Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2025
Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach
Published on: January 24, 2018
Dorsal and Volar Approaches for Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Replacement: Comparing Outcomes Through Systematic
Gagandeep Mahi1, Eric Ansong2, Eugene Gan3
1Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Kettering, UK.
Background:
The 2 primary surgical approaches for proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) arthroplasty, dorsal or volar, have been extensively described in the literature. However, the ongoing debate regarding which approach offers superior results or is associated with fewer complications persists. This systematic review aims to compare the outcomes of PIPJ arthroplasty between the dorsal and volar approaches.
Methods:
A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted, and studies meeting predetermined criteria were included. Data extraction, assessment of bias risk, and statistical analysis were performed to compare treatment modalities. Outcome measures included range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), revisions, and reported complications.
Results:
Among 368 screened articles, 5 studies involving 302 patients (310 implants) were eligible for final review. No significant differences were observed between the 2 approaches regarding postoperative ROM (mean difference [MD] 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.83, 8.32; P = .47) and PROMs (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.18; 95% CI -0.12, 0.48; P = .25). Complication rates, including revision/fusion, persistent pain, stiffness, infection, and dislocation, did not significantly differ between the approaches. Notably, dorsal approach was associated with higher risk of swan-neck deformity (9 out of 82 implants), while no such cases were reported in the volar approach (0 out of 101 implants).
Conclusion:
Despite limitations and heterogeneity in the literature, both dorsal and volar approaches for PIPJ arthroplasty appear to yield equivalent outcomes for patients.
Level Of Evidence:
II, therapeutic.
