Pyrolytic carbon arthroplasty for the proximal interphalangeal joint: results after minimum 3 years of follow-up
ABSTRACT A retrospective study was undertaken to review the outcomes of a consecutive series of patients treated using pyrocarbon surface replacement arthroplasty by the same surgeon. We analyzed the results of this procedure in 24 proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints in 19 hands of 16 patients. The minimum follow-up was 3 years. The study showed that pyrocarbon PIP joint replacements provided excellent pain relief and high patient satisfaction. More than two-thirds of patients subjectively rated postoperative range of motion and functional outcomes as better than preoperatively. Objective assessment showed a modest improvement in the active range of motion, which did not achieve statistical significance, although we did observe a statistically significant increase in passive range of motion. The results are encouraging for those surgeons who seek an alternative to silicone implant PIP joint arthroplasty in high-demand patients.
- The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 04/2007; 15(3):189-97. DOI:10.1097/BCO.0000000000000149 · 2.40 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There have been limited publications that report long-term outcomes of pyrocarbon implants. This report describes both clinical and radiographic long-term results for patients who have been treated with pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal implants. Thirteen implants in ten patients are reported for an average follow-up of 8.3 years (range 6.2-9.3). All patients were suffering from degenerative joint disease. Five of the 13 digits were free of pain, the remaining eight digits had mild to moderate pain (visual analogue scale 2-5). The average active range of motion was 58° (SD 19°) at latest examination. X-ray results were unremarkable in six digits with an acceptable position of the prosthesis. However, in seven patients significant radiolucent lines (≥ 1 mm) were observed. Three prostheses demonstrated a migration of the proximal component, and one a subsidence of the distal component. Our study does not support the use of this implant for treatment of osteoarthritis of the finger joint owing to high complication rates and limited range of motion.12/2012; 38(6). DOI:10.1177/1753193412469898
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: : Arthritis at the proximal interphalangeal joint can be a disabling chronic condition. Silicone arthroplasty is a common surgical treatment option to provide pain relief and maintain joint mobility. Pyrocarbon implants are gaining popularity as an alternative to silicone prostheses. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the outcomes of silicone and pyrocarbon arthroplasties for patients with proximal interphalangeal joint arthritis. : A computerized search was conducted to identify studies evaluating outcomes of silicone and pyrocarbon arthroplasties. The data extracted were patient demographics, pain relief, range of motion, grip and pinch strength, costs, quality of life, and complications. : Thirty-five relevant citations were identified. Available data showed that both arthroplasties offered satisfactory pain relief. The implants also provided similar postoperative weighted mean arcs of motion, with a value of 37.4 ± 13.6 degrees for silicone and 44.8 ± 16.8 degrees for pyrocarbon. There were comparable results in grip and pinch strengths as well. No studies were identified that performed an economic analysis of arthroplasty. Six studies assessed quality-of-life outcomes after pyrocarbon surgery, and results were mixed. The rates of revision and salvage procedures performed secondary to complications were higher after pyrocarbon arthroplasty. : Based on the available low level of evidence, pyrocarbon arthroplasty does not demonstrate clear superiority over silicone implants. In fact, there is concern about the complication rates of these implants. Future studies should focus on more rigorous study designs using validated quality-of-life scales and economic evaluations before widespread adoption of this new implant. : Therapeutic, IV.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 01/2013; 131(1):114-24. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729f27 · 3.33 Impact Factor