Suitability of Using the Hamate for Reconstruction of the Finger Middle Phalanx Base: An Assessment of Cartilage Thickness

Dale J Podolsky; James Mainprize; Catherine McMillan; Paul Binhammer

doi:10.1177/2292550319826084

. 2019 Mar 13;27(3):211–216. doi: 10.1177/2292550319826084

Show available content in

Suitability of Using the Hamate for Reconstruction of the Finger Middle Phalanx Base: An Assessment of Cartilage Thickness

Dale J Podolsky ^1,^✉, James Mainprize ², Catherine McMillan ³, Paul Binhammer ³

PMCID: PMC6696865 PMID: 31453140

Abstract

Background:

Osteochondral grafts are indicated for reconstructing the finger middle phalanx base when there is greater than 50% involvement of the articular surface and significant comminution. This study aims to compare the cartilage thickness of the distal surface of the hamate to the finger middle phalanx base to assess its suitability as an osteochondral graft.

Methods:

A 3-dimensional laser scanner and computer modelling techniques were utilized to determine the cartilage thickness of the distal surface of the hamate, and finger middle phalanx base using cadaver specimens. The mean, maximum, and coefficient of variation (CV%; a measure of uniformity of cartilage distribution), as well as cartilage distribution maps were determined.

Results:

The mean cartilage thickness of the hamate was 0.73 ± 0.08 mm compared to the average mean thickness of the finger middle phalanx base of 0.40 ± 0.12 mm. The maximum cartilage thickness of the hamate was 1.27 ± 0.14 mm compared to the average maximum of the finger middle phalanx base of 0.67 ± 0.14 mm. The CV% of the hamate was 27.8 ± 4.2 compared to the average CV% for the finger middle phalanx base of 26.6 ± 8.1. The hamate and finger middle phalanx base have maximum areas that were most frequently at or spanning the median ridge; however, this was more consistently observed with the hamate.

Conclusion:

The distal surface of the hamate is a suitable osteochondral graft with respect to cartilage thickness and distribution providing sufficient cartilage for reconstruction of the finger middle phalanx base.

Keywords: 3-dimensional laser scanning, cartilage thickness, proximal interphalangeal joint, middle phalanx base, osteochondral graft, hamate

Introduction

Fracture dislocations of the finger proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint are challenging injuries to treat and can result in persistent pain, stiffness, and functional loss.

It is generally accepted that successful reconstruction of the finger PIP joint depends on restoration of the native articular surface anatomy.^1–7 There are several nonsurgical and surgical treatment options to repair the middle phalanx base. Small fractures involving less than 30% of the middle phalanx base can be managed nonsurgically with extension block splinting.^8,9 For fractures involving 30% to 50% of the articular surface, surgical intervention with external fixation,^9,10 open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), or volar plate arthroplasty (VPA) have been utilized.⁹ When greater than 50% of the joint surface is lost, ORIF successfully restores the joint’s congruency but is difficult when there is significant comminution.⁹ The VPA is recommended for such cases but can result in poor motion and repeated dorsal subluxation.⁹

Osteochondral grafts from the distal surface of the hamate (Figure 1) allow for treatment of middle phalanx base fractures involving greater than 50% of the joint surface³ and when there is a high degree of comminution.^2,9 Although distal hamate grafts have an appropriate anatomical shape,^1,3,9 the unique biomechanical loading to which they are subjected may result in differences in cartilage thickness compared to the middle phalanx base.¹¹ These differences may impact the functional success of the reconstructed joint.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ^12–14 ultrasound,¹⁵ and laser scanning^16–20 techniques have been utilized to determine the cartilage thickness of the finger joints. The use of MRI for thin cartilage layers such as the joints in the hand is limited by inadequate image resolutions.²¹ Ultrasound is limited by variations in the velocity of sound across the cartilage surface.²² Three-dimensional laser scanning is an established method for capturing the thickness of thin cartilage layers.^16–20

This study utilized a laser scanning method to compare the cartilage thickness of the distal hamate to the finger middle phalanx base to determine the suitability of using the hamate as an osteochondral graft for reconstruction of the finger middle phalanx base.

Methods

Eight unembalmed cadaver right hands with a mean age of 79 years (range: 62-91 years) were obtained for cartilage thickness analysis. Each specimen was visually examined to assess for cartilage loss and arthritic changes. The specimens from 2 hands were discarded due to extensive cartilage loss. All study procedures were approved by the institutional research ethics board. A laser scanner and image processing technique was used to determine the cartilage thickness of the finger middle phalanx base and distal surface of the hamate. Only the highlights of this method are presented in the present study, as the details of this methodology can be found in our previous publication.²⁰

The finger middle phalanx and hamate bones were carefully dissected from each hand. Following dissection and removal of the specimens from the hands, four to six 2.5 mm K-wires were drilled into the hamate/phalanx bone away from the cartilage surface. Fiducials (markers used as points of reference in 3-dimensional space) were than adhered to the ends of the K-wires (Figure 2) to perform computational registration. Each bone with cartilage was then scanned using a 3-dimensional laser scanner (NextEngine, Santa Monica, California) with an accuracy of ± 100 µm. The cartilage was then dissolved in sodium hypochlorite solution, and the same cartilage-free specimen was scanned again. Computer models of the specimen with cartilage and cartilage-free specimens were aligned using the fiducials in the image processing software Amira (Visage Imaging, Andover, Massachusetts). The registration technique consists of manually placing landmarks on corresponding fiducials on the specimen with cartilage and the same specimen without cartilage. A function within the software overlays the 2 specimens by minimizing the collective distance between the corresponding landmarks. The cartilage thickness was determined by computing the distance between the 2 registered surfaces. The cartilage-bone margin was determined by varying the threshold of the distance between the 2 surfaces. This resulted in easy delineation of the margin and manual segmentation of the cartilage from the surrounding bone.

Figure 2. — Hamate bone mounted on clay base with fiducial (markers used as points of reference in 3-dimensional space) landmarks fixated to 4 K-wires.

The mean and maximum thickness and the coefficient of variation (CV%; standard deviation/mean × 100) were determined for each specimen. Given the sample size, the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to statistically compare the cartilage thickness of the hamate to that of the finger middle phalanx base. Topographical cartilage thickness maps were generated for each articular surface to compare the thickness distribution of the hamate to the middle phalanx base.

Results

Mean, Maximum, and CV%

The results of the comparison between the hamate and the middle phalanx base can be found in Table 1. A total of 24 finger joints and 6 hamates were analyzed. The mean cartilage thickness of the hamate was significantly larger than that of the middle phalanx base in all fingers (P = .028). Similarly, the maximum cartilage thickness of the distal hamate was significantly larger than the middle phalanx base in all fingers (P = .028). With respect to the CV%, there was no significant difference between the hamate and all fingers (P = .116-.917).

Table 1.

Cartilage Thickness of the Hamate Versus Finger Middle Phalanx Base.

Metrics	Hamate (n = 6)	Finger Middle Phalanx Base (n = 6)
Metrics	Hamate (n = 6)	Index	Long	Ring	Little	Average
Mean ± (SD) (mm) (range)	0.73 ± 0.08 (0.63-0.82)	0.39 ± 0.13^a (0.23-0.53)	0.49 ± 0.13^a (0.29-0.59)	0.41 ± 0.13^a (0.26-0.58)	0.34 ± 0.13^a (0.15-0.49)	0.40 ± 0.12 (0.15-0.59)
Max ± SD (mm) (range)	1.27 ± 0.14 (1.09-1.43)	0.68 ± 0.18^a (0.45-0.94)	0.74 ± 0.12^a (0.60-0.87)	0.73 ± 0.22^a (0.57-1.17)	0.59 ± 0.16^a (0.38-0.78)	0.67 ± 0.14 (0.45-1.17)
CV% ± SD (range)	27.8 ± 4.2 (21-33)	23.9 ± 5.4 (13.8-28.3)	28.7 ± 7.8 (16.8-41.1)	25.8 ± 9.4 (14.4-38.3)	27.4 ± 9.6 (19.1-44.7)	26.6 ± 8.1 (13.8-44.7)

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CV%, coefficient of variation; SD, standard deviation.

^aSignificant difference between hamate and finger middle phalanx base (P < .05).

Cartilage Distribution Maps

The cartilage thickness distribution maps of the hamate are shown in Figure 3. The median ridge of the distal surface of the hamate was the most common area of maximum thickness. Two specimens (Figure 3 [4 and 6]) had separate secondary maximum areas spanning the median ridge. One specimen (Figure 3 [1]) had a more asymmetric thickness pattern compared to the other specimens.

The distribution maps of cartilage thickness of the finger middle phalanx base indicated 2 general patterns: The cartilage was thickest at or spanning the median ridge (Figure 4) or was thickest in areas outside of the median ridge (Figure 5). Eleven specimens had distinct maximum thickness areas that were at or spanning the median ridge. Three came from the index, 3 from the long, 2 from the ring, and 3 from the little finger. However, the positions of these areas along the median ridge were variable. When the maximum area was not at or spanning the median ridge, no common thickness pattern was seen.

Figure 4. — Cartilage thickness distribution maps for the finger middle phalanx base with the area of maximum thickness at or spanning the median ridge.

Figure 5. — Cartilage thickness distribution maps for the finger middle phalanx base with the area of maximum thickness at various locations surrounding the median ridge.

Discussion

This study characterized and compared the cartilage thickness of the distal hamate to the finger middle phalanx base to determine the suitability of using hamate osteochondral grafts to repair the finger middle phalanx base using a 3-dimensional laser scanning method.

The results of the present study demonstrate that the cartilage thickness of the distal hamate is significantly thicker than the cartilage thickness of the middle phalanx base for all finger comparisons. With respect to absolute mean and maximum cartilage thickness, the hamate was greater than double the thickness of the little finger middle phalanx base and nearly double the thickness to that of the index and ring fingers. The long finger had the thickest middle phalanx base cartilage and was therefore closest in thickness compared to the hamate.

In addition to the mean and maximum cartilage thickness, an important measure of the variability of the cartilage thickness across a joint can be described by the CV%. Adam et al²³ reported a CV% range of cartilage thickness between 25% and 36% for the hip, knee, and foot/ankle. The CV% values of 26% to 34% have been reported for the finger proximal and middle phalanx condyles.²⁰ These results indicate that the variability of cartilage thickness is comparable across different joints of the body. In the present study, the CV% values of 24% to 29% for the hamate and middle phalanx base also falls within a comparable range. In addition, the hamate CV% (27.8%) was very close to that of the middle phalanx base CV% (26.6%) indicating similar variability in cartilage distribution.

The cartilage thickness distribution pattern of the middle phalanx base was more variable then the hamate. All hamate maximums were at or spanning the median ridge, whereas more than half the middle phalanx base specimens had maximum areas outside of the median ridge. However, the most common thickness distribution pattern of the finger middle phalanx base was similar to the hamate with the area of maximum thickness at or spanning the median ridge. In addition, the proportion of specimens with maximum areas at or spanning the median ridge was similar for each of the index, long, ring, and small fingers.

Several other joints have been utilized as osteochondral grafts to repair the finger PIP joint including the ribs^4,7 and the third toe.²⁰ Our previous study²⁰ demonstrated that the cartilage thickness of the third toe middle phalanx base with an absolute mean value of 0.28 ± 0.06 mm (range: 0.21-0.37 mm) and maximum value of 0.47 ± 0.09 mm (range: 0.37-0.63 mm) was smaller than all finger middle phalanx base values. In addition, the cartilage distribution of the third toe had more variable thickness distribution patterns compared to the hamate. This suggests that the hamate is a more suitable osteochondral graft as its thicker cartilage offers the benefit of having more cartilage reserve in comparison with the third toe. The thicker cartilage of the hamate may improve the length of successful graft function as histological analysis of failed osteochondral grafts have shown evidence of cartilage fibrillation and erosion.²⁴ However, this was demonstrated with allograft. In addition, the less variable cartilage thickness distribution of the hamate may offer more predictable and consistent outcomes. It is unclear whether the thicker cartilage of the hamate may reduce joint function. However, careful technique should ensure that the grafted articular surface is congruent with the proximal phalanx condyles to maintain smooth joint range of motion.

A significant limitation of this study was the age of the sample population (average age of 79 years). Results of studies evaluating the impact of ageing on cartilage thickness are conflicting, with some studies reporting decreased thickness with age and others reporting no significant changes.^22,23,25 However, the potential effects of age on cartilage thickness should be considered. In the present study, the 2 oldest cadavers (88 and 91 years of age) were found to have the thinnest cartilage overall. In addition, patients who receive this surgery are typically younger, usually between the age of 20 and 50.²⁶

Another significant limitation of this study was the small sample size of only 6 specimens. Despite this, the effect size comparing the hamate to the finger middle phalanx base was sufficiently large to yield significance for all comparisons between mean and maximum thickness. This indicates that one can safely conclude that the hamate is substantially thicker than the finger middle phalanx base.

Despite these limitations, this study indicates that the distal surface of the hamate is significantly thicker than the finger middle phalanx base. Although less conclusive, the cartilage thickness distribution of the hamate appears to be similar to the most common distribution pattern seen in the middle phalanx base. Therefore, with respect to cartilage thickness, the hamate is a suitable osteochondral graft for repair of the finger middle phalanx base.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the support of the CREMS (Comprehensive Research Experience for Medical Students) program and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Division of Plastic Surgery. The authors would also like to thank the support of the Sunnybrook Orthopaedic and Biomechanics laboratory for laboratory space and the University of Toronto, Division of Anatomy for their expertise.

Level of Evidence: Level 5, Therapeutic

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

1. Capo JT, Hastings H, II, Choung E, Kinchelow T, Rossy W, Steinberg B. Hemicondylar hamate replacement arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocations: an assessment of graft suitability. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(5):733–739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. McAuliffe JA. Hemi-hamate autograft for the treatment of unstable dorsal fracture dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(10):1890–1894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Williams RM, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Treatment of unstable dorsal proximal interphalangeal fracture/dislocations using a hemi-hamate autograft. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28(5):856–865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Sato K, Nakamura T, Nakamichi N, Okuyama N, Toyama Y, Ikegami H. Finger joint reconstruction with costal osteochondral graft. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2008;12(3):150–155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Gaul JS., Jr Articular fractures of the proximal interphalangeal joint with missing elements: repair with partial toe joint osteochondral autografts. J Hand Surg Am. 1999;24(1):78–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Jupiter JB, Goldfarb CA, Nagy L, Boyer MI. Posttraumatic reconstruction in the hand. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:91–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Sato K, Sasaki T, Nakamura T, Toyama Y, Ikegami H. Clinical outcome and histologic findings of costal osteochondral grafts for cartilage defects in finger joints. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(4):511–515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. McElfresh EC, Dobyns JH, O’Brien ET. Management of fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joints by extension-block splinting. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972;54(8):1705–1711. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Calfee RP, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Hemi-hamate arthroplasty provides functional reconstruction of acute and chronic proximal interphalangeal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(7):1232–1241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Ruland RT, Hogan CJ, Cannon DL, Slade JF. Use of dynamic distraction external fixation for unstable fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(1):19–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Muehleman C, Kuettner KE. Distribution of cartilage thickness on the head of the human first metatarsal bone. J Anat. 2000;197 Pt 4:687–691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Peterfy CG, van Dijke CF, Lu Y. et al. Quantification of the volume of articular cartilage in the metacarpophalangeal joints of the hand: accuracy and precision of three-dimensional MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165(2):371–375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Robson MD, Hodgson RJ, Herrod NJ, Tyler JA, Hall LD. A combined analysis and magnetic resonance imaging technique for computerised automatic measurement of cartilage thickness in the distal interphalangeal joint. Magn Reson Imaging. 1995;13(5):709–718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Lazovic-Stojkovic J, Mosher TJ, Smith HE, Yang QX, Dardzinski BJ, Smith MB. Interphalangeal joint cartilage: high-spatial-resolution in vivo MR T2 mapping—a feasibility study. Radiology. 2004;233(1):292–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Spannow AH, Stenboeg E, Pfeiffer-Jensen M, Herlin T. Ultrasound measurement of joint cartilage thickness in large and small joints in healthy children: a clinical pilot study assessing observer variability. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2007;5:3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Koo S, Gold GE, Andriacchi TP. Considerations in measuring cartilage thickness using MRI: Factors influencing reproducibility and accuracy. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13(9):782–789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Trinh NH, Lester J, Fleming BC, Tung GB, Kimia B. Accurate measurement of cartilage morphology using a 3D laser scanner In: Beichel RR, Sonka M, eds. Computer Vision Approaches to Medical Image Analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2006:37–48. [Google Scholar]
18. Bowers ME, Trinh N, Tung GA, Crisco JJ, Kimia BB, Fleming BC. Quantitative MR imaging using “LiveWire” to measure tibiofemoral articular cartilage thickness. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(10):1167–1173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Koo S, Giori NJ, Gold GE, Dyrby CO, Andriacchi TP. Accuracy of 3D cartilage models generated from MR images is dependent on cartilage thickness: laser scanner based validation of in vivo cartilage. J Biomech Eng. 2009;131(12):121004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Podolsky D, Mainprize J, McMillan C, Binhammer P. Comparison of third toe joint cartilage thickness to that of the finger proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint to determine suitability for transplantation in PIP joint reconstruction. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(12):1950–1958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Millington SA, Grabner M, Wozelka R, Anderson DD, Hurwitz SR, Crandall JR. Quantification of ankle articular cartilage topography and thickness using a high resolution stereophotography system. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(2):205–211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Shepherd DE, Seedhom BB. Thickness of human articular cartilage in joints of the lower limb. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999;58(1):27–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Adam C, Eckstein F, Milz S, Putz R. The distribution of cartilage thickness within the joints of the lower limb of elderly individuals. J Anat. 1998;193(pt 2):203–214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Kandel RA, Gross AE, Ganel A, McDermott AG, Langer F, Pritzker KP. Histopathology of failed osteoarticular shell allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(197):103–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Karvonen RL, Negendank WG, Teitge RA, Reed AH, Miller PR, Fernandez-Madrid F. Factors affecting articular cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis and aging. J Rheumatol. 1994;21(7):1310–1318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Frueh FS, Calcagni M, Lindenblatt N. The hemi-hamate autograft arthroplasty in proximal interphalangeal joint reconstruction: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015;40(1):24–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr1-2292550319826084] 1. Capo JT, Hastings H, II, Choung E, Kinchelow T, Rossy W, Steinberg B. Hemicondylar hamate replacement arthroplasty for proximal interphalangeal joint fracture dislocations: an assessment of graft suitability. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(5):733–739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr2-2292550319826084] 2. McAuliffe JA. Hemi-hamate autograft for the treatment of unstable dorsal fracture dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(10):1890–1894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr3-2292550319826084] 3. Williams RM, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Treatment of unstable dorsal proximal interphalangeal fracture/dislocations using a hemi-hamate autograft. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28(5):856–865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr4-2292550319826084] 4. Sato K, Nakamura T, Nakamichi N, Okuyama N, Toyama Y, Ikegami H. Finger joint reconstruction with costal osteochondral graft. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2008;12(3):150–155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr5-2292550319826084] 5. Gaul JS., Jr Articular fractures of the proximal interphalangeal joint with missing elements: repair with partial toe joint osteochondral autografts. J Hand Surg Am. 1999;24(1):78–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr6-2292550319826084] 6. Jupiter JB, Goldfarb CA, Nagy L, Boyer MI. Posttraumatic reconstruction in the hand. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:91–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr7-2292550319826084] 7. Sato K, Sasaki T, Nakamura T, Toyama Y, Ikegami H. Clinical outcome and histologic findings of costal osteochondral grafts for cartilage defects in finger joints. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(4):511–515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr8-2292550319826084] 8. McElfresh EC, Dobyns JH, O’Brien ET. Management of fracture-dislocation of the proximal interphalangeal joints by extension-block splinting. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972;54(8):1705–1711. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr9-2292550319826084] 9. Calfee RP, Kiefhaber TR, Sommerkamp TG, Stern PJ. Hemi-hamate arthroplasty provides functional reconstruction of acute and chronic proximal interphalangeal fracture-dislocations. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(7):1232–1241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr10-2292550319826084] 10. Ruland RT, Hogan CJ, Cannon DL, Slade JF. Use of dynamic distraction external fixation for unstable fracture-dislocations of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(1):19–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr11-2292550319826084] 11. Muehleman C, Kuettner KE. Distribution of cartilage thickness on the head of the human first metatarsal bone. J Anat. 2000;197 Pt 4:687–691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr12-2292550319826084] 12. Peterfy CG, van Dijke CF, Lu Y. et al. Quantification of the volume of articular cartilage in the metacarpophalangeal joints of the hand: accuracy and precision of three-dimensional MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165(2):371–375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr13-2292550319826084] 13. Robson MD, Hodgson RJ, Herrod NJ, Tyler JA, Hall LD. A combined analysis and magnetic resonance imaging technique for computerised automatic measurement of cartilage thickness in the distal interphalangeal joint. Magn Reson Imaging. 1995;13(5):709–718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr14-2292550319826084] 14. Lazovic-Stojkovic J, Mosher TJ, Smith HE, Yang QX, Dardzinski BJ, Smith MB. Interphalangeal joint cartilage: high-spatial-resolution in vivo MR T2 mapping—a feasibility study. Radiology. 2004;233(1):292–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr15-2292550319826084] 15. Spannow AH, Stenboeg E, Pfeiffer-Jensen M, Herlin T. Ultrasound measurement of joint cartilage thickness in large and small joints in healthy children: a clinical pilot study assessing observer variability. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2007;5:3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr16-2292550319826084] 16. Koo S, Gold GE, Andriacchi TP. Considerations in measuring cartilage thickness using MRI: Factors influencing reproducibility and accuracy. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13(9):782–789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr17-2292550319826084] 17. Trinh NH, Lester J, Fleming BC, Tung GB, Kimia B. Accurate measurement of cartilage morphology using a 3D laser scanner In: Beichel RR, Sonka M, eds. Computer Vision Approaches to Medical Image Analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2006:37–48. [Google Scholar]

[bibr18-2292550319826084] 18. Bowers ME, Trinh N, Tung GA, Crisco JJ, Kimia BB, Fleming BC. Quantitative MR imaging using “LiveWire” to measure tibiofemoral articular cartilage thickness. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(10):1167–1173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr19-2292550319826084] 19. Koo S, Giori NJ, Gold GE, Dyrby CO, Andriacchi TP. Accuracy of 3D cartilage models generated from MR images is dependent on cartilage thickness: laser scanner based validation of in vivo cartilage. J Biomech Eng. 2009;131(12):121004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr20-2292550319826084] 20. Podolsky D, Mainprize J, McMillan C, Binhammer P. Comparison of third toe joint cartilage thickness to that of the finger proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint to determine suitability for transplantation in PIP joint reconstruction. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(12):1950–1958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr21-2292550319826084] 21. Millington SA, Grabner M, Wozelka R, Anderson DD, Hurwitz SR, Crandall JR. Quantification of ankle articular cartilage topography and thickness using a high resolution stereophotography system. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(2):205–211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr22-2292550319826084] 22. Shepherd DE, Seedhom BB. Thickness of human articular cartilage in joints of the lower limb. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999;58(1):27–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr23-2292550319826084] 23. Adam C, Eckstein F, Milz S, Putz R. The distribution of cartilage thickness within the joints of the lower limb of elderly individuals. J Anat. 1998;193(pt 2):203–214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr24-2292550319826084] 24. Kandel RA, Gross AE, Ganel A, McDermott AG, Langer F, Pritzker KP. Histopathology of failed osteoarticular shell allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(197):103–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr25-2292550319826084] 25. Karvonen RL, Negendank WG, Teitge RA, Reed AH, Miller PR, Fernandez-Madrid F. Factors affecting articular cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis and aging. J Rheumatol. 1994;21(7):1310–1318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr26-2292550319826084] 26. Frueh FS, Calcagni M, Lindenblatt N. The hemi-hamate autograft arthroplasty in proximal interphalangeal joint reconstruction: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015;40(1):24–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Suitability of Using the Hamate for Reconstruction of the Finger Middle Phalanx Base: An Assessment of Cartilage Thickness

La pertinence d’utiliser l’os unciforme pour reconstruire la base de la phalange médiane du doigt : une évaluation de l’épaisseur du cartilage

Dale J Podolsky, MD, PhD

James Mainprize, PhD

Catherine McMillan, MSc

Paul Binhammer, MSc, MD