Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 1, 2025

Novel Diagnostics in Revision Arthroplasty: Implant Sonication and Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction
Published on: December 3, 2017
Complications after surface replacing and silicone PIP arthroplasty: an analysis of 703 implants
Olivia Helder1, Miriam Marks1, Andreas Schweizer2
1Department of Teaching, Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland.
Introduction:
The aim was to analyse complications after surface replacing and silicone proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty.
Materials And Methods:
All complications, reoperations (subsequent intervention without implant modification) and revisions (subsequent surgery with implant modification or removal) were extracted out of our registry for two cohorts: (1) Patients who received a surface replacing arthroplasty at the PIP joint using the CapFlex-PIP prosthesis and (2) patients who received a PIP silicone implant. Furthermore, radiographs were evaluated for deviations from the longitudinal finger axis.
Results:
In our registry, 279 surface replacing implants and 424 silicone implants have been documented. The overall complication rate was 20% for surface replacements and 11% for silicone arthroplasties (p ≤ 0.01) with soft tissue-related events being the most prevalent in both groups. Reoperations were significantly more frequent after surface replacement (5.4%) than silicone arthroplasty (0.5%; p ≤ 0.001), while the revision rates did not differ significantly (4.4% and 3.3%, respectively; p = 0.542). Postoperative axis deviations were significantly less frequent in the surface replacement group (19% versus 58% for silicone arthroplasty; p ≤ 0.001).
Conclusion:
We recommend using a surface replacing implant in fingers with preoperative axis deviations and correctable anatomical situation, bearing in mind the higher risk of a second surgery. However, treatment outcomes also need to be considered before choosing one implant over another.

