Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at customercare@wspc.com for any enquiries.

SEARCH GUIDE  Download Search Tip PDF File

  • articleNo Access

    MatOrtho Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty via Lateral Approach: Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

    Background: The MatOrtho implant is a cementless, mobile-bearing surface arthroplasty with a cobalt–chromium metal-on polyethylene articulation designed to treat osteoarthritis of the PIP joint. Early results for the prosthesis inserted through a dorsal approach have demonstrated good pain relief but no significant improvement in range of motion. In an attempt to improve the range of motion the senior author has changed his surgical practice to inserting the MatOrtho implant via a lateral approach. The purpose of this study is to assess the outcome of this change of surgical technique.

    Methods: Consecutive patients with osteoarthritis who underwent PIPJ replacement surgery via the lateral approach at a single institution, with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years were identified. A visual analogue score was used to assess pain. Grip strength, range of motion and functional outcomes scores were collected.

    Results: A total of 46 PIP joint arthroplasties were performed in 29 patients. Ten patients were lost to follow-up resulting in 33 PIP joint arthroplasties reviewed in 19 patients. Six implants failed. The mean follow-up time at the final follow-up for the remaining 25 prosthesis was 34.2 months (range 24–52). Range of motion improved from a mean of 37.2 preoperatively to a mean of 57.9 postoperatively. This was statistically significant (p = 0.0007). There was also a significant improvement in pain and functional outcome scores but not for grip strength.

    Conclusions: The MatOrtho PIPJ replacement delivers significant improvements in pain relief and functional outcome scores, as well as increased range of motion when the surgical procedure is performed through a lateral approach. There are, however, limitations to the use of this implant. Currently we do not consider this implant when there is instability or deformity of the PIP joint preoperatively.

  • articleNo Access

    A Comparison of the Outcomes of Excision of the Fractured Hook of Hamate via a Carpal Tunnel Approach versus a Lateral Approach

    Background: The excision of the hook of the hamate is an accepted modality for the treatment of hook of hamate fractures. Three surgical approaches to the hook of hamate have been described in literature. This includes two palmar approaches namely the Guyon canal approach and the carpal tunnel approach, and the lateral approach. The aim of this article is to compare the outcomes of the carpal tunnel approach and the lateral approach.

    Methods: Twenty-four patients with hook of hamate fractures were treated by excision of the hook of hamate. The hook of hamate was approached via the carpal tunnel in 15 patients and via the lateral approach in 9 patients. The outcomes with regard to duration of the surgery, complications such as pain, sensory disturbance and scar problems and time to return to sports were measured and analysed.

    Results: There were no significant differences in outcomes between the carpal tunnel and the lateral approach for excision of hook of hamate fractures.

    Conclusions: The outcomes of excision of the hook of hamate via the carpal tunnel approach and the lateral approach are similar. The decision to choose an approach should be based on the surgeon's familiarity with the approach. Future studies should include a comparison with the Guyon canal approach preferably in a homogenous group of patients.

    Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic)