures, particularly in patients with osteoarthritis. Results are generally maintained at least to the medium term, although gains diminish in the longer term. Complication and early revision rates are high, particularly with pyrocarbon implants. Most patients express positive attitudes to arthroplasty, with significant improvements in patient-reported outcome measures for both pyrocarbon and MoP implants. Patients with post-traumatic and inflammatory arthropathy are generally less satisfied. There is currently insufficient data to recommend one implant type over another, although the early-to-medium term results of MoP implants are promising. Prospective surveillance via small joint registries is recommended. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

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.

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.

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.

Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection after Finger Joint Arthroplasty.

Background: Endoprosthetic treatment of finger joints is an established procedure. However, data on peri-prosthetic finger joint infections (PJI) are rare. The goal of this retrospective study was to assess infection rates and treatment outcomes after PJI of the finger joints. Methods: Between 1984 and 2014, 1,195 finger joints (978 metacarpal and 217 proximal interphalangeal [PIP] joints) in 518 patients were treated. A retrospective record analysis was conducted. Besides demographic data, infection rates, types of revision surgery, and treatment outcomes were evaluated. Treatment strategies changed during the treatment period. Routinely assessed patient-reported outcome measures, namely the QuickDASH score, visual analogue scale (VAS), an everyday function score (activities of daily living; ADL), and an adapted Clayton score, were compared. Results: In 36 finger joints of 30 patients, a post-operative peri-prosthetic infection could be identified (3%). Infections occurred on average 3.8 years after arthroplasty. For meta-carpal phalangeal (MCP) joints, the best clinical outcomes could be observed after a two-stage revision procedure (QuickDASH score 86). Arthrodesis performed in a one-stage procedure achieved favorable outcomes in PIP joints (QuickDASH score 89). Re-infection mandating revision surgery occurred in seven joints in five patients (7/36; 19.4%). In 25 patients with 29 finger joints, there was no re-infection and no need for revision. Conclusion: Peri-prosthetic infection of finger joint prostheses occurs in approximately 3% of all cases, which is a higher rate than in the more common hip and knee procedures. For MCP joint revision surgery, a two-stage procedure seems to be the best treatment choice. For PIP joint revision, a single-stage revision with arthrodesis in a functional position achieves a good outcome.

Prosthetic Arthroplasty of Proximal Interphalangeal Joints for Treatment of Osteoarthritis and Posttraumatic Arthritis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Three Ulnar Digits With the Index Finger.

Background: It is common teaching that treatment of index finger alone is a relative contraindication for arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ). However, limited data exist reporting the digit-specific complication of PIPJ arthroplasty for the treatment of osteoarthritis or posttraumatic arthritis. The purpose of this article is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to assess whether the 3 ulnar digits may bear a similar instability and complication profile. Methods: Systematic searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane computerized literature databases were performed for PIPJ arthroplasty specifying by digit. We reviewed both descriptive and quantitative data to: (1) report aggregate instability and instability-related complications after non-index digit PIPJ arthroplasty; and (2) perform statistical testing to assess relative rates by digit and compared with index digits. Results: Computerized search generated 385 original articles. Five studies reporting digit-specific instability-related outcomes of silicone, pyrocarbon, or metal surface arthroplasty on 177 digits were included in the review. Meta-analysis demonstrated a 29% instability rate for long digits (n = 65), 6% for ring digits (n = 53), and 6% for small digits (n = 17), compared with 33% for index digits (n = 42). There was no difference in the overall deformity, instability, and complication rates of long versus index fingers (P = .65). Conclusions: Instability-related deformity and complication rates of long finger PIPJ arthroplasty may not be different from that of the index finger. Treatment of the long finger may be a relative contraindication to PIPJ arthroplasty. Future biomechanical and clinical studies are needed.

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.

Long-term outcomes of silicone metacarpophalangeal arthroplasty: a longitudinal analysis of 325 cases.

An analysis was conducted of 325 consecutive metacarpophalangeal arthroplasties prospectively collected using a single institution's total joints registry over a 14-year time period to characterize long-term radiographic and functional outcomes. Patients were followed for a mean of 7.2 years (2-18) or until revision. The 5-, 10- and 15-year survival free from revision were 98%, 95% and 95%, respectively. The 5-, 10- and 15-year survival rates free from radiographic implant fracture were 93%, 58% and 35%, respectively. The 5-, 10- and 15-year survival rates free from coronal plane deformity greater than 10° were 81%, 37% and 17%, respectively. Patients had significant improvements in their postoperative pain levels and metacarpophalangeal arc of motion. Neither implant fracture, nor coronal plane deformity >10° had a significant association with worse function. Overall, pain relief and functional improvement are reliable, though silicone implants do not protect from progression of coronal plane deformity and have a high fracture rate. Level of evidence: IV.

Salvaging a Failed Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Implant.

Salvaging a failed proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint implant arthroplasty remains a considerable technical and rehabilitation challenge. Experienced arthroplasty surgeons have reported 70% survival of revision PIP implants at 10 years with 25% of patients requiring subsequent revision surgery. At this time, there is no consensus surgical approach or implant proven superior for revision implant arthroplasty of the PIP joint. Secondary arthrodesis or amputation may be required to salvage the failed PIP implant arthroplasty with compromised bone stock or soft tissue envelopes that are inadequate for implant arthroplasty.

Outcomes Following Acute Metacarpophalangeal Joint Arthroplasty Dislocation: An Analysis of 37 Cases.

PURPOSE: There remains a paucity of information regarding the treatment outcomes of dislocation after metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical treatment modalities of MCP arthroplasty dislocations. METHODS: Of 816 MCP joint arthroplasties over a 14-year period, there were 37 (4%) acute MCP joint dislocations that required intervention by a health care professional. Implants involved included 28 nonconstrained implants including pyrocarbon (n = 17) and surface replacement arthroplasty (n = 11), and 9 silicone implants. The analysis included the treatment of dislocations after primary (n = 30) and revision (n = 7) MCP joint arthroplasty. Dislocation was defined as clinical and radiographic evidence of MCP joint prosthetic acute dislocation diagnosed and treated by a fellowship trained hand surgeon. RESULTS: Etiologies underlying the dislocations included implant fracture (n = 6), component loosening (n = 2), and soft tissue deficiency (n = 29). Of the 37 dislocations, treatments included 14 nonsurgical (closed reduction, orthosis fabrication) all of which ultimately failed. Surgically, including some of the failed prior procedures, 18 soft tissue stabilization procedures and 21 revision arthroplasties were performed, with 6 that had failed soft tissue stabilization. The soft tissue stabilization procedures had a 28% success rate in achieving a stable MCP joint. Revision arthroplasty had a 71% success rate. Subgroup analysis showed an 86% success rate for silicone revisions and a 43% success rate with nonconstrained revisions, with 80% and 36% 5-year survival free of instability, for the 2 types of implants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of MCP joint arthroplasty dislocation with revision to silicone implant appears to hold the most promise in achieving a stable MCP joint after an acute prosthetic dislocation. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Cold Welding in a Trapeziometacarpal Ball and Socket Prosthesis: A Case Report.

While in revision hip surgery it has been described cold welding of the femoral component in titanium implants, no previous reports have been published in TMC prosthesis. We present a case report of a patient who sustained a TMC ARPE® dislocation 11 months after surgery and during revision surgery, cold welding of the neck with the metacarpal stem was observed. This may represent a problem when revising this prosthesis and alternative procedures should be advised and discussed with the patient when revising these implants.

Post-Operative Contracture of the Proximal Interphalangeal Joint after Surface Replacement Arthroplasty Using a Volar Approach.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative contracture as a major complication of surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) remains an unresolved problem. Contracture after SRA can occur early in the postoperative period due to mechanical dysfunction, and tardy contracture where ROM declines with time postoperatively is also reported. METHODS: 13 fingers with degenerative osteoarthritis and two fingers with post-traumatic arthritis where SRA was performed using volar approach were involved. Contracture was defined as limited ROM of less than 35 degrees. Cases were then categorized into two groups according to time of onset of contracture; early contracture and tardy contracture. Characteristic findings of postoperative X-rays in each contracture group were examined. Required procedures and efficacy of any further surgery was also reviewed. RESULTS: Early contracture was observed in three cases, all of which suffered intra-operative fracture or fragility of the central slip insertion on the dorsal rim of the middle phalanx. This was observed in a further two cases, both of which deteriorated to tardy contracture. Tardy contracture was observed in five cases, and the average ROM was 63 degrees preoperatively, 48 degrees one year postoperatively and 21 degrees at the most recent follow-up, or at the time of the second surgery. In the three cases, development of osteophyte formation on the volar aspect of the proximal head component was observed on the follow-up X-rays. Required further surgeries were resection of the volar plate in two cases, resection of ossification in one and resection of the osteophyte in two. The results of further surgeries were mediocre in all but one case. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that intra-operative fracture or fragility of the central slip insertion was a risk factor for postoperative contracture after SRA, and that development of osteophyte formation can be a cause of deterioration in ROM of the PIP joint.

Trapeziectomy or revision into a cemented polyethylene cup in failed trapeziometacarpal total joint arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVES: Total joint replacement as treatment of osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint may lead to excellent short-term results, but also with a high risk of failure of the trapezium component. The aim of this study was to compare revision using trapeziectomy with a revision into a cemented trapezium cup. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with a mean follow-up time of 47 months were included in a case control study with 17 hands revised with a cemented cup and 21 trapeziectomy. RESULTS: At follow-up, no significant difference was found in self-reported outcome, with pain at rest or activity and in grip strength comparing patients revised using trapeziectomy with patients revised with insertion of a new cup. There was, however, a high risk of re-revision in patients treated with insertion of a new cup and at the follow-up 4/17 cups had been re-revised and 5/17 cups had radiological signs of implant loosening. CONCLUSION: IT was found that trapeziectomy should be the standard salvage procedure after a failed trapezium implant and revision of cup loosening with a cemented cup has an unacceptable failure rate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interphalangeal joint salvage arthrodesis using the lister tubercle as bone graft.

Treating failed interphalangeal joint arthroplasty is challenging. After an implant or surgical device has been removed, minimal cortical bone remains, and cancellous bone is largely absent from the medullary canals. Several surgical techniques exist for athrodesis of these joints, which render the operated digit unnaturally straight and shortened. Using the Lister tubercle as a graft provides the unique benefits of maintaining the natural length of the joint while also lending a natural curvature to the finger.