XXXX Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty: Minimum Five-Year Follow-Up.

@entity1 @entity571 @entity24933 @entity5144 @entity158 @entity309 @entity130
PURPOSE: To report the outcomes, complications, and survivorship of @entity24933 proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty at a minimum of 5-year follow-up. METHODS: A review of 97 implants in 72 consecutive @entity1 from our joint arthroplasty database was undertaken. @entity1 demographics, complications, further surgery, and implant revision were recorded. Objective outcome was assessed by grip strength, range of motion, and radiological assessment of alignment, loosening, and subsidence. Subjective outcome was assessed by @entity1 Evaluation Measure; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and visual analog scores (0, best; 10, worst) for appearance, satisfaction, and @entity158 . RESULTS: Diagnosis was @entity571 in 60 joints, @entity309 in 12 joints, @entity5144 in 11 joints, and @entity130 in 14 joints. The average follow-up was 118 months (range, 60-164 months). The mean arc of motion was 35   (range, 0   to 90  ). There was no difference in grip strength between operated and nonoperated side. Of the 97 implants, 36 required additional surgery, of which 14 were revised and 22 required reconstruction around a retained implant. The average @entity1 Evaluation Measure and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were 33 (range, 10-69) and 35 (range, 0-93), respectively. Mean visual analog scores for @entity158 , satisfaction, and appearance were 2 (range, 0-8), 7 (0-10), and 8 (0-10), respectively. All implants had a lucent line with nearly all classified as either Herren grade 2 or 3. Progressive loosening was seen in 48% of implants. Implant survival as assessed by Kaplan-Meier was 85% at both 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: @entity158 relief and maintenance of preoperative arc of motion was achieved with no major deterioration over time. Most implant revisions were performed within 24 months of the index procedure. Currently progressive loosening was not translated into revision surgery. Implant revision rate was higher than with other prostheses. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
