Silicone Rubber Implants for Replacement of Arthritic or Destroyed Joints in the Hand

Swanson, Alfred B.

doi:10.1016/s0039-6109(16)38639-x

Cited by 282 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6 Swanson et al reported favorable, long-term, and rewarding results for PIP joint with dorsal approach. 7 Most authors favored a dorsal approach for silicone implants because of ease of joint exposure despite the use of other approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Ninety-eight % of the patients experienced good pain relief. Arc of motion (AOM) increased after surgery except in the patients with rheumatoid swan-neck deformities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

show abstract

“…Implant arthroplasty has been performed for 45 years using various types of implant designs and materials, such as silicone, ceramic, polyethylene, and metal [1, 3, 4, 13, 18, 20, 24–26]. Swanson [24, 25] primarily was responsible for popularizing silicone implant arthroplasty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Swanson [24, 25] primarily was responsible for popularizing silicone implant arthroplasty. Swanson reported excellent pain relief and functional improvement; however, 20% of patients experienced subluxation of the prosthesis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Promising Thumb Basal Joint Hemiarthroplasty for Treatment of Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis

Pritchett¹,

Habryl

2012

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTrapeziometacarpal joint osteoarthritis is a painful, disabling condition that primarily affects women who are postmenopausal. Arthroplasty has been performed to treat this condition; however, subluxation has been a problem with all previous implants. We report the results of hemiarthroplasty using a prosthesis designed to address the problems associated with previous implants.Questions/purposesWe wished to (1) determine if this prosthesis results in pain relief and functional improvement and preserves the appearance of the thumb, (2) assess the prosthetic reconstruction during followup, (3) assess complications that occur with the use of this prosthesis, and (4) determine the survivorship of this prosthesis.MethodsWe performed 159 basal joint hemiarthroplasties (138 patients) to treat osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint. The mean age of the patients was 63 years, 78% were women, and all had Eaton-Littler Stage II or III changes. Only the damaged articular surfaces of the metacarpal and trapezium were excised; no tendon grafts or transfers were performed. Seven patients (seven thumbs) were lost to followup and seven (nine thumbs) died, leaving 124 patients (143 thumbs) for review. Clinical and radiographic assessments were made preoperatively, 12 weeks postoperatively, and annually thereafter. Minimum followup was 35 months (mean, 72.1 months; range, 35–120 months).ResultsAt latest followup, pain relief occurred in 135 thumbs, function improved in 138 thumbs, 139 thumbs were excellent or good in overall assessment, and 142 thumbs had good or excellent cosmetic appearance. The mean tip pinch improved from 4.9 kg preoperatively to 6.44 kg postoperatively. Mean postoperative Buck-Gramcko score was 49 (excellent); overall Kaplan-Meier analysis with revision as the end point showed 94% implant survivorship at a mean followup of 72.1 months.ConclusionsOur results are superior to those of other implants and support continued use of this implant. Studies with longer followup are required to confirm these results.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

show abstract

“…Swanson ushered in the modern era of small joint arthroplasty with the development of the silicone spacer in 1966 (9–12). Stems of the constrained Swanson implant were designed to act as a piston within the bone, allowing for increased motion (13).…”

Section: The Current Status Of Small Joint Arthroplastymentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in Small Joint Arthroplasty of the Hand

Adkinson

Chung

2014

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Substantial effort has been directed at the development of small joint prostheses for the hand. Despite advances in prosthetic joint design, outcomes have been relatively unchanged over the past 60 years. Pain relief and range of motion achieved after surgery have yet to mirror the success of large joint arthroplasty. Innovations in biotechnology and stem cell applications for damaged joint surfaces may someday make prostheses obsolete. The purpose of this review is to describe the current status, ongoing advances, and future of small joint arthroplasty of the hand.

show abstract

Silicone Rubber Implants for Replacement of Arthritic or Destroyed Joints in the Hand

Cited by 282 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

A Promising Thumb Basal Joint Hemiarthroplasty for Treatment of Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis

Advances in Small Joint Arthroplasty of the Hand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About