Patient characteristics, therapy service delivery and patient outcomes following pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: Studies on likely sociodemographic and pre-surgical determinants of hand function and satisfaction following pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty (PPIJA) are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to explore the association between pre-surgical sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and post-surgical hand function and satisfaction of patients who underwent PPIJA. A secondary aim was to evaluate the effects of the procedure on pain and active range of movement (AROM) using retrospective data and on-site follow-up assessment. METHODS: A panel survey of 48 patients (male = 13; female = 35) with median age of 64 years, who had PPIJA between 2001 and 2012, with a total of6l arthroplasties, was conducted. During follow-up, participants' pain and satisfaction, AROM, and hand disability were assessed using the Pain and Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ), goniometer, and the Disability of the Shoulder, Hand and Elbow (DASH) Questionnaire respectively. RESULTS: The main reason for surgery amongst participants was joint stiffness (68%) while 33.3% of the participants had a repeat surgery. Participants' median satisfaction and DASH scores at final assessment were 3 and 22.55 respectively. Patients who underwent arthroplasty once had significantly higher median PSQ scores (p = 0.011) than those who had their surgery repeated. Pain significantly reduced (p < 0.001) while AROM significantly increased (p = 0.001) from pre-operative assessment to final follow-up assessment CONCLUSIONS: Pyrocarbon arthroplasty improved treatment outcomes regarding pain and joint motion; post-operative satisfaction may be associated with patients having a repeat surgery. Keywords: Pyrolytic carbon, proximal interphalangeal joint replacement, arthritis, treatment outcome

Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

“…A total of 50 articles were included after the full-text screen (κ: 0.89, 95% CI, 0.79-1.00). 11, 20–66 One study was excluded due to not differentiating outcomes based on the implant type. 67 Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram.…”