Proximal interphalangeal joint replacement: A comparison between the volar and dorsal approach

Natera, Luis; Moya-Gómez, E.; Lamas-Gómez, C.; Proubasta, I.

doi:10.1016/j.recote.2014.06.010

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: There is a lack of scientific consensus on the best arthroplasty implant option for proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthritis, due to diversity in outcome reporting and measurement methods. The development of a standardized core outcome set (COS) and standard outcome measures could mitigate this issue. This study catalogs the reported outcomes and outcome measures found in PIPJ arthroplasty studies, which can be used in the first step of developing a COS. Methods: A database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (January 1, 2010, to March 10, 2021) was performed to retrieve studies that reported outcomes of the 3 most common primary PIPJ arthroplasty implants: silicone, pyrocarbon, and metal-polyethylene. The primary objectives of this study include reported outcomes and outcome measures. Secondary objectives include clinimetric properties of outcome measures, study design, and implant types. Results: Fifty articles met inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 41 (82%) were case series, 8 (16%) were cohort studies, and 1 (2%) was a randomized control trial. Thirty-three unique outcomes were identified. Fifteen (46%) outcomes were clinician-reported and 26 (79%) were patient-reported. Eighteen unique outcome measures were identified. Of the outcome measures, 15 (83%) were patient-reported, 1 (6%) was clinician-reported, and 2 (11%) were reported by both patients and clinicians. Conclusions: Substantial heterogeneity was found in reported outcomes and outcome measures across studies evaluating PIPJ arthroplasty, impeding knowledge translation. The development of a COS for PIPJ arthroplasty is necessary to help compare and pool data across studies, and advance scientific knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The advantage is due to the absence of the chronic articular synovitis bone alterations [4,11,12]. This leads to a better tolerance of the implant and less frequent long term complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regardless of type of implant, none of our cases suffered secondary displacements. There are three operative approaches to perform o prosthetic artroplasty, through dorsal (most frequently used), anterior or lateral incisions [4,12,14]. The surgeon must choose the safest one depending on the quality of the skin, Failure to do so may lead to skin necrosis or infection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term outcome of two types of endoprosthesis in the treatment of MP and PIP joints after posttraumatic disorders

Stamate

Popa

Budurca

et al. 2015

2015 E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHB)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluate clinically and radiologically at three years the long term outcome of Swanson and Mathys endoprosthesis for PIP and MCP joints.There were 30 arthroplasties in 28 patients with posttraumatic MP and PIP joint destruction using 9 Swanson, 21 Mathys implants. The mean range of active motion compared with the opposite site was 59% for MCP joints (Swanson 56%, Mathys 62%) and 54% for PIP joints (Swanson 51%, Mathys 57%). The pinch strength was for MCP joints 72% (Swanson 70%, Mathys 74%) and for PIP joints 69% (Swanson 67%, Mathys 71%). The average grip strength varied from 70% for MP joints to 68% for PIP joints of the opposite no-operated finger. X-ray examination revealed sclerotic lines in 24 patients at stage 0, 3 at stage1 , 2 at stage 2 and 1at stage 4. Conclusion: both Swanson and Mathys implants improved finger movement and hand function with no statistical differences.) Keywords-PIP joint arthroplasty, MCP joit arthoplasty, Mathys prosthesis, Swanson prosthesisI.

show abstract

“…Finally, in a smaller comparative study of 22 proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty patients, the final arc of motion was −15 degrees/60 degrees for the dorsal approach and −2 degrees/62 degrees for the volar approach, showing some improvement in extension lag with the volar approach. 5 Table 1 summarizes outcomes published for volar and dorsal approaches for silicone proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty, as modified from Cheah and Yao. 6 Proubasta et al 7 appear to have achieved the best outcomes with the volar approach.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discussion: An Outcomes Study of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Silicone Implant Arthroplasty Using the Volar Approach

Netscher

Wu-Fienberg

2022

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proximal interphalangeal joint replacement: A comparison between the volar and dorsal approach

Cited by 4 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

Long-term outcome of two types of endoprosthesis in the treatment of MP and PIP joints after posttraumatic disorders

Discussion: An Outcomes Study of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Silicone Implant Arthroplasty Using the Volar Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About