A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of 3 Types of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty

Arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint with the TACTYS® prosthesis: Preliminary results after a minimum follow-up of 2 years

“…As far as range of motion is concerned, mean ROMFE was 588, which is similar to the mean range of motion of the PIP joint which was 608 [24]. This figure was comparable to that reported in the studies published by Jennings et al [22] (ROMFE = 588), Stoecklein et al [25] (ROMFE = 608) and Daecke et al [21] (ROMFE = 658) using SBI 1 SR-PIP implants.…”

“…More recently, Daecke et al [21] published the results of a study comparing three types of implants: silicone, pyrocarbon and SBI 1 SR-PIP (cobalt-chromium/titanium and polyethylene). At 35 months' follow-up, no significant difference in ROMFE between the three groups was seen.…”

The palmar approach for PIP-arthroplasty according to Simmen: results after 8 years follow-up

“…This is in contrast to previously published data [6,10,20]. Current prosthetic implants show nearly similar postoperative results regarding the range of motion and pain reduction with a lower complication rate for silicone implants [7,11]. Recent publications show increasingly a higher complication rate and shorter durability of non-silicone implants.…”

“…Since the Swanson silicone implant was introduced, research is focused on the comparison and development of new implants made of other materials, like titanium-polyethylene or pyrocarbon [9,10]. But a recent prospective study could show no difference in the postoperative results for newer implant types compared to the Swanson implant except for a higher complication rate [11]. We want to shift the focus on the surgical approach of PIP-arthroplasty as we think that the result is greatly influenced by the approach.…”

Biomechanical evaluation of pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: An in-vitro analysis

“…Most of retrospective clinical studies found that pyrocarbon PIP joint arthroplasty provided patients with excellent pain relief overall and maintained their preoperative PIP joint motion; however, overall implant complications has been very variable, with some good outcomes at short-medium-term follow-up (Branam et al, 2007;Bravo et al, 2007;Chung et al, 2009;Desai et al, 2014;Mashhadi et al, 2012;McGuire et al, 2012;Watts et al, 2012) and some bad outcomes at medium-longer-term follow-up (Chan et al, 2013;Daecke et al, 2012;Dickson et al, 2015;Hutt et al, 2012;Ono et al, 2012;Reissner et al, 2014;Squitieri and Chung, 2008;Sweets and Stern, 2011). Implant loosening with migration, dislocation and implant fracture were the main reported clinical complications (Chan et al, 2013;Ceruso et al, 2017;Dickson et al, 2015;Sweets and Stern, 2011;Reissner et al, 2014).…”