The long-term results of proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty of the hand

Introduction Small joints replacement is a valid treatment for deforming osteoarthritis and traumatic injuries to the phalangeal joints of the hand to restore motor hand functions. Various types of implants differing in shape, biomechanics and material composition have been developed. The purpose of the study was to evaluate long-term results of the proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty of the hand using various implants and identify their advantages. Material and methods We retrospectively reviewed 78 cases of proximal interphalangeal joint replacement in 64 patients. Outcomes were assessed at 6 months and at follow-up stages with preoperative and postoperative measurements of the range of motion in the joint evaluating pain, radiographs and outcomes measures using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Results The range of motion in the prosthetic joint increased significantly at different follow-up periods with all types of implants. The pain syndrome decreased. Radiographs revealed 10 cases of aseptic instability in the group of constrained prostheses. The DASH assessment showed high subjective satisfaction with the treatment. Discussion We could not find papers reporting PIP joint arthroplasty using SBI D.G.T. implant system. A retrospective study of RM Finger arthroplasty of the PIP joint indicated restored joint stability with AROM improvement and with low pain, although it had a high rate of complications. We recorded no complications with this implant model. Some authors would not recommend the RM Finger implant (Mathys) for PIP joint replacement. Arthroplasty of small joints of the hand with MOJE kermik-implantate showed satisfactory outcomes for 82 % of patients at a long term. Conclusion Arthroplasty of the PIP joint of the hand using various implant designs resulted in greater mobility of the upper limbs, a lower pain due to subjective improvement in the functionality at a long term. Although the procedures were effective with all implant designs the reliability of changes in the parameters was more evident with nonconstrained implants.