"Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: Long-term follow-up of patient satisfaction, Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire scores, and reoperations."

Autor:	Notermans BJW; Department of Plastic Surgery, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Radboud UMC; Nijmegen, The Netherland., Teunissen JS; Department of Plastic Surgery, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Radboud UMC; Nijmegen, The Netherland.; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Erasmus MC; Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Hoogendam L; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Erasmus MC; Rotterdam, The Netherlands.; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC; Rotterdam, The Netherlands., de Boer LHL; Hand and Wrist Centre, Xpert Clinic; The Netherlands., Selles RW; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Erasmus MC; Rotterdam, The Netherlands.; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC; Rotterdam, The Netherlands., van der Heijden BEPA; Department of Plastic Surgery, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Radboud UMC; Nijmegen, The Netherland.; Department of Plastic Surgery, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Radboud UMC; Nijmegen, The Netherland & Department of Plastic Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis; 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Plastic and reconstructive surgery [Plast Reconstr Surg] 2024 Jun 24. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 24.
DOI:	10.1097/PRS.0000000000011599
Abstrakt:	Background: Previously published research describes short-term outcomes after proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty, however, long-term outcomes are scarce. Therefore, we evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after a follow-up of at least five years following PIP joint arthroplasty. Methods: We used prospectively gathered data from patients undergoing PIP joint arthroplasty with silicone or surface replacement implants. Time points included preoperative, one year, and at least five years postoperatively. We were able to include 74 patients. Primarily, we focussed on patient satisfaction with the treatment outcome, measured using a validated 5-point Likert scale. Secondary outcomes included the question whether patients would undergo the same surgery again, the assessment of factors associated with (dis)satisfaction, the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), and the number of reoperations. Results: The mean follow-up was seven years (SD 1.2, range 5-11 years). Patient satisfaction was excellent in 14 (19%), good in 17 (23%), reasonable in 18 (24%), moderate in 10 (14%), and poor in 15 (20%) patients. Seventy-three percent of patients (n=54) would undergo the same procedure again. We found no factors associated with (dis)satisfaction. All MHQ scores improved significantly in the first year after surgery and did not deteriorate afterward. Sixteen (16%) fingers required a reoperation, of whom 3 (4%) needed a prosthesis replacement. Conclusion: Patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes seven years post-PIP implant surgery ranges from moderate to good for many patients, with a notable proportion expressing dissatisfaction. Patient-reported outcomes improve primarily within the first year and remain stable at five years or more. Level of Evidence: II. Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. (Copyright © 2024 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu