Original ArticleNo Access

Outcomes of Unconstrained Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Pulvertaft Hand Centre, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK

E-mail Address: kunalkulkarni@doctors.org.uk

Correspondence to: Mr Kunal Kulkarni, Pulvertaft Hand Centre, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS, Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Rd, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK. Tel: +44 1332 787290.

Search for more papers by this author

Nomaan SHEIKH

Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Kettering, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Randeep AUJLA

Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Pip DIVALL

Clinical Librarian Service, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Joseph DIAS

AToMS-Academic Team of Musculoskeletal Surgery, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835522500266Cited by:2 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

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)

Keywords:

REFERENCES

1. Adams J, Ryall C, Pandyan A, et al.. Proximal interphalangeal joint replacement in patients with arthritis of the hand: A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(10):1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B10.29035. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2. Herren DB. Current European practice in the treatment of proximal interphalangeal joint arthritis. Hand Clin. 2017;33(3):489–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2017.04.002. Crossref, Google Scholar
3. Yamamoto M, Malay S, Fujihara Y, Zhong L, Chung KC. A aystematic review of different implants and approaches for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(5):1139e–1151e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003260. Crossref, Google Scholar
4. Forster N, Schindele S, Audige L, Marks M. Complications, re-operations and revisions after proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2018;43(10):1066–1075. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193418770606. Crossref, Google Scholar
5. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al.. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. Crossref, Google Scholar
6. Aujla RS, Sheikh N, Divall P, Bhowal B, Dias JJ. Unconstrained metacarpophalangeal joint arthroplasties: A systematic review. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(1):100–106. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.37237. Crossref, Google Scholar
7. Coleman BD, Khan KM, Maffulli N, Cook JL, Wark JD. Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: Clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies. Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000;10(1):2–11. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010001002.x. Crossref, Google Scholar
8. Simpson-White R, Chojnowski A. Pyrocarbon metacarpophalangeal joint replacement in primary osteoarthritis. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2014;39(6):575–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193413511946. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9. Lucas GL. Arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Curr Orthop Pract. 2016;27(1):90–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193413511946. Crossref, Google Scholar
10. Tuttle HG, Stern PJ. Pyrolytic carbon proximal interphalangeal joint resurfacing arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2006;31(6):930–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.02.018. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11. Stutz N, Meier R, Krimmer H. [Pyrocarbon prosthesis for finger interphalangeal joint replacement. Experience after one year]. Der Unfallchirurg. 2005;108(5):365–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-004-0891-y. Crossref, Google Scholar
12. Chan K, Ayeni O, McKnight L, Ignacy TA, Farrokhyar F, Thoma A. Pyrocarbon versus silicone proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: A systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):114–124. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729f27. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13. Amirtharajah M, Fufa D, Lightdale N, Weiland A. Conical, radiographic, and patient-reported results of surface replacing proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty of the hand. Iowa Orthop J. 2011;31:140–144. Medline, Google Scholar
14. Pellegrini Jr VD, Burton RI. Osteoarthritis of the proximal interphalangeal joint of the hand: Arthroplasty or fusion? J Hand Surg Am. 1990;15(2):194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-5023(90)90096-a. Crossref, Google Scholar
15. Sweets TM, Stern PJ. Proximal interphalangeal joint prosthetic arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(7):1190–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.04.005. Crossref, Google Scholar
16. Herren DB, Schindele S, Goldhahn J, Simmen BR. Problematic bone fixation with pyrocarbon implants in proximal interphalangeal joint replacement: Short-term results. J Hand Surg Br. 2006;31(6):643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2006.08.004. Crossref, Google Scholar
17. Takigawa S, Meletiou S, Sauerbier M, Cooney WP. Long-term assessment of Swanson implant arthroplasty in the proximal interphalangeal joint of the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 2004;29(5):785–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.03.008. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
18. Branam BR, Tuttle HG, Stern PJ, Levin L. Resurfacing arthroplasty versus silicone arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(6):775–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.04.006. Crossref, Google Scholar
19. Foliart DE. Swanson silicone finger joint implants: A review of the literature regarding long-term complications. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20(3):445–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-5023(05)80104-2. Crossref, Google Scholar
20. Satteson ES, Langford MA, Li Z. The management of complications of small joint arthrodesis and arthroplasty. Hand Clin. 2015;31(2):243–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2015.01.002. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
21. Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel. ODEP explained. Accessed October 10, 2021. http://www.odep.org.uk/ODEPExplained.aspx. Google Scholar