| Literature DB >> 26584658 |
Caio Nery1, Fernando C Raduan2, Fernanda Catena3, Tania Szejnfeld Mann4, Marco Antonio Percope de Andrade5, Daniel Baumfeld6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To the present day, literature has only discussed how to treat extensive plantar plate and collateral ligament lesions, with gross joint subluxation and obvious clinical instability. The treatment options for early stages of the disease with minor injuries and subtle instabilities have not been described. The main purpose of this prospective study is to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of the arthroscopic radiofrequency shrinkage and distal Weil osteotomy in the treatment of subtle metatarsophalangeal joint instability.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26584658 PMCID: PMC4653840 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-015-0318-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Toe-purchase: the strength of toe or digital purchase was evaluated using the “paper pullout test”
Fig. 2The graduation of Hamilton–Thompson MTP “drawer test”: G0 = stable joint, G1 = light instability (<50 % subluxable), G2 = moderate instability (>50 % subluxable), G3 = gross instability (dislocatable joint), G4 = dislocated joint
Fig. 3Schematic representation of the anatomic grading of MTP plantar plate lesions in a right MTP2 joint
Fig. 4Arthroscopic settings. a The two dorsal MTP portals, dorso-medial, and dorso-lateral. b Positioning of the surgeon, facing the dorsal aspect of the foot
Fig. 5Panoramic view of a lesser MTP joint
Fig. 6Multiple views of lesser MTP joint. Note that the arthroscopic probe tip is inside a small grade 1 plantar plate tear. The shrinkage and sealing of the lesion was obtained using radiofrequency as proposed in this study
Demographic data of symptoms and affected joints
| Data | Grade of lesion | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | |||
| # Joints | 23 | 12 | 35 | |
| Toe | II | 5 | 7 | 12 |
| (21.7 %) | (58.3 %) | (34.2 %) | ||
| III | 17 | 3 | 20 | |
| (73.9 %) | (25.0 %) | (57.1 %) | ||
| IV | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| (4.3 %) | (16.7 %) | (8.7 %) | ||
| Acute pain | No | 10 | 4 | 14 |
| (43.5 %) | (33.3 %) | (40.0 %) | ||
| Yes | 13 | 8 | 21 | |
| (56.5 %) | (66.7 %) | (60.0 %) | ||
| Swelling | No | 18 | 5 | 23 |
| (78.3 %) | (41.7 %) | (65.7 %) | ||
| Yes | 5 | 7 | 12 | |
| (21.7 %) | (58.3 %) | (34.3 %) | ||
| Spread toe | No | 8 | 5 | 13 |
| (34.8 %) | (41.7 %) | (37.1 %) | ||
| Yes | 15 | 7 | 22 | |
| (65.2 %) | (58.3 %) | (62.9 %) | ||
Pre- and post-operative analysis of AOFAS score and VAS scale
| AOFAS | Grade of lesion | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 ( | 1 ( | ( | ||
| Pre-operative | Mean | 56.2# | 55.6# | 56.0* |
| Min–max | 47–65 | 47–67 | 47–67 | |
| Post-operative (%) | Mean | 90.7# | 90.1# | 90.5* |
| Min–max | 69–97 | 75–100 | 69–100 | |
| VAS | ||||
| Pre-operative | Mean | 8.0& | 7.3& | 7.8* |
| Min–max | 6–9 | 7–9 | 6–9 | |
| Post-operative | Mean | 0.91& | 0.67& | 0.83* |
| Min–max | 0–5 | 0–2 | 0–5 | |
*p value (pre × post) p < 0.0001
# p value [mean (G0 × G1)] p = 0.9842
&p value [mean (G0 × G1)] p = 0.0340
Pre- and post-operative analysis of elevation and toe purchase
| Elevation | Grade of lesion | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 ( | 1 ( | ( | ||
| Pre-operative | No | 5& | 0^ | 5 |
| (21.7 %) | (0 %) | (14.3 %) | ||
| Yes | 18& | 12^ | 30 | |
| (78.3 %) | (100 %) | (85.7 %) | ||
| Post-operative | No | 23*,& | 10*,^ | 33 |
| (100 %) | (83.3 %) | (94.3 %) | ||
| Yes | 0*,& | 2*,^ | 2 | |
| (0 %) | (16.7 %) | (5.7 %) | ||
| Toe purchase | ||||
| Pre-operative | Present | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| (8.7 %) | (16.7 %) | (11.4 %) | ||
| Diminish | 11 | 0 | 11 | |
| (47.8 %) | (0 %) | (31.4 %) | ||
| Absent | 10 | 10 | 20 | |
| (43.5 %) | (83.3 %) | (57.1 %) | ||
| Post-operative | Present | 21# | 7# | 28 |
| (91.3 %) | (58.3 %) | (80.0 %) | ||
| Diminish | 0# | 2# | 2 | |
| (0 %) | (16.7 %) | (5.7 %) | ||
| Absent | 2# | 3# | 5 | |
| (8.7 %) | (25.0 %) | (14.3 %) | ||
*p value (G0 × G1) p = 0.1109
# p value (G0 × G1) p = 0.0340
&p value [(pre × post) grade 0] p < 0.0001
^ p value [(pre × post) grade 1] p < 0.0016
Pre- and post-operative analysis of stability and congruency
| Stability | Grade of lesion | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 ( | 1 ( | ( | ||
| Pre-operative | G0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (0 %) | (0 %) | (0 %) | ||
| G1 | 23 | 11 | 34 | |
| (100 %) | (91.7 %) | (97.1 %) | ||
| G2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| (0 %) | (8.3 %) | (2.9 %) | ||
| Post-operative | G0 | 20 | 9 | 29 |
| (87.0 %) | (75.0 %) | (82.9 %) | ||
| G1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | |
| (13.0 %) | (25.0 %) | (17.1 %) | ||
| G2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| (0 %) | (0 %) | (0 %) | ||
|
| 0.3910 | |||
| Congruency | ||||
| Pre-operative | Congruent | 18 | 7 | 25 |
| (78.3 %) | (58.3 %) | (71.4 %) | ||
| Incongruent | 5 | 5 | 10 | |
| (21.7 %) | (41.7 %) | (28.6 %) | ||
| Post-operative | Congruent | 23 | 11 | 34 |
| (100 %) | (91.7 %) | (97.1 %) | ||
| Incongruent | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| (0 %) | (8.3 %) | (2.9 %) | ||
|
| 0.3430 | |||
Stability p value (pre × postoperative grade 0) p = 0.0001
Stability p value (pre × postoperative grade 1) p = 0.0139
Congruency p value (pre × postoperative grade 0) p = 0.0253
Congruency p value (pre × postoperative grade 1) p = 0.0455