The long-term outcome of silastic implant arthroplasty of the first metatarsophalangeal joint: a retrospective analysis of one hundred and eight feet
The short-term results of silastic implant of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) have been successful. However, reservations exist regarding long-term results. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term outcome of silastic implant prosthesis in treatment of hallus rigidus.
This was a retrospective study, with 108 feet in 83 patients, operated upon between 1988 and 2003. Mean age at operation was 55 years (SD 8.1) with a follow-up period of 8.5 years. Outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Scoring system(AOFAS), passive and active arc of motion. Patients’ satisfaction was assessed using the visual analogue scale. All the patients had anteroposterior and oblique views and were assessed for loosening and osteolysis. Pedobarographic studies were performed using the Musgrave Footprint. Complications and revisions were recorded.
The mean total AOFAS score was 77.5 (SD 13.4). Mean active and passive arc of motions were 36.8 degrees (SD 19.13) and 46.82 degrees (SD 17.19), respectively. Patient satisfaction showed mean VAS of 7.73 (SD 2.41). Prostheses were removed in three feet at three, five and seven years respectively because of persistent pain. Radiologically 25 feet (23 %) had osteolysis but were non progressive and didn’t correlate with the functional outcome.
We can conclude that silastic implant arthroplasty is an effective procedure in hallux rigidus management with satisfactory functional outcome and high patient satisfaction.
KeywordsPlantar Pressure Metatarsal Head Metatarsophalangeal Joint Occasional Pain Satisfactory Functional Outcome
- 1.Swanson A, Biddulph SI, Hagert CG (1971) A silicone rubber implant to supplement the Keller toe arthtroplasty. NY Univ Inter Clin Inform Bull 10:7–14Google Scholar
- 5.Needleman L (1995) The microscopic interaction between silicone and the surrounding tissues. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 12:415–423Google Scholar
- 6.Vanore J, O’Keefe R, Pikscher I (1984) Complications of silicone implants in foot surgery. Clin Podiatr 1:175–198Google Scholar
- 8.Romash MM (1995) Commentary on survivorship analysis of implant arthroplasty for the first metatarsophalangeal joint. ADV Orthop Surg 19:120–122Google Scholar
- 10.Kaliszer M, O'Flanagan S, McCormack B, Mulhall J, Heavey A, Shehan J (1989) Setting the baseline parameters for clinical assessment of foot to ground contact using the Musgrave pressure plate system. J Biomed Eng 11:30–34Google Scholar
- 15.Granberry W, Noble P, Bishop J, Tullos HS (1991) Use of a hinged silicone prosthesis for replacement arthroplasty of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. J Bone Joint Surg 73-A:1453–1459Google Scholar
- 20.Worsing BA, Engber WD, Lange TA (1982) Reactive synovitis from particulate SILASTIC. JBJS 64:581–585Google Scholar
- 21.Papegelopoulos PJ, Kitaoka HB, Ilstrup DM (1994) Survivorship analysis of implant arthroplasty for the first metatarsophalangeal joint. Clin Orthop 302:164–172Google Scholar
- 22.Weissman B (1985) Radiographic evaluation of total joint replacement. In: Kelly WN, Harris N, Ruddy S, Sledge CB (eds) Textbook of rheumatology, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, p 1971Google Scholar
- 23.Vanore J, O’Keefe R, Pikscher I (1984) Silastic implant arthroplasty. J Am Podiatr Assoc 74:423–433Google Scholar
- 24.Hanft JR, Merrill T, Marcinko DE, Mendicino R, Gerbert J, Vanore JV (1996). Grand rounds: first metatarsophalangeal joint replacement. J Foot Ankle Surg 35:78–85Google Scholar