Advertisement

Hammertoes pp 85-101 | Cite as

Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthrodesis via Kirschner Wire Fixation

  • Michelle Butterworth
Chapter

Abstract

The end-to-end proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis has become the digital arthrodesis technique of choice. When performed properly, it produces a stable construct and affords for good long-term correction, high success rates, and satisfied patients. Traditionally, the preferred form of fixation of lesser digital arthrodesis was with a percutaneous Kirschner wire (k-wire). In recent years however, the number of fixation options for the correction of digital deformities has greatly expanded, mainly with internal implants. Advocates of these internal fixation devices claim that k-wire fixation has poor patient acceptance and has an increased risk for infection because of exposed wires. Although these internal fixation devices may have a higher patient acceptance rate, they have not been shown to have a higher fusion rate nor a higher patient satisfaction rate, and they are quite costly when compared to k-wires. The cost-effective solution is the buried k-wire. The k-wire can easily be transformed into an internal implant, so that there are increased patient acceptance and decreased risk of infection, and it still produces high fusion and success rates.

Keywords

Hammertoes Digital Proximal interphalangeal joint Arthrodesis Kirschner wire (k-wire) Percutaneous k-wire Buried k-wire Toe joint Hammertoe syndrome 

References

  1. 1.
    Good J, Fiala K. Digital surgery: current trends and techniques. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2010;27(4):625–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coughlin MJ, Dorris J, Polk E. Operative repair of the fixed hammertoe deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(2):94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hofbauer MH, Shane AM. Lesser digital surgery: arthroplasty, arthrodesis, and flexor tendon transfer. In: Chang TJ, editor. Master techniques in podiatric surgery: the foot and ankle. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005. p. 35–47.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lamm BM, Ribeiro CE, et al. Peg-in-hole, end-to-end, and V arthrodesis a comparison of digital stabilization in fresh cadaveric specimens. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001;91(2):63–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baig AU, Geary NPJ. Fusion rate and patient satisfaction in proximal interphalangeal joint fusion of the minor toes using Kirschner wire fixation. Foot. 1996;6(3):120–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Angirasa AK, Augoyard M, Coughlin MJ, Fridman R, Ruch J, Weil L Jr, Section Editor. Hammer toe, mallet toe, and claw toe (roundtable discussion). Foot Ankle Spec. 2011;4(3):182–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scholl A, McCarty J, Scholl D, Mar A. Smart toe implant versus buried Kirschner wire for proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis: a comparative study. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;52(5):580–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellington K, Anderson RB, Davis WH, Cohen BE, Jones CP. Radiographic analysis of proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis with an intramedullary fusion device for lesser toe deformities. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(5):372–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Butterworth
    • 1
  1. 1.Williamsburg Foot Center, Williamsburg Regional HospitalKingstreeUSA

Personalised recommendations