Results of surface replacement proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

Lawson-Smith, Matthew; Policinski, Igor; Smith, Janet P.; Roberts, Chris

doi:10.1016/j.jajs.2014.06.001

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 50 articles were included after the full-text screen (κ: 0.89, 95% CI, 0.79-1.00). 11, 20–66 One study was excluded due to not differentiating outcomes based on the implant type. 67 Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Optimal Position for Arthrodesis of the Proximal Interphalangeal Joints of the Border Digits

Fram

Seigerman

Cross

et al. 2020

The Journal of Hand Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Yamamoto

Malay

Fujihara

et al. 2017

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Outcomes after implant arthroplasty for primary degenerative and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (OA) of proximal interphalangeal (PIP) 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 PIP joint OA with 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 PIP joint OA. Data collection included active arc of motion (AOM), extension lag, and complications. We combined the data of various types of surface replacement arthroplasty into one group to compare with silicone arthroplasty. Results A total of 849 articles were screened, yielding 40 studies for final review. The mean postoperative AOM and the mean gain in AOM of silicone implant with volar approach were 58° and 17° respectively which was greater than surface replacement implant with dorsal approach as 51° and 8°, respectively. The mean postoperative extension lag of silicone implant with volar approach and surface replacement with dorsal approach was 5° and 14° respectively. The revision rate of silicone implant with volar approach and surface replacement with dorsal approach was 6% and 18% at the mean follow-up period of 41.2 and 51 months, respectively. Conclusions Silicone implant with volar approach showed the best AOM with less extension lag and fewer complications after surgery among all the implant designs and surgical approaches.

show abstract

Results of surface replacement proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

Cited by 3 publications

References 21 publications

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

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

The Optimal Position for Arthrodesis of the Proximal Interphalangeal Joints of the Border Digits

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About