Reoperations Following Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Nonconstrained Arthroplasties

A Modular Surface Gliding Implant (CapFlex-PIP) for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Case Series

“…Moreover, the revision incidence seems higher for surface gliding implants compared to silicone arthroplasty. 15,32,39 Daecke et al 33 reported a revision incidence of 11% for silicone spacers, 27% for titanium devices, and 39% for pyrocarbon prostheses after a mean follow-up of 35 months. Pritsch and Rizzo 15 confirmed this observation and found that the number of reoperations per finger for pyrocarbon prostheses and metal-plastic surface replacement was 1.5 and 1.8 respectively, although the majority of secondary surgeries were done for soft tissue complications.…”

“…12e14 In addition, implant revision remains challenging because most implants require generous bone resection including partial or full release of the collateral ligaments. 15,16 In order to address these limitations, a modular prosthesis for PIP joint arthroplasty (CapFlex-PIP; KLS Martin Group, Tuttlingen, Germany) was developed to offer primary solid bone anchorage with limited bone resection and improved lateral joint stability as a result of the implant's anatomical congruent joint surfaces and because collateral ligaments are preserved during implantation. This pilot investigation aimed at evaluating the clinical and patient-rated outcomes with this new surface gliding implant one year after surgery.…”

Proximal interphalangeal joint replacement with an unconstrained pyrocarbon prosthesis (Ascension®): a long-term follow-up

“…In a study by Pritsch and Rizzo (2011) the authors describe a revision rate of 76 from 294 implants in a mixed series of patients suffering from degenerative and inflammatory arthritis, in which both pyrocarbon and metal-plastic implants were used. Most reoperations were owing to tendon adhesions.…”

“…Although this implant is provided with a porous coating, loosening has been reported (Luther et al, 2010;Pritsch and Rizzo, 2011). In addition, the number of reoperations has been shown to be significantly higher with metal-plastic than with pyrocarbon implants (Ampofo and Aerni, 2011;Pritsch and Rizzo, 2011).…”

“…In addition, the number of reoperations has been shown to be significantly higher with metal-plastic than with pyrocarbon implants (Ampofo and Aerni, 2011;Pritsch and Rizzo, 2011).…”