• Olivia Helder, Miriam Marks, Andreas Schweizer, Daniel B Herren, and Stephan Schindele.
• Department of Teaching, Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Jan 1; 141 (1): 173-181.

IntroductionThe aim was to analyse complications after surface replacing and silicone proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty.Materials And MethodsAll complications, reoperations (subsequent intervention without implant modification) and revisions (subsequent surgery with implant modification or removal) were extracted out of our registry for two cohorts: (1) Patients who received a surface replacing arthroplasty at the PIP joint using the CapFlex-PIP prosthesis and (2) patients who received a PIP silicone implant. Furthermore, radiographs were evaluated for deviations from the longitudinal finger axis.ResultsIn our registry, 279 surface replacing implants and 424 silicone implants have been documented. The overall complication rate was 20% for surface replacements and 11% for silicone arthroplasties (p ≤ 0.01) with soft tissue-related events being the most prevalent in both groups. Reoperations were significantly more frequent after surface replacement (5.4%) than silicone arthroplasty (0.5%; p ≤ 0.001), while the revision rates did not differ significantly (4.4% and 3.3%, respectively; p = 0.542). Postoperative axis deviations were significantly less frequent in the surface replacement group (19% versus 58% for silicone arthroplasty; p ≤ 0.001).ConclusionWe recommend using a surface replacing implant in fingers with preoperative axis deviations and correctable anatomical situation, bearing in mind the higher risk of a second surgery. However, treatment outcomes also need to be considered before choosing one implant over another.

17 keywords...

hide…