Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 May;129(5):1139–1150. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824a2e38

Table 6.

Published Reports on PIPJ Arthroplasty with Pyrocarbon Implants

Report Evaluation
Group		 Follow-
up
(Month)		 Functional
Outcomes		 Pain
(No of Joints)		 Patients’
Satisfaction
(No of Joints)		 Radiograph
Findings
(No of Joints)		 Complications
(No of Joints)
Short-term study
Tuttle
et al
200619 		18 joints
8 patients		 Mean 13

  • ROM: increased

  • Grip: increased

  • Complete pain relief (8/16)

  • Overall satisfaction: 8.4/10 on VAS

  • Satisfied completely (9/16)

  • Improved appearance (15/16)

  • Loosening (2/18)

  • Squeaking (8/18)

  • Contracture (5/18)

  • Dislocation (2/18)
Herren
et al
200620 		17 joints
14 patients		 Mean 19

  • ROM: increased

  • Grip: increased

  • Significant pain relief in all patients

  • 10/14 patients satisfied

  • Migration (8/17)

  • Radiolucent lines (3/17)

  • Dislocation (1/17)
Nunley
et al
200618 		7 joints
5 patients		 Mean 17

  • ROM: decreased

  • Grip: increased

  • DASH: unchanged

  • All patients had remaining pain after surgery

  • From 6/10 to 4/10 on VAS

  • 5/6 patients dissatisfied

  • Loosening & bone loss (1/7)

  • Deformity (3/7)

  • Deep infection (1/7)
Meier
et al
200721 		24 joints
20 patients		 Mean 15 N/A

  • Significant pain relief with average VAS of 0.9/10 at rest, 2.8/10 with weight-bearing

  • 16/20 patients satisfied

  • Osteophyte (3/21)

  • Periprosthetic cysts (2/21)

  • Subluxation (1/21)

  • Squeaking (9/21)

  • Dislocation (2/24)

  • Infection (1/24)
Chung
et al
200917 		21 joints
14 patients		 > 12

  • ROM: decreased

  • Grip: increased

  • Pinch: increased

  • JT test: improved

  • Function: improved on MHQ

  • Significant pain relief on MHQ

  • Improvement of overall satisfaction, ADL, work, aesthetic domains on MHQ

 N/A

  • Squeaking (3/21)

  • Dislocation (3/21)
Wijk
et al
201033 		53 joints
43 patients		 Mean 23

  • ROM: decreased

  • Grip: increased

  • COPM: increased

  • DASH: decreased

  • All patients reported decreased pain

  • 36/40 patients were pain-free at rest, 18/40 were free of pain with activity

  • Overall satisfaction: from 3.8/10 to 5.9/10 on COPM

 N/A

  • Infection (2/53)

  • Deformity (1/53)

  • Stiffness (1/53)
Intermediate-term Study
Bravo
et al
20078 		50 joints
35 patients		 Mean 37
>27

  • ROM: increased

  • Grip: increased

  • Pinch: increased

  • All patients had pain relief after surgery

  • From 6/10 to 1/10 on VAS

  • 27/34 patients satisfied

  • Radiographic change without loosening (20/50)

  • Instability (4/50)

  • Loosening (4/50)

  • Deformity (4/50)

  • Stiffness (2/50)
Sweets
et al
201122 		31 joints
17 patients		 Mean 55
>24

  • ROM: decreased

  • Worsening of function on MHQ

  • 3/10 on VAS at final follow-up

  • Worsening of pain on MHQ

  • Overall satisfaction: 3.4/5 on Likert scale

  • 12/17 patients stated that they would repeat the surgery

  • Worsening of overall satisfaction, ADL, work on MHQ

  • Improved appearance

  • Migration (10/31)

  • Breached bone cortex by implant (1/31)

  • Contracture (20/31)

  • Loosening (15/31)

  • Squeaking (11/31)

  • Dislocation (5/31)

  • Implant fracture (1/31)

ROM: range of motion, VAS: visual analog scale, DASH: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, COPM: Canadian Model of Occupational Performance, JT test: Jebsen-Taylor test, MHQ: Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire