PURPOSE: The objective was to examine outcomes associated with a large cohort of revision metacarpophalangeal (MCP) arthroplasties. METHODS: A review of 128 revision MCP arthroplasties performed in 64 patients was performed. The mean age at surgery was 62 years. Fifty nonconstrained (31 pyrocarbon and 19 surface-replacing arthroplasty) and 78 constrained silicone implants were used for revisions. RESULTS: At a follow-up of 6 years (2 to 16), 20 (16%) implants required a secondary revision surgery. The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 81% and 79%, respectively. Postoperative dislocation occurred in 17 (13%) MCP joints. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a 5-year survival rate of 67% in surface-replacing arthroplasties, compared with 83% for both pyrocarbon and silicone implants (hazard ratio, 2.60; P = 0.09). Clinical improvements in pain and MCP range of motion were noted in most patients postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Revision MCP arthroplasty is a challenging procedure with one in five patients requiring a revision procedure at 5 years and a relatively high rate of postoperative dislocations. However, most patients who did not undergo a secondary revision surgery experienced improvements in pain and range of motion. Worse outcomes are seen in patients with a history of MCP dislocations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
PURPOSE: The objective was to examine outcomes associated with a large cohort of revision metacarpophalangeal (MCP) arthroplasties. METHODS: A review of 128 revision MCP arthroplasties performed in 64 patients was performed. The mean age at surgery was 62 years. Fifty nonconstrained (31 pyrocarbon and 19 surface-replacing arthroplasty) and 78 constrained silicone implants were used for revisions. RESULTS: At a follow-up of 6 years (2 to 16), 20 (16%) implants required a secondary revision surgery. The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 81% and 79%, respectively. Postoperative dislocation occurred in 17 (13%) MCP joints. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a 5-year survival rate of 67% in surface-replacing arthroplasties, compared with 83% for both pyrocarbon and silicone implants (hazard ratio, 2.60; P = 0.09). Clinical improvements in pain and MCP range of motion were noted in most patients postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Revision MCP arthroplasty is a challenging procedure with one in five patients requiring a revision procedure at 5 years and a relatively high rate of postoperative dislocations. However, most patients who did not undergo a secondary revision surgery experienced improvements in pain and range of motion. Worse outcomes are seen in patients with a history of MCP dislocations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.