Two-component surface replacement implants compared with perichondrium transplantation for restoration of Metacarpophalangeal and proximal Interphalangeal joints: a retrospective cohort study with a mean follow-up time of 6 respectively 26 years

• Main Authors: Daniel Muder, Nils P. Hailer, Torbjörn Vedung
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2020-10-01
• Series: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
• Subjects: Articular cartilage; Perichondrium; Transplantation; Joint replacement; Reconstruction
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-020-03687-3

Abstract Background The aim of our study was to compare the long-term outcome after perichondrium transplantation and two-component surface replacement (SR) implants to the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints. Methods We evaluated 163 joints in 124 patients, divided into 138 SR implants in 102 patients and 25 perichondrium transplantations in 22 patients. Our primary outcome was any revision surgery of the index joint. Results The median follow-up time was 6 years (0–21) for the SR implants and 26 years (1–37) for the perichondrium transplants. Median age at index surgery was 64 years (24–82) for SR implants and 45 years (18–61) for perichondium transplants. MCP joint survival was slightly better in the perichondrium group (86.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 69.4–100.0) than in the SR implant group (75%; CI 53.8–96.1), but not statistically significantly so (p = 0.4). PIP joint survival was also slightly better in the perichondrium group (80%; CI 55–100) than in the SR implant group (74.7%; CI 66.6–82.7), but below the threshold of statistical significance (p = 0.8). Conclusion In conclusion, resurfacing of finger joints using transplanted perichondrium is a technique worth considering since the method has low revision rates in the medium term and compares favorable to SR implants. Level of evidence III (Therapeutic).