Re: Grading of radiographic osteolytic changes after silastic metacarpophalangeal arthroplasty and a prospective trial of osteolysis following use of Swanson and Sutter prostheses.
T. Joyce
Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)
Abstract:The recent paper by Parkkila et al. provided an interesting and valuable account of radiographic changes after silastic arthroplasty, comparing patients fitted with Swanson and Sutter metacarpophalangeal prostheses. The authors state that the cause of the osteolysis they describe is a foreign body reaction against silicone particles. However, while this is one possible cause, there may be others including: (1) modified loading across the joint after the implant has been fitted and (2) motion of the implant within the bones, or ‘pistoning’ as it is sometimes called. With removal of the metacarpal head prior to an implant being fitted, it is perhaps inevitable that loading across the joint will be altered. Therefore, as suggested by Wolff’s law, bone could be deposited and resorbed in accordance with the stresses placed upon it. In the case of metacarpophalangeal joints, Swanson supported this idea by offering the opinion that ‘excessive bone remodelling in the absence of normal forces transmitted to the bone in joint function’ was the cause of bone resorption in the instance of resection arthroplasty (Swanson and de Groot Swanson, 1984). Therefore, could a response to changed loading be a contributory factor to the changes seen on X-rays by Parkkila et al.? A second possible cause of osteolysis, aside from foreign body reaction, is motion of the implant within the bones. This paper mentions pistoning and, intriguingly, states that their grade 1 changes could be ‘a normal reaction to the silastic stem moving axially during flexion and extension’. However, they seem to abandon this as a reason for the more severe changes which they categorise as grades 2, 3 and 4. Although Swanson (1972) suggested that pistoning increased implant life by dispersing forces over a larger area other early researchers in the field all supported the idea of pistoning of the implant as the cause of bone erosion (Beckenbaugh et al., 1976; Hagert et al., 1975; Kay et al., 1978). As pistoning of silastic metacarpophalangeal implants is still reported (Weiss et al., 2004), then could this early opinion still apply? The debate regarding silicone synovitis following silastic arthroplasty at the metacarpophalangeal joint has had several contributions. Khoo (1993) defined silicone synovitis as ‘a foreign body reaction to particulate material’. When silicone prostheses in relatively heavily loaded joints such as the thumb, wrist or elbow are considered, some authors have suggested that the problem of silicone synovitis is significant (Minamikawa et al., 1994; Peimer, 1987; Peimer et al., 1986). Conversely, there appears to be a large body of evidence indicating that the incidence of silicone synovitis is low compared with the number of metacarpophalangeal prostheses inserted (Ferlic et al., 1975; Foliart, 1995; Khoo, 1993; Kirschenbaum et al., 1993; Olsen et al., 1994; Swanson et al., 1997; Trail, 2005). Perhaps it is fair to recognise that silicone wear particles will be associated with all silicone spacer implants in every joint for which they are available, but the intensity of any resultant foreign body response will likely be related to the activity of the patient and the magnitude of the forces within each joint (Pellegrini, 1991). At the metacarpophalangeal joint these forces are relatively low, hence the low incidence of silicone synovitis reported by several authors. Parkkila et al. state that the stems of Sutter and Swanson metacarpophalangeal implants are the same shape. However, the longitudinal edges of the Swanson stems are rounded while those of the Sutter implant form more of a 901 angle. Given that the edges of the Sutter implant are ‘sharper’, could this shape lead to increased localised stresses at the bone-implant interface, and, thus, could this design feature be associated with the greater osteolytic changes seen with the Sutter implants than with the Swanson prosthesis? In conclusion, to explain osteolytic changes as an inflammatory reaction in the bone against silicone particles may be too simplistic. Pistoning of the implant or a changed loading distribution may also be important causes of osteolytic changes. All three potential causes, either singly or synergistically, should perhaps be acknowledged, considered and discussed.