Background: In 2012, our unit published our experience with a pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) implant. Due to high subsidence rates, a decision was made to change to a cemented surface replacement proximal interphalangeal joint (SR-PIPJ) implant. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the change to a cemented implant would improve the subsidence rates. Methods: Retrospective review of all patients who had a cemented SR-PIPJ arthroplasty performed from 2011 to 2013 with at least 12 months follow-up. Results: A total of 43 joints were included with an average follow-up of 26.5 months. There was a significant (P = .02) improvement in arc of motion with an average satisfaction score of 3.3 (satisfied patient). Subsidence was noted in 26% of joints with a significant difference in range of motion (P = .003) and patient satisfaction (P = .001) between the group with and without subsidence. Conclusions: The change to a cemented implant resulted in satisfied patients with an improvement in range of motion. The rate of subsidence improved but remains unacceptably high.
Background: In 2012, our unit published our experience with a pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) implant. Due to high subsidence rates, a decision was made to change to a cemented surface replacement proximal interphalangeal joint (SR-PIPJ) implant. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the change to a cemented implant would improve the subsidence rates. Methods: Retrospective review of all patients who had a cemented SR-PIPJ arthroplasty performed from 2011 to 2013 with at least 12 months follow-up. Results: A total of 43 joints were included with an average follow-up of 26.5 months. There was a significant (P = .02) improvement in arc of motion with an average satisfaction score of 3.3 (satisfied patient). Subsidence was noted in 26% of joints with a significant difference in range of motion (P = .003) and patient satisfaction (P = .001) between the group with and without subsidence. Conclusions: The change to a cemented implant resulted in satisfied patients with an improvement in range of motion. The rate of subsidence improved but remains unacceptably high.
Authors: Peter M Murray; Ronald L Linscheid; William P Cooney; Vickie Baker; Michael G Heckman Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 5.284