Biomechanics of the proximal interphalangeal joint after total joint replacement

Introduction Small joints arthroplasty of the hand including the proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) is associated with the need to create anatomically adapted structures using optimal materials. Introduction of a new medical device requires comprehensive preclinical testing.

The objective was to determine a range of loads allowed for the proximal interphalangeal joint after arthroplasty through analyzing the biomechanics to prevent critical conditions and complications.

Methods A full-ceramic non-constrained anatomically adapted proximal interphalangeal joint implant was developed between 2016 and 2021 using an integrated approach with preclinical trials and a clinical study of 42 patients (25 males, 17 females) with PIPJ arthritis. A digital endoprosthesis was created with 3D-modelling. Critical conditions for the digital model imitating typical joint movements were explored with the use of finite element method and the findings to be employed in clinical practice.

Results A stable biomechanical construct was intact with loads of 5 kilograms and a motion ranging from 0 to 60 degrees, with loads of 20 kilograms and a motion ranging between 0 and 30 degrees. Cortical bone could sustain loads up to 20 kilograms with a motion ranging between 0 and 60 degrees. Discussion Load capacity of the implant was explored considering the strength of bone tissue and zirconium ceramics as a material. The study set a vector for the development of the optimal mode of motor activity early after surgery and indicated the optimal range of motion to be applied after PIPJ arthroplasty.

Conclusion The load up to 5 kg was optimal for the patient to be applied early after surgery with the range of flexion measuring less that 90°. The patient could use a load of 5 to 20 kg with flexion in the proximal interphalangeal joint measuring less than 30°. Endoprosthetic components were likely to get dislocated with a load of 20 kg and flexion angle of greater than 30°. Periprosthetic fracture could occur with flexion angle of greater than 60°.

1. Yamamoto M, Malay S, Fujihara Y, et al. A Systematic Review of Different Implants and Approaches for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(5):1139e-1151e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003260

2. Harris CA, Shauver MJ, Yuan F, et al. Understanding Patient Preferences in Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Surgery for Osteoarthritis: A Conjoint Analysis. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(7):615-624.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.03.001

3. Millrose M, Gesslein M, Ittermann T, et al. Arthrodesis of the proximal interphalangeal joint of the finger – a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev. 2022;7(1):49-58. doi: 10.1530/EOR-21-0102

4. Zhu AF, Rahgozar P, Chung KC. Advances in Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty: Biomechanics and Biomaterials. Hand Clin. 2018;34(2):185-194. doi: 10.1016/j.hcl.2017.12.008

5. Николаенко А.Н., Иванов В.В., Згирский Д.О. и др. Эндопротезирование проксимального межфалангового сустава. Обзор литературы. Medline. 2022;23:748-766.

6. Forster N, Schindele S, Audigé L, Marks M. Complications, reoperations and revisions after proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2018;43(10):1066-1075. doi: 10.1177/1753193418770606

7. Castagnini F, Cosentino M, Bracci G, et al. Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Arthroplasty with Large Diameter Heads: A Systematic Review. Med Princ Pract. 2021;30(1):29-36. doi: 10.1159/000508982

8. Lakhdar Y, Tuck C, Binner J. et al. Additive manufacturing of advanced ceramic materials. Progress in Materials Science. 2021;116. doi: 10.1016/j. pmatsci.2020.100736

9. Backes LT, Oldorf P, Peters R, et al. Study of the tribological properties of surface structures using ultrashort laser pulses to reduce wear in endoprosthetics. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):205. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01719-1

10. Rivière C, Vendittoli PA, editors. Personalized Hip and Knee Joint Replacement [Internet]. Cham (CH): Springer; 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-24243-5

11. Zhang D, Bauer AS, Blazar P, Earp BE. Three-Dimensional Printing in Hand Surgery. J Hand Surg Am. 2021;46(11):1016-1022. doi: 10.1016/j. jhsa.2021.05.028

12. Shegokar R. Preclinical–testing understanding the basics first. Drug Delivery Aspects. 2020:19-32. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-821222-6.00002-6

13. Helder O, Marks M, Schweizer A, et al. Complications after surface replacing and silicone PIP arthroplasty: an analysis of 703 implants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(1):173-181. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03663-5

14. Wagner ER, Weston JT, Houdek MT, et al. Medium-Term Outcomes With Pyrocarbon Proximal Interphalangeal Arthroplasty: A Study of 170 Consecutive Arthroplasties. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(9):797-805. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.06.020

15. Колсанов А.В., Николаенко А.Н., Ушаков А.А. и др. Эндопротез проксимального межфалангового сустава кисти. Патент РФ на полезную модель № 202476 U1. 19.02.2021. Бюл. № 5. Доступно по: https://patents.s3.yandex.net/RU202476U1_20210219.pdf. Ссылка активна на 29.06.2023.

16. Chien S, Bashir R, Nerem RM, Pettigrew R. Engineering as a new frontier for translational medicine. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(281):281fs13. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa4325

17. Angeles Maslucan R, Dominguez JA. A Finite Element Stress Analysis of a Concical Triangular Connection in Implants: A New Proposal. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(10):3680. doi: 10.3390/ma15103680

18. Wei Y, Zou Z, Wei G, et al. Subject-Specific Finite Element Modelling of the Human Hand Complex: Muscle-Driven Simulations and Experimental Validation. Ann Biomed Eng. 2020;48(4):1181-1195. doi: 10.1007/s10439-019-02439-2

19. Duruöz MT. Assessment of hand functions. In: Duruöz, M. (eds) Hand Function. Springer, New York, NY. 2014:41-55. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614- 9449-2_3

20. Pang EQ, Yao J. Anatomy and Biomechanics of the Finger Proximal Interphalangeal Joint. Hand Clin. 2018;34(2):121-126. doi: 10.1016/j.hcl.2017

21. Вороков А.А., Бортулев П.И., Хайдаров В.М. с соавт. Эндопротезирование тазобедренного и коленного суставов: показания к операции. Ортопедия, травматология и восстановительная хирургия детского возраста. 2020;8(3):355-364. doi: 10.17816/PTORS34164

22. Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS, et al. Prevalence of Total Hip and Knee Replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(17):1386-97. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01141

23. Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, Cleveland JD. Rates of Total Joint Replacement in the United States: Future Projections to 2020-2040 Using the National Inpatient Sample. J Rheumatol. 2019;46(9):1134-1140. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170990

24. Vakalopoulos K, Arner M, Denissen G, et al. Current national hand surgery registries worldwide. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2021;46(1):103-106. doi: 10.1177/1753193420970155

25. Swann J. The world at your finger tips: how the hand functions. Nursing and Residential Care. 2015;17(8):444-448. doi: 10.12968/nrec.2015.17.8.444

26. Conson M, Di Rosa A, Polito F, et al. "Mind the thumb": Judging hand laterality is anchored on the thumb position. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2021;219:103388. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103388

27. Young RW. Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing. J Anat. 2003;202(1):165-74. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-7580.2003.00144.x

28. Qiu S., Kermani M.R. Inverse Kinematics of High Dimensional Robotic Arm-Hand Systems for Precision Grasping. J Intell Robot Syst. 2021;101(4). doi: 10.1007/s10846-021-01349-7

29. Leibovic SJ, Bowers WH. Anatomy of the proximal interphalangeal joint. Hand Clin. 1994;10(2):169-78. 1994;10(2):169-178. doi: 10.1016/S0749- 0712(21)01280-4

30. Groenwold RHH, Dekkers OM. Measurement error in clinical research, yes it matters. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020;183(3):E3-E5. doi: 10.1530/EJE20-0550