Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty with silicone implants (NeuFlex) by a lateral approach: a series of 51 cases

Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis: A Long-Term Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Previously published research describes short-term outcomes after proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty; however, long-term outcomes are scarce. Therefore, the authors evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after a follow-up of at least 5 years following PIP joint arthroplasty.

METHODS

The authors used prospectively gathered data from patients undergoing PIP joint arthroplasty with silicone or surface replacement implants. Time points included preoperatively, 1 year postoperatively, and at least 5 years postoperatively. The authors were able to include 74 patients. Primarily, the authors focused on patient satisfaction with the treatment outcome, measured using a validated 5-point Likert scale. Secondary outcomes included the questions of whether patients would undergo the same surgery again, the assessment of factors associated with satisfaction or dissatisfaction, the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire score, and the number of reoperations.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 7 ± 1.2 years (range, 5 to 11 years). Patient satisfaction was excellent in 14 patients (19%), good in 17 patients (23%), reasonable in 18 patients (24%), moderate in 10 patients (14%), and poor in 15 patients (20%). Seventy-three percent of patients ( n = 54) would undergo the same procedure again. The authors found no factors associated with satisfaction or dissatisfaction. All Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire scores improved significantly in the first year after surgery and did not deteriorate afterward. Sixteen fingers (16%) required a reoperation, of which 3 (4%) needed a prosthesis replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes 7 years after 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 5 years or more.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Dorsal and Volar Approaches for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Replacement: Comparing Outcomes Through Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The 2 primary surgical approaches for proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthroplasty, dorsal or volar, have been extensively described in the literature. However, the ongoing debate regarding which approach offers superior results or is associated with fewer complications persists. This systematic review aims to compare the outcomes of PIPJ arthroplasty between the dorsal and volar approaches.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted, and studies meeting predetermined criteria were included. Data extraction, assessment of bias risk, and statistical analysis were performed to compare treatment modalities. Outcome measures included range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), revisions, and reported complications.

RESULTS

Among 368 screened articles, 5 studies involving 302 patients (310 implants) were eligible for final review. No significant differences were observed between the 2 approaches regarding postoperative ROM (mean difference [MD] 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.83, 8.32; P = .47) and PROMs (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.18; 95% CI -0.12, 0.48; P = .25). Complication rates, including revision/fusion, persistent pain, stiffness, infection, and dislocation, did not significantly differ between the approaches. Notably, dorsal approach was associated with higher risk of swan-neck deformity (9 out of 82 implants), while no such cases were reported in the volar approach (0 out of 101 implants).

CONCLUSION

Despite limitations and heterogeneity in the literature, both dorsal and volar approaches for PIPJ arthroplasty appear to yield equivalent outcomes for patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, therapeutic.

Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty Using a Silicone Implant: A Comparison Between Integra and NeuFlex in 72 Cases

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis of the hand can lead to pain, stiffness, and deformation, and thus to functional disability. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term clinical outcomes of 2 silicone proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint implants, NeuFlex and Integra, in patients with primary osteoarthritis.

METHODS

We included 72 PIP joints, of which 40 were replaced by a NeuFlex implant and 32 by an Integra implant. The average follow-up was 12 months for the Integra group and 16 months for the NeuFlex group.

RESULTS

There was no change in active flexion preoperatively and postoperatively. Extension lag and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score decreased substantially in both groups, whereas grip strength and Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) score increased. All patients were satisfied. Between groups, there was a significant difference in the PSFS score, in favor of the Integra group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both implants have excellent results, but more research is needed with more patients to prevent bias and to determine the long-term outcome of these implants.

Pyrolytic Carbon Hemiarthroplasty for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthritis, Long-Term Follow-Up

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term clinical, subjective, and radiographic results of pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthritis at a single institution.

METHODS

Patients treated with a pyrolytic carbon hemiarthroplasty between 2005 and 2015 were contacted for a clinical follow-up visit. Patients were assessed before surgery, one year after surgery, and again after a mean of 11 years (range: 6-16 years). Objective outcomes were assessed with grip strength, pinch strength, and range of motion (ROM). Subjective outcomes were assessed by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (performance and satisfaction), and Visual Analog Scale pain scores at rest and during activity. Radiographic assessments were completed according to Sweets and Stern as modified by Wagner et al.

RESULTS

A total of 68 fingers in 52 patients underwent PIPJ hemiarthroplasty. Thirty-six arthroplasties in 29 patients were available for the long-term follow-up, five patients had died, and the remaining cases were contacted by phone. Three cases were lost to follow-up. Preoperative diagnoses included 41 fingers with osteoarthritis or posttraumatic arthritis, and 27 fingers with inflammatory arthritis. Eight cases had undergone revision at the time of follow-up, and the 10-year implant survival was 72%. The revisions were performed after a mean of two years after surgery. Three patients had undergone soft-tissue procedures. Visual Analog Scale pain scores, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure scores improved significantly compared with that before surgery. Grip strength and pinch grip remained unchanged. However, PIPJ ROM deteriorated significantly one year after surgery, when compared with that before surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty of the PIPJ has an acceptable long-term implant survival, and the significant improvement in pain scores and patient-reported outcomes is maintained over time. Pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty could be a viable option in the management of PIPJ arthritis. Patients should be advised that PIPJ ROM deteriorates over time.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

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

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

Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty Using the Wide-Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet Technique

BACKGROUND

Proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) osteoarthritis is a common condition that results in pain, stiffness, and loss of function in the affected hand. Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty is an effective treatment option when conservative methods have failed. The wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) technique to perform surgery carries advantages such as lack of tourniquet discomfort, reduces the staffing and costs associated with anesthesia and sedation, and allows faster recovery. We aimed to determine whether the WALANT technique was safe and effective in the context of PIPJ arthroplasty.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled retrospectively from January 2015 to October 2020 by examining operating theater records and surgeon logbooks. Electronic patient records were examined to obtain patient data. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaires and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain were sent by post to patients-with a separate DASH and VAS for each digit operated on.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine PIPJ arthroplasties were carried out using WALANT technique by 3 different surgeons all using the dorsal approach. All cases were successfully carried out as day-case procedures. There was a significant correlation with increasing VAS and increasing DASH score. Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty improved range of motion from 28.9 ± 5.5° to 79.4 ± 13.3° (P < .0001). Two cases developed complications related to surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to report the use of WALANT to perform PIPJ arthroplasty, and shows comparable results with traditional methods. Larger, multicenter prospective trials are required to determine the efficacy of this technique and to quantify its economical benefit.

Surgical approaches for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

This annotation reviews current concepts on the three most common surgical approaches used for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: dorsal, volar, and lateral. Advantages and disadvantages of each are highlighted, and the outcomes are discussed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1329–1333.

[Differential therapeutic Approaches in the prosthetic Arthroplasty of Finger Joints]

Degenerative changes of the finger joints often lead to various surgical treatments such as arthrodesis or artificial joint replacement. There are a lot of surgical approaches for surgeons to choose from. The different approaches with their characteristic advantages and disadvantages during surgery and for the postoperative treatment should be selected and applied based on patient-, implant- and aftercare-specific indications. This article presents a short review of possible approaches and associated surgical techniques for finger joint replacement.

The Long-term Results of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty of the Osteoarthritic Index Finger

Background: Arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint is a widely performed procedure for patients with osteoarthritis. Its use in the index finger is often discouraged due to concerns over implant longevity and stability secondary to coronal forces this digit is exposed to during pinch. Methods: We analyzed 47 consecutive index finger silastic interposition arthroplasties, performed through a dorsal approach, at a mean follow-up of 5.15 years. Results: Only 2 patients had ulnar deviation greater than 15°. The reoperation rate was 12.8%, with only 1 finger requiring arthrodesis. The mean Visual Analog Scale score was 1.1; and of the whole series, only 1 patient would retrospectively have preferred a fusion. Conclusions: Our series shows that excellent functional results and patient satisfaction can be gained using silastic PIP joint arthroplasty in the index finger. We would advocate offering this procedure, especially in lower demand patients as an alternative to arthrodesis, with the benefit of providing good pain relief while preserving movement.

Rehabilitation after proximal interphalangeal joint replacement: A structured review of the literature

Proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty is an unsolved biomechanical challenge despite advances in materials and new implant designs. This leads to a high rate of complications. Moreover, there is heterogeneity in postoperative management according to the literature. The present structured review examined the therapeutic strategies utilized by physiotherapists to restore a functional finger chain and prevent postoperative complications following PIP joint replacement. Patients undergoing primary total PIP joint arthroplasty of the index, ring, middle or little finger were included. Articles published from 2008 onwards, in French or English, and reporting on PIP joint replacement and postoperative management, were included. Therapeutic strategies were organized according to the surgical approach. Details of splint strategies, mobilization and muscle strengthening and management of postoperative complications were collected. Forty-eight studies, 3 of which provided a description of surgical techniques, were included. In relation to hand function, most authors advocated joint mobilization (n = 45) and some recommended muscle strengthening (n = 4). Static (n = 43) and dynamic splints (n = 14) and buddy taping (n = 12) were frequently recommended to prevent and manage postoperative complications. Few studies (n = 13) reported wound assessment or control of postoperative edema. Precise recommendations concerning therapeutic strategies following PIP joint arthroplasty cannot be made based on available evidence. Specific protocols for rehabilitation following PIP joint replacement need to be clarified in future research.

Factors Associated With Reoperation After Silicone Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty

Background: Silicone proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty has a high revision rate. It has been suggested that persistent ulnar deviation and joint instability influence the durability of PIP silicone arthroplasties. The goal of this study was to evaluate what factors are associated with reoperation after silicone PIP arthroplasty. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all adult patients who underwent PIP silicone arthroplasty between 2002 and 2016 at one institutional system for inflammatory-, posttraumatic-, and primary degenerative arthritis. After manual chart review, we included 91 patients who underwent 114 arthroplasties. Fingers operated included 14 index, 41 middle, 38 ring, and 21 small fingers. Results: The overall reoperation rate was 14% (n = 16). Non-Caucasian race (P = .040), smoking (P = .022) and PIP silicone arthroplasty for post-traumatic osteoarthritis (P = .021) were associated with reoperation. The 1-, 5- and 10-year implant survival rates were 87%, 85%, and 85%, respectively. Conclusion: Caution should be exercised when considering PIP silicone arthroplasty of the index finger or in patients with post-traumatic osteoarthritis. It may be worthwhile addressing smoking behavior before pursuing silicone PIP arthroplasty.

Silicone and Pyrocarbon Artificial Finger Joints

Artificial finger joint design has been developed through different stages through the past. PIP (proximal interphalangeal) and MCP (metacarpophalangeal) artificial finger joints have come to replace the amputation and arthrodesis options; although, these artificial joints are still facing challenges related to reactive tissues, reduced range of motion, and flexion and extension deficits. Swanson silicone artificial finger joints are still common due to the physician's preferability of silicone with the dorsal approach during operation. Nevertheless, other artificial finger joints such as the pyrocarbon implant arthroplasty have also drawn the interests of practitioners. Artificial finger joint has been classified under three major categories which are constrained, unconstrained, and linked design. There are also challenges such as concerns of infections and articular cartilage necrosis associated with attempted retention of vascularity. In addition, one of the main challenges facing the silicone artificial finger joints is the fracture occurring at the distal stem with the hinge. The aim of this paper is to review the different artificial finger joints in one paper as there are few old review papers about them. Further studies need to be done to develop the design and materials of the pyrocarbon and silicone implants to increase the range of motion associated with them and the fatigue life of the silicone implants.

Interpositional Arthroplasty Using Mammary Capsule for Finger Joints: A Novel Technique

Degenerative osteoarthritis frequently affects the hands, altering the movements; surgical therapy includes arthrodesis and arthroplasty. We report the case of a female patient who presented arthrosis in the hands, severe on the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints, initially in her right index finger, and subsequently in the index and middle left fingers. At first, she received treatment in the PIP joint of the right index finger with a silicone implant; later on, she presented fracture of it and required replacement 8 years later. In the PIP joints of index and middle left fingers, treatment was made with interposition arthroplasty by mammary implant capsule. We present the postoperative progression of the silicone versus mammary capsule interposition arthroplasty. It is remarkable that, over time, articular function of the intervened joints with capsular arthroplasty remained stable with good motion, while range of motion in other fingers was reduced as a consequence of osteoarthritis. The frequency of patients presenting simultaneously with mammary capsule contracture and osteoarthritis is low, but this novel technique is nonetheless worthwhile to take into consideration.

Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Silicone Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis: Midterm Outcomes

Background: Osteoarthritis of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint affects a large percentage of the population and can lead to significant functional disability. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the midterm clinical effectiveness of PIP joint arthroplasty for nonrheumatic arthritis. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study evaluating preoperative and postoperative objective and subjective measures was conducted. Range of motion (ROM), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores, key pinch strength, grip strength, and satisfaction with respect to pain, deformity, function, and strength were measured. Results: Forty-five fingers in 25 patients were followed up for a mean period of 42 months. Preoperative and postoperative mean ROM was equivalent at 59.1° and 59.2°, respectively. Postoperative grip and key pinch strength showed significant improvement and near normalization compared with contralateral extremity. Complication rate was 37% with 20% requiring revision surgery. Patients with diabetes mellitus had higher odds of requiring revision surgery. Pain scores improved from 7.4 to 1.9 on a visual analog scale. Overall satisfaction was high at 84%, and 91% of patients would have the surgery performed again. Conclusions: Silicone arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the PIP remains a good option for pain relief. Our study presents midterm follow-up data that support significant pain relief, increased grip and key pinch strength, and high satisfaction associated with this implant.

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.

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

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

Implant Arthroplasty: Selection of Exposure and Implant

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

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.

Surgical Exposure of the Proximal Interphalangeal Joint

There are 3 main surgical approaches to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint; dorsal, volar, and lateral and several described modifications to these main approaches. Historically, the dorsal approach has been the standard for the most common procedures of the PIP joint. The volar approach is advantageous for surgical interventions requiring access to the volar plate. It spares the central slip insertion from possible disruption, as does the lateral approach. This article describes the surgical approaches to the PIP joint, explains the rationale for choosing each approach, and discusses some of the most common complications.

Comparison of proximal interphalangeal arthroplasty outcomes with Swanson implant performed by volar versus dorsal approach

No study has compared the QuickDASH score after Swanson implant arthroplasty performed by dorsal versus volar approaches. This study compared the outcomes of PIP arthroplasties through a volar approach as described by Schneider versus a dorsal approach as described by Chamay by determining the QuickDASH score, pain and range of motion. Our series included 21 Swanson implant arthroplasty cases in 17 patients aged 62 years on average, among which 12 were females. A volar approach was performed in 9 cases (group I) and a dorsal approach was performed in 12 cases (group II). The difference between the average QuickDASH score preoperatively and at the last follow-up was strong (group I: -16.584; group II: -1.444), the difference between the average pain level preoperatively and at the last follow up was very strong (group I: -2.098; group II: -4.506), the difference in average PIP extension was not different from 0 (group: I -5.805; group II: -11.332), the difference in average PIP flexion was very strong (group I: -2.716; group II: -2.007). There were four recurrences of swan neck deformity (3 in group, 1 in group II) and one implant fracture in each group. For Swanson implant arthroplasty, the volar approach leads to better QuickDASH scores and PIP flexion compared to the dorsal approach. The volar approach did not improve PIP extension, or pain, and did not lead to dysesthesia.

A Systematic Review of Different Implants and Approaches for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after implant arthroplasty for primary degenerative and posttraumatic osteoarthritis of the proximal interphalangeal joint were different according to the implant design and surgical approach. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate outcomes of various types of implant arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis, with an emphasis on different surgical approaches.

METHODS

The authors searched all available literature in the PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles reporting on outcomes of implant arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis. Data collection included active arc of motion, extension lag, and complications. The authors combined the data of various types of surface replacement arthroplasty into one group for comparison with silicone arthroplasty.

RESULTS

A total of 849 articles were screened, yielding 40 studies for final review. The mean postoperative arc of motion and the mean gain in arc of motion of silicone implant with the volar approach were 58 and 17 degrees, respectively, which was greater than surface replacement implant with the dorsal approach at 51 and 8 degrees, respectively. The mean postoperative extension lag of silicone implant with the volar approach and surface replacement with the dorsal approach was 5 and 14 degrees, respectively. The revision rate of silicone implant with the volar approach and surface replacement with the dorsal approach was 6 percent and 18 percent at a mean follow-up of 41.2 and 51 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Silicone implant with the volar approach showed the best arc of motion, with less extension lag and fewer complications after surgery among all the implant designs and surgical approaches.

Current European Practice in the Treatment of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surgical Approaches to the Proximal Interphalangeal Joint

The proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint may be affected by many conditions such as arthropathy, fractures, dislocations, and malunions. Whereas some of these conditions may be treated nonsurgically, many require open surgical intervention. Open interventions include implant arthroplasty or arthrodesis for arthropathy, open reduction internal fixation, or hemi-hamate arthroplasty for dorsal fracture-dislocations. Volar plate arthroplasty and corrective osteotomy for malunion about the PIP joint are also surgeries that may be required. The traditional approach to the PIP joint has been dorsal, which damages the delicate extensor apparatus with subsequent development of an extensor lag. This has led surgeons to explore volar and lateral approaches to the PIP joint. In this article, we describe each of these surgical approaches, discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and provide some guidance on which approach to choose based on the surgery that is to be performed.

A Simplified Lateral Hinge Approach to the Proximal Interphalangeal Joint

Proximal interphalangeal joint replacement is an effective treatment for painful arthritis affecting the joint. However, the complication rate is relatively high, with many of these complications related to soft-tissue imbalance or instability. Volar, dorsal, and lateral approaches have all been described with varying results. We describe a new simplified lateral hinge approach that splits the collateral ligament to provide adequate exposure of the joint. Following insertion of the prosthesis the collateral ligament is simply repaired, side-to-side, which stabilizes the joint. As the central slip, opposite collateral ligament, flexor and extensor tendons have not been violated, early active mobilization without splinting is possible, and the risk of instability, swan-neck, and boutonniere deformity are reduced. The indications, contraindications, surgical technique, and rehabilitation protocol are described.

The management of complications of small joint arthrodesis and arthroplasty

Arthrodesis and arthroplasty are surgical options used for the management of pain, stiffness, deformity, and instability related to arthritis and traumatic injury of the small joints of the hand. Arthrodesis and arthroplasty come with a risk of postoperative infection. Superficial soft tissue infections can often be managed with oral antibiotics alone. Deep infections and osteomyelitis frequently require removal of hardware in addition to antibiotics and may require surgical revision once the infection is cleared. Selection of the most appropriate revision technique depends on the underlying cause of the initial failure, patients' functional and outcome needs, and surgeon preference.

Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty with Neuflex® implants: relevance of the volar approach and early rehabilitation

Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty through a volar approach preserves the extensor apparatus, which allows for early active rehabilitation. Here, we report on the results of 28 silicone implants in patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (12 joints) or osteoarthritis (16 joints) with a mean follow-up of 39 months. Pain was reduced significantly after arthroplasty. Range of motion increased significantly by 29° with a mean postoperative value of 58°; the mean extension deficit was reduced from 14° to 5°. There were 18 cases of preoperative ulnar drift with a mean value of 13°, compared with 13 cases postoperatively with a mean value of 7°. Three cases (10%) of implant fracture were noted on the radiology reports. The mean DASH score at follow-up was 35/100. Immediate active mobilization led to significant shortening in recovery time. The improvement in mobility and extension seems to be higher than that obtained with other approaches. Clinodactyly remains problematic no matter the type of arthroplasty.

Ten years' experience with a pyrocarbon prosthesis replacing the proximal interphalangeal joint. A prospective clinical and radiographic follow-up

We prospectively assessed the subjective, objective, and radiographic results at 1, 2, and 5 years in 65 patients who had pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal prostheses inserted between 2001 and 2010. Further operations were done on 10 of the 89 joints (four for prosthetic extraction and arthrodesis, two for component changes, and four for soft tissue procedures). At 1 year, the visual analogue scale score for pain at rest had improved to 0 cm from a pre-operative 4 cm, pain at activity from 6 to 1.8 cm, and Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score from 40 to 25. Range of movement and grip strength were unchanged. At 5 years, 31 joints (21 patients) had a complete radiographic follow-up. Seven proximal and 12 distal components showing zones of osteolysis at 1 year had stabilized and were inert or integrated at 5 years. Three proximal and three distal components had osteolytic zones at 5 years. Forty-seven of 59 patients were pain-free at rest at 1 year, and 19 of 21 at 5 years. No late revisions or loosening occurred.

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.