Foot (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025
Implants for proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis of the lesser toes: Where are we? A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arumugam Vinodh, Chitnis Shreyas Sanjeev, Singh Esha, Paterson Alba Morillo, Welck Matthew
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthrodesis is indicated for the treatment of lesser toe deformities. K-wires have traditionally been the standard of care for PIPJ arthrodesis, however intramedullary implants may be superior. This systematic review evaluates the union rate and outcomes of implants for PIPJ arthrodesis.
METHODS: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases were reviewed for studies reporting on outcomes of intramedullary implants for PIPJ arthrodesis in hammer or claw toe. The primary outcome measure was union rate. Secondary outcome measures included pain scores, functional improvement, patient satisfaction, quality of life and complications.
RESULTS: 12 studies comparing 12 different implants in 797 patients with 1118 treated toes were reviewed. Fusion rates ranged from 22.2 % to 96 % with the highest fusion rates demonstrated with Ossiofiber (96 %, n = 24), Smart toe (43.6-93.8 %, n = 217) and Nextra (84.44 %, n = 47) respectively. 4 studies compared 3 implants to K-wire (Smart toe, Tenfuse and Nextra) with improved union rates demonstrated compared to K-wire (p < 0.05). Function, pain relief, patient satisfaction and quality of life all improved following PIPJ arthrodesis with implants, however these outcomes were equivocal to K-wire. All studies were rated as high or critical risk of bias.
CONCLUSION: A definitive judgement on the best implant for PIPJ arthrodesis is currently unobtainable due to the high risk of bias in the reviewed studies. Given the high cost of intramedullary implants and equivocal functional outcomes to K-wire, further comparative study with randomised control trials is advised to establish the standard of care for PIPJ arthrodesis.
METHODS: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases were reviewed for studies reporting on outcomes of intramedullary implants for PIPJ arthrodesis in hammer or claw toe. The primary outcome measure was union rate. Secondary outcome measures included pain scores, functional improvement, patient satisfaction, quality of life and complications.
RESULTS: 12 studies comparing 12 different implants in 797 patients with 1118 treated toes were reviewed. Fusion rates ranged from 22.2 % to 96 % with the highest fusion rates demonstrated with Ossiofiber (96 %, n = 24), Smart toe (43.6-93.8 %, n = 217) and Nextra (84.44 %, n = 47) respectively. 4 studies compared 3 implants to K-wire (Smart toe, Tenfuse and Nextra) with improved union rates demonstrated compared to K-wire (p < 0.05). Function, pain relief, patient satisfaction and quality of life all improved following PIPJ arthrodesis with implants, however these outcomes were equivocal to K-wire. All studies were rated as high or critical risk of bias.
CONCLUSION: A definitive judgement on the best implant for PIPJ arthrodesis is currently unobtainable due to the high risk of bias in the reviewed studies. Given the high cost of intramedullary implants and equivocal functional outcomes to K-wire, further comparative study with randomised control trials is advised to establish the standard of care for PIPJ arthrodesis.