Abstract
The Authors on the ground of their personnel experience and of most recent literature data, review and analyze indications, advantages, disadvantages and limits of the most used metallic hinged prosthesis, cemented and semiconstrained prosthesis, and plastic interposition devices for MP joint restoration: in particular cemented and semiconstrained implants, even if show an acceptable clinical performance, generally assuring a painfree, stable functional range of motion, present the great problem of durability and salvageability linked to the rigidity of the implant and to the use of cement. Bone absorption and matherial breakdown often negate at long term follow-up many of the early good results obtained, so that these implants are preferably used in older patients. The method of Swanson silicone arthroplasty since 20 years assures long documented maintainance of functional results, not high incidence of complications and essential salvageability. However this method, either in our or in other Authors experience has shown a not very good clinical performance due to the limited average range of motion in flex/ext. and to a not infrequent tendence to rotation and subdislocation which are only minimally limited by the grommets use’s artifice. A promising step towards an ideal prosthesis which should be painfree, mobile, stable, durable, salvageable and of technical facility could be obtained with alumina or hydrossiapatitis implant matherial, fixed by tissue ingrowth system, or by a bioceramic resurfacing of the actually “well-functioning” devices to avoid problems of bone intolerance.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adams B.D., Blair W., Shurr D.G., Schultz metacarpophalangeal arthroplasty: a long term follow-up study, J. Hand Surg. 15A: 4, 641, 1990.
Beckenbaugh R.D., Dobyns J.H., Linscheid R.L., Bryan R.S., Review and analysis of silicone-rubber metacarpophalangeal implants, J. Bone joint Surg. 58A: 4, 483, 1976.
Blair W.F., Shurr D.G., Buckwalter J.A., Metacarpophalangeal joint implant arthroplasty with a silastic spacer, J. Bone Joint Surg. 66A: 3, 365, 1984.
Blair W., Shurr D.G., Buckwalter J.A., Metacarpophalangeal joint arthroplasty with a metallic hinged prosthesis, Clin. Ort. Rel. Res. 184: 156, 1984.
Caroli A., Zanasi S., Cristiani G., Marcuzzi A., Guerra M., Pancaldi G., Indicazioni e limiti delle protesi cementate Biomeric nelle gravi distruzioni di natura reumatoide e postraumatica delle articolazioni MF ed IFP. Atti del congresso congiunto délia Società Italiana di Ricerche in Chirurgia e delia Società Italiana di Fisiopatologia Chirurgica. Monduzzi Ed., Bologna, 1990.
Derkash R.S., Niebauer J.J, Lane C.S., Long term follow-up of metacarpophalangeal arthroplasty with silicone dacron prostheses, J. Hand Surg. 11A:, 4, 553, 1986.
Doi K., Kuwata N., Kawai S., Alumina ceramic finger implants: a preliminary biomatherial and clinical evaluation, J. Hand Surg. 9A:5, 740, 1984.
Flatt A.E., Ellison M.R., Restoration of rheumatoid finger joint function. A follow-up note after 14 years of experience with a metallic hinged prosthesis, J. Bone Joint Surg. 54A: 1317, 1972.
Goldner J.L., Gould J.S., Urbaniak J.R., McCollum D.E, Metacarpophalangeal joint arthroplasty with silicone-dacron prosthesis (Niebauer type): six and half years’ experience, J. Hand Surg. 2A: 3, 200, 1977.
Griffiths R.W., Nicolle F.V., Three years’ experience of metacarpophalangeal joint replacement in the rheumatoid hand, The Hand 7: 3, 275, 1975.
Hagert C.G., Eiken O., Ohlsson N.M., Aschan W., Morrin A., Metacarpophalangeal joints implants, Scan. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 9: 145, 1975.
Minami M., Yamazaki J., KATO S., Ishii S., Alumina ceramic prosthesis arthroplasty of the metacarpophalangeal joint in the rheumatoid hand. A 2–4 year follow-up study, J Arthroplasty 3: 2, 157, 1988.
Nicolle F.V., Calnan J.S., A new design of finger joint prosthesis for the rheumatoid hand, The Hand 4: 2, 135, 1972.
Steffee A.D., Beckenbaugh R.D., Linscheid R.L., Dobyns J.H., The development, technique, and early clinical results of total joint replacement for the metacarpophalangeal joint of the fingers Orthopedics, 4: 2, 175, 1981.
Swanson A.B, Flexible implant resection arthroplasty, The Hand 4: 2, 119, 1972.
Swanson A.B., De Groot-Swanson G., Flexible implant arthroplasty of the digits. Indications, methods and results, Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 51: 4, 679, 1985.
Vahvanen V., Viljakka T., Silicone rubber implant arthroplasty of the metacarpophalangeal joint in rheumatoid arthritis: a follow-up study of 32 patients, J. Hand Surg. 11A: 3, 333, 1986.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Caroli, A., Zanasi, S. (1992). Hand MP Joint Implant Arthroplasty: The State of the Art. Vantages and Disadvantages of the Most Common Implant Arthroplasties. In: Ravaglioli, A., Krajewski, A. (eds) Bioceramics and the Human Body. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2896-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2896-4_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-85166-748-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-2896-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive