Pyrocarbon implants for the hand and wrist

Bellemère, P.

doi:10.1016/j.hansur.2018.03.001

Cited by 75 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pyrocarbon implants are more and more used in hand surgery 12 . The clinical series reported by the articles selected for this study, were composed of patients with advanced wrist osteoarthritis, identifiable with advanced stages of SLAC, SNAC, SCAC or Kienböck disease, where a proximal row carpectomy alone would not be indicated any more.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Resurfacing capitate pyrocarbon implant after proximal row carpectomy: A literature review

Fulchignoni¹,

Caviglia²,

Rocchi³

2020

Orthop Rev (Pavia)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Up to a decade ago, to treat patients with chronic wrist pain due to advanced stages of arthritis, surgeons had four main solutions: partial or total wrist arthrodesis, total wrist prosthesis and proximal row carpectomy (PRC). Since 2010, a new technique has been described in literature using the Resurfacing Capitate Pyrocarbon Implant (RCPI), combined to PRC. The aim of this article is to review the literature and determine the indications, outcomes and complications associated with RCPI. An electronic literature research was carried out and pertinent articles were selected. Surgical technique, results and complications described in those articles are presented. From this review of the literature, authors conclude that Resurfacing Capitate Pyrocarbon Implant can be considered as a good alternative to arthrodesis and total wrist arthroplasty, at any ages, when proximal row carpectomy alone would not be indicated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pyrocarbon 12 has been firstly developed in the 1950s for the nuclear industry. It is around 1969 that its use has been widened to medical field, thanks to its biocompatibility and tribological properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resurfacing capitate pyrocarbon implant after proximal row carpectomy: A literature review

Fulchignoni¹,

Caviglia²,

Rocchi³

2020

Orthop Rev (Pavia)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many revision procedures for trapeziectomy failure have been described in small series. Techniques include costochondral autograft (Glard et al., 2006), pyrocarbon spacer interposition (Bellemere, 2018), Swanson Silastic interposition (Umarji et al., 2012), the Mini Tight-Rope® EndoButton (Arthrex, Naples, FL) placed between the thumb and index metacarpals (Braun et al., 2016) and scaphometacarpal arthrodesis (Goorens et al., 2015). However, there is no consensus on the best procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaphometacarpal arthroplasty: a report of ten cases of trapeziometacarpal prosthesis and trapeziectomy revision

Chiche

Herve

Barbary³

et al. 2020

J Hand Surg Eur Vol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loosening of the trapezial component is a main cause of failure of trapeziometacarpal prostheses. This report presents the preliminary results of scaphometacarpal prostheses used for revision of trapeziometacarpal prostheses and failed trapeziectomies. A retrospective multicentre study was conducted on ten patients. Four had revision surgery after failure of trapeziometacarpal prostheses, five after trapeziectomy and one after a trapezial silicone implant. Pain, mobility, strength, QuickDASH, satisfaction score and radiographs were assessed. Nine patients were assessed (one was lost to follow-up), with a mean follow-up of 34 months. The mean pain score was 1.2/10, Quick-DASH was 39 and opposition according to the Kapandji score was 8.6. Strength was 3 kg for key pinch and 13.6 kg for power grip. One failure was observed, with early loosening of the scaphoid cup. Scaphometacarpal arthroplasty is a reliable medium-term solution for revision of the loosening of a trapeziometacarpal prosthesis with trapezial damage and for failed trapeziectomy. Level of evidence: IV

show abstract

“…3 Proximal interphalangeal arthroplasty has consistently produced satisfactory pain relief and increased joint mobility for most patie nts. 8,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] It was once a mainstay treatment for RA, but with the introduction of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in the 1990s, the need for PIPA in this patient population has continually decreased in the recent decades. Nonetheless, reconstruction rates for the osteoarthritic hand have gradually increased.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in Primary Proximal Interphalangeal Joint System and Revisions for Osteoarthritis of the Hand in the Medicare Database

Madden

Palmer

Ameri

et al. 2019

Hand (New York, N,Y.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Proximal interphalangeal arthroplasty (PIPA) has been indicated for patients suffering from osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. Although there is extensive literature showing the outcomes of PIPA, there is paucity in the literature regarding trends of PIPA in patients with OA of the hand. The purpose of this study was to determine annual primary utilization and revision PIPA trends within the Medicare population with the use of an administrative database. Methods: A retrospective query was performed using the Medicare Standard Analytical Files from the PearlDiver database. Patients undergoing primary and revision PIPA with hand OA were queried using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, and Current Procedural Terminology coding. Primary outcomes analyzed included annual and revision utilization of PIPA and demographic comparison of age, gender, and geographic location. Statistical analysis was primarily descriptive. An α value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The query returned 10 191 patients who underwent primary and revision PIPA between 2005 and 2013. Calculated annual growth rate for primary and revision PIPA was 2.40% and −0.03%, respectively (P < .001). Patients between the ages of 70 and 74 years represented most of the patients undergoing a primary PIPA, whereas patients between 65 and 69 years most commonly underwent a revision procedure. Regionally, primary and revision PIPA were most commonly performed in the South. Conclusion: The data demonstrate an increased use of primary PIPA utilization for patients with OA, whereas revision PIPA decreased. The increased use indicates the increasing demand for PIPA in the United States.

show abstract

Pyrocarbon implants for the hand and wrist

Cited by 75 publications

References 97 publications

Resurfacing capitate pyrocarbon implant after proximal row carpectomy: A literature review

Resurfacing capitate pyrocarbon implant after proximal row carpectomy: A literature review

Scaphometacarpal arthroplasty: a report of ten cases of trapeziometacarpal prosthesis and trapeziectomy revision

Trends in Primary Proximal Interphalangeal Joint System and Revisions for Osteoarthritis of the Hand in the Medicare Database

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About