BACKGROUND: Scaphoid proximal pole fractures with avascular necrosis represent a complex surgical problem. Many reconstruction techniques are based on osteosynthesis with a vascularized or nonvascularized bone graft. These procedures do not allow early mobilization and therefore sometimes lead to unsatisfying functional results. In some cases, it is possible to perform a scaphoid hemiarthroplasty using a pyrocarbon implant (adaptive proximal scaphoid implant [APSI]) in place of the necrotic proximal pole, allowing an early mobilization and delaying palliative treatments such as 4-corner arthrodesis or proximal row carpectomy. METHODS: In this study, we reviewed all patients who had undergone a scaphoid hemiarthroplasty using APSI in our institutions from 1999 to 2017; the F.U. was performed through radiographic, clinical, and subjective (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) analysis. RESULTS: The performances of scaphoid proximal pole implants are encouraging; radiographic, clinical, and subjective outcomes were good, and the functional recovery proved to be fast and reliable over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports our experience in the use of APSI implants, which proved to be a good alternative to traditional techniques for treating avascular necrosis of the proximal pole, still allowing further surgical steps in case of clinical worsening over time (wrist osteoarthritis). These patients are usually young and present high functional demands. Our experience is promising, but we believe that further evaluation over time will be needed.
BACKGROUND: Scaphoid proximal pole fractures with avascular necrosis represent a complex surgical problem. Many reconstruction techniques are based on osteosynthesis with a vascularized or nonvascularized bone graft. These procedures do not allow early mobilization and therefore sometimes lead to unsatisfying functional results. In some cases, it is possible to perform a scaphoid hemiarthroplasty using a pyrocarbon implant (adaptive proximal scaphoid implant [APSI]) in place of the necrotic proximal pole, allowing an early mobilization and delaying palliative treatments such as 4-corner arthrodesis or proximal row carpectomy. METHODS: In this study, we reviewed all patients who had undergone a scaphoid hemiarthroplasty using APSI in our institutions from 1999 to 2017; the F.U. was performed through radiographic, clinical, and subjective (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) analysis. RESULTS: The performances of scaphoid proximal pole implants are encouraging; radiographic, clinical, and subjective outcomes were good, and the functional recovery proved to be fast and reliable over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports our experience in the use of APSI implants, which proved to be a good alternative to traditional techniques for treating avascular necrosis of the proximal pole, still allowing further surgical steps in case of clinical worsening over time (wrist osteoarthritis). These patients are usually young and present high functional demands. Our experience is promising, but we believe that further evaluation over time will be needed.