ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Utilization of Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty and Arthrodesis in the United States From 2010 to 2019.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interphalangeal joint (IPJ) arthrodesis and arthroplasty are mainstay treatments for IPJ arthritis with conflicting evidence about the most efficacious choice. Our study describes case volume and incidence over the last decade (2010-2019). Methods: The IBM MarketScan database was queried using Current Procedural Terminology codes for IPJ arthrodesis and arthroplasty from January 2010 to December 2019. Volume and incidence were estimated annually and according to sex, age, and US geographical region for 2010 and 2019. Results: Annual volume and incidence of IPJ arthrodesis increased slightly from 2010 to 2019, though with overlapping confidence intervals for incidence. Arthrodesis tended to be higher in women versus men, especially with increasing age. When considering age, the most substantial increase in rates over increasing age was moving from the 40s to 50s age brackets. Across US regions, arthrodesis was higher in the northeast and midwest in 2010, though other rates rose and regions were similar by 2019. For IPJ arthroplasty, there was a 25%-30% decrease in case volume and incidence over the decade. Incidence was generally higher among women, with a similar jump in incidence from 40s to 50s among women, whereas men showed a more gradual rate increase with age. Regionally, arthroplasty was highest in the northeast and midwest in 2010, though it was similar across regions in 2019. Conclusions: Although IPJ arthrodesis levels have stayed relatively stable, IPJ arthroplasty showed a general decline over the decade. Incidence of both were higher among women, and despite initial regional differences, rates became more similar by 2019.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.