The Volar Approach to Proximal Interphalangeal Joint
Transcription
The Volar Approach to Proximal Interphalangeal Joint
TECHNIQUE The Volar Approach to Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty Scott F. M. Duncan, MD, MPH,* Marianne V. Merritt, RN, RNFA,Þ and Ryosuke Kakinoki, MD, PhDþ Abstract: Proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty has resulted in good outcomes in patients treated for osteoarthritis, posttraumatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Most hand surgeons complete arthroplasties of the proximal interphalangeal joint through a dorsal approach. However, for the past 7 years, we have had positive results with a volar approach. We describe this technique, which avoids injury to the extensor tendon and allows for a more simplified approach to postoperative therapy compared with the therapy regimen required after the dorsal approach. Key Words: arthritis, arthroplasty, finger joint, implant, volar plate (Tech Hand Surg 2009;13: 47Y53) HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE One of the greatest challenges for hand surgeons is the treatment of the conditions that afflict the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint. This bicondylar joint has extreme flexibility and stability throughout its arc of motion, which are difficult to replicate after the joint has experienced injury or degenerative changes.1 Arthroplasty is a well-established treatment option for the PIP joint that has developed pathologic characteristics. In the 1950s, fibrous and resection types of arthroplasties were reported.2 These included the volar plate arthroplasty still commonly used today for management of various PIP joint conditions.3 Brannon and Klein4 introduced implant arthroplasty in 1959. They used a hinged prosthesis that could be implanted in the PIP joint and in the metacarpophalangeal joint. Early results were promising; however, long-term follow-up revealed implant loosening and fracture. Since then, several types of implants have become available.5Y9 In 1966, silicone prostheses were introduced. The Swanson (1969) and Sutter (1987) prostheses became 2 of the most popular types. Numerous authors have published both shortterm and long-term results of studies examining these types of implants.5,8 These implants were mostly placed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis of the PIP joints. However, problems with implant fracture, silicone synovitis, subsidence, instability, and limited range of motion were all noted as long-term complications.3,6,10 These problems were also observed in patients with osteoarthritis.10,11 The problems with silicone implants inspired the development of implants made of more substantial materials. Mechanically, the new implants have been developed in 1 of 2 ways. In the United States, an unconstrained surface replacement design is more commonly used in contrast to the constrained hinged design that is more commonly used in other countries. From the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Owatonna ClinicYMayo Health, System Owatonna, MN; †Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; ‡Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Scott F.M. Duncan, MD, MPH, Owatonna Clinic Southview, 134 Southview, Owatonna, MN 55060. E-mail: duncan.scott@mayo.edu. Copyright * 2009 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery & Two major US suppliers of surface replacement devices are Small Bone Innovations (Morrisville, Pa), which produces implants with a cobalt chrome alloy on polyethylene, and Ascension Orthopedics (Austin, Tex), which produces a pyrocarbon-based implant. Both of these implants can be placed using similar techniques. First described by Swanson,12 the dorsal approach is the most common technique for PIP joint arthroplasty. It is difficult to challenge the dorsal technique, given its more than 40 years of use. Numerous articles on PIP joint arthroplasty have described the dorsal technique.5Y9,11Y17 These reports have shown it to be a reproducible technique that preserves preoperative mobility, in general, and improves joint pain in most cases. The dorsal approach, however, is not without problems. Whether a midline or a Chamay18 exposure is used through the extensor tendon, the technique can still result in considerable extensor tendon scarring and adhesions, impairing the mobility of the PIP joint. Furthermore, attenuation of the extensor tendon can result in extensor lag.6,7,9,11,13,17 The central slip can also sustain disruption from its insertion due to overzealous surgical dissection. This disruption of the extensor moment can be problematic because it can be quite difficult to reestablish the appropriate extensor moment postoperatively. The delicate nature of the extensor mechanism also necessitates holding the joint in extension for a longer period of time than would be required with the volar approach, potentially resulting in scarring and adhesions of the extensor tendon. In addition, protecting the extensor system requires a much more complicated postoperative therapy course that includes outrigger splints and more supervised hand therapy. Compared with the dorsal approach, the volar approach requires less use of these complicated splints and fewer hand therapy visits. Despite some of the inherent advantages of the volar approach, it is not without its detractors. Linscheid6 reported problems in a series of 10 patients with swan neck deformities and flexion contractures caused by flexor tendon scarring. We have not encountered these problems to the degree that he described in his article. Our lower rate of complications is most likely because of our meticulous attention to repairing the flexor tendon sheath and our application of a postoperative dorsal blocking splint, which is an integral part of the therapy process. In our practice, the volar approach has become the standard approach for primary PIP joint arthroplasty. INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS The main indication for PIP joint arthroplasty is pain caused by joint destruction. Other indications are deformity and limited joint motion. Virtually all types of joint destruction have been treated by PIP joint arthroplasty with varying degrees of success.5,6,9,14,15 These include osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, other inflammatory arthritides, and posttraumatic arthritis. Contraindications for PIP joint arthroplasty include acute or chronic infection, substantial periarticular bone loss on each side of the joint, irreparable flexor or extensor tendon deficits, ligament instability that cannot be corrected with ligament Volume 13, Number 1, March 2009 Copyright @ 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. 47 Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery Duncan et al & Volume 13, Number 1, March 2009 FIGURE 1. Palmar view with area marked for Bruner incision. reconstruction or increased implant size, silicone synovitis, neuropathic arthropathy, or soft tissue defects.3,9,19 Other relative contraindications include palmar-to-dorsal instability, sclerosis or narrowing of the medullary canals, arthritis mutilans, ankylosis, or previous arthrodesis.3,9,19 Fusion may be better for the PIP joint of the index finger if it is lacking a collateral ligament or if it is in a high-demand patient.7,11 However, given the surgical challenges involved in some of these more demanding conditions, the patient and surgeon need to be prepared for various possible complications during and after surgery. TECHNIQUE The first step in the volar approach is a Bruner incision centered over the flexion crease of the PIP joint (Fig. 1). The skin flap is elevated, and care is taken to protect the radial and ulnar digital neurovascular bundles. The flexor tendon sheath is then entered between the A2 and A4 pulleys (Fig. 2). As the sheath is entered, it is protected so that it can be repaired at the end of the procedure (Fig. 3). A Penrose drain is then placed under the flexor tendons so that they can be retracted either radially or ulnarly to allow for greater visibility of the joint (Fig. 4). The proximal aspect of the volar plate is reflected from the proximal phalanx (Fig. 5). Care is taken to maintain the volar plate’s distal attachment on the middle phalanx. The volar plate will be repaired at closure. FIGURE 2. Tendon sheath exposed. 48 FIGURE 3. A, A3 pulley incised. B, A3 pulley elevated. The collateral ligaments are then mobilized from the proximal phalanx but are reinserted again at the end of the procedure (Fig. 6). At this point, with the volar plate and collateral ligaments released, the joint can be shotgun opened (Fig. 7) to expose the particular surfaces. To avoid difficulty with reattachment, the surgeon should pass the collateral ligaments through drill holes before inserting the implants. The head (ie, the articular surface) of the proximal phalanx is removed with a microsagittal saw. Some systems include jigs with alignment guides. With or without guides, extreme care should be taken to make the cuts as perpendicular as possible to the long axis of the proximal phalanx. Deviation from perpendicular placement will result in the digit becoming misaligned after the components are inserted. The surface replacement systems usually can be used to remove approximately 2 mm of bone from the base of the middle phalanx. The surface also needs to be cut perpendicular to the shaft of the middle phalanx (Fig. 8). Some patients may have large osteophytic ridges in the areas of the condyles and around the point where the collateral ligaments originate. These osteophytes should be carefully débrided with a rongeur. However, the surgeon should avoid damaging the collateral ligaments of the middle phalanx. In the next step in the process, the intramedullary cavities are entered with awls or Kirschner wires (Figs. 9 and 10). Broaches are then used to size and prepare the proximal and distal medullary canals for the implants (Fig. 11). With the volar approach, care should be taken to avoid disrupting the extensor insertion on the middle phalanx by * 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Copyright @ 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery & Volume 13, Number 1, March 2009 Volar Approach Arthroplasty FIGURE 6. Collateral ligaments released. FIGURE 4. Flexor tendons retracted with a Penrose drain to show volar plate. motion around the digit. Trial components are usually placed first and checked under fluoroscopy to test for appropriate size and seating (Fig. 12). The perfect arthroplasty would have a motion of 0 degrees of extension and 95 degrees of flexion (Fig. 13). If the surgeon is satisfied with the position of the trial implants, the range of motion, and the tissue tensioning of the joint under fluoroscopy, the permanent implants can be placed. Depending on the system, either these can be press fitted or cemented (Fig. 14). Again, the collateral ligaments should be reattached to the middle phalanx through drill holes, if possible, and then repaired with nonabsorbable sutures (Fig. 15). excessively cutting with the saw. In sclerotic bone, a high-speed burr can be helpful in initiating the broaching of the canals. Broaching and reaming should be maintained along the long axis of the canal. Any broaching or reaming away from this axis could result in the angular placement of the stem of the prosthesis. Prosthesis size is determined by the size of the joint and the ability of the medullary canal to hold the stem of the prosthesis. With surface replacement arthroplasty, joint instability can result from using an implant that is too small. However, if the implant is too large, undue tension on the tissue can impede FIGURE 5. Volar plate elevated proximally by sharp dissection. FIGURE 7. Proximal interphalangeal joint shotgun opened, demonstrating the excellent exposure of joint surfaces. * 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Copyright @ 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. 49 Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery Duncan et al & Volume 13, Number 1, March 2009 FIGURE 8. Proximal and distal phalanx cuts. With a permanent suture, the volar plate is reapproximated to the part of the volar plate that is left on the middle phalanx or to the soft tissue of the middle phalanx. Finally, the A3 pulley is repaired with a permanent suture (Fig. 16). The wounds are thoroughly irrigated, and the incision is carefully closed with 5Y0 nylon. The digit is then splinted in 35 to 45 degrees of flexion at the PIP joint for 3 to 4 days. Hand therapy is then initiated, and immediate active range of motion is started with a dorsal blocking splint (Fig. 17). This splint keeps the PIP joint flexed at approximately 5 to 10 degrees to prevent any hyperextension of the joint. When possible, a buddy strap is attached to the adjacent radial digit. Splinting is usually discontinued at 6 weeks, unless there are clinically significant extension or flexion lags. If such a complication occurs, the therapy protocol incorporates custom dynamic splints and static splints. Of the patients reported on, all of them received hand therapy in the first 3 to 4 weeks. Unsupported use of the finger is possible in most patients by 5 to 6 weeks. In some patients, buddy strapping may be required for up to 12 weeks. FIGURE 10. Kirschner wire placement for starting point and canal reaming guidance. The purpose of PIP treatment is to provide a stable congruous joint that is pain free and that has a functional arc of motion. However, given the condition of the joints before ar- throplasty, these goals are rarely achieved fully. For optimal results, the patient should be checked frequently, and postoperative radiographs should be obtained to ensure that the joint remains reduced. Complications of PIP joint arthroplasty include deformity, contracture, dislocation, loosening, intraoperative fracture, infection, tendon disruption or rupture, and flexor or extensor tendon adhesions or both. The volar approach may result in flexor tendon bowstringing and swan neck deformities caused by volar plate disruption. Keeping the PIP joint slightly flexed will usually prevent a swan neck deformity. The therapist involved in FIGURE 9. Awl to help open up bones. FIGURE 11. Broaching of canals. COMPLICATIONS 50 * 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Copyright @ 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery & Volume 13, Number 1, March 2009 Volar Approach Arthroplasty FIGURE 12. Trial implants placed. FIGURE 14. A, Permanent implants placed. B, Joint reduced with permanent implants. the patient’s care should understand that attempts to stretch the PIP joint could result in a swan neck deformity and that extreme stretching should be avoided. Edema control is also imperative to achieve a satisfactory range of motion and should be addressed early on during rehabilitation. Tube wrap or selfadherent compression wrap can be used to help alleviate this problem. Another possible problem with the volar approach is scarring of the volar incision, which may require excision of the scar tissue and skin grafting. We have not observed this complication, but it has been reported.6 FIGURE 13. A, Joint reduced and alignment checked with anteroposterior fluoroscopic imaging. B, Joint reduced and alignment checked with lateral fluoroscopic imaging. CONCLUSIONS In general, PIP joint arthroplasty can be a successful treatment for the patient experiencing pain caused by an arthritic * 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Copyright @ 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. 51 Duncan et al Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery & Volume 13, Number 1, March 2009 FIGURE 15. Repair of collateral ligaments and volar plate. FIGURE 17. Hand therapy splint. PIP joint. We believe that the volar approach has many advantages over the dorsal approach and have been encouraged by our results.20 In our study, the report of which is pending publication, we examined results of the replacements of 25 PIP joints that had been placed through the volar approach during a 5-year period. Follow-up averaged 33 months. The average preoperative total arc of motion improved from 42 to 56 degrees. Our results were as good as or better than the published results for PIP arthroplasty through a dorsal approach.20 As with any surgery, the key to success is multifactorial. The surgeon’s comfort level with the procedure and the patient’s compliance with postoperative therapy both play a part in maximizing the outcome. REFERENCES 1. Minamikawa Y, Horii E, Amadio PC, et al. Stability and constraint of the proximal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am. 1993; 18(2):198Y204. 2. Carroll RE, Taber TH. Digital arthroplasty of the proximal interphlangeal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1954;36-A(5):912Y920. 3. Amadio PC. Arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint. In: Morrey BF, ed. Joint Replacement Arthroplasty. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1991:147Y157. 4. Brannon EW, Klein G. Experiences with a finger-joint prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959;41-A(1):87Y102. 5. Swanson AB, Maupin BK, Gajjar NV, et al. Flexible implant arthroplasty in the proximal interphalangeal joint of the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 1985;10(6 Pt 1):796Y805. 6. Linscheid RL. Implant arthroplasty of the hand: retrospective and prospective considerations. J Hand Surg Am. 2000;25(5):796Y816. 7. Sauerbier M, Cooney WP, Berger RA, et al. Complete superficial replacement of the middle finger joint: long-term outcome and surgical technique [Article in German]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2000;32(6):411Y418. 8. Mathoulin C, Gilbert A. Arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint using the Sutter implant for traumatic joint destruction. J Hand Surg Br. 1999;24(5):565Y569. 9. Bravo CJ, Rizzo M, Hormel KB, et al. Pyrolytic carbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: results with minimum two-year follow-up evaluation. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(1):1Y11. 10. Foliart DE. Swanson silicone finger joint implants: a review of the literature regarding long-term complications. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20(3):445Y449. 11. Pellegrini VD Jr, Burton RI. Osteoarthritis of the proximal interphalangeal joint of the hand: arthroplasty or fusion? J Hand Surg Am. 1990;15(2):194Y209. 12. Swanson AB. Implant resection arthroplasty of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Orthop Clin North Am. 1973;4(4):1007Y1029. 13. Stanley JK, Evans RA. What are the long term follow-up results of silastic metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joint replacements? Br J Rheumatol. 1992;31(12):839. FIGURE 16. Closure of A3 pulley. 52 14. Johnstone BR. Proximal interphalangeal joint surface replacement arthroplasty. Hand Surg. 2001;6(1):1Y11. * 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Copyright @ 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery & Volume 13, Number 1, March 2009 Volar Approach Arthroplasty 15. Hage JJ, Yoe EP, Zevering JP, et al. Proximal interphalangeal joint silicone arthroplasty for posttraumatic arthritis. J Hand Surg Am. 1999;24(1):73Y77. 18. Chamay A. A distally based dorsal and triangular tendinous flap for direct access to the proximal interphalangeal joint [Article in English and French]. Ann Chir Main. 1988;7(2):179Y183. 16. Takigawa S, Meletiou S, Sauerbier M, et al. Long-term assessment of Swanson implant arthroplasty in the proximal interphalangeal joint of the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 2004;29(5):785Y795. 19. Linscheid RL, Dobyns JH. Total joint arthroplasty: the hand. Mayo Clin Proc. 1979;54(8):516Y526. 17. Tuttle HG, Stern PJ. Pyrolytic carbon proximal interphalangeal joint resurfacing arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2006;31(6):930Y939. 20. Duncan SFM, Smith AA, Renfree KJ, et al. Results of the volar approach in proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty. J Hand Surg. Publication pending 2008. * 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Copyright @ 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. 53