| Literature DB >> 27919259 |
Carlo Biz1, Michele Fosser2, Miki Dalmau-Pastor3,4, Marco Corradin2, Maria Grazia Rodà5, Roberto Aldegheri2, Pietro Ruggieri2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) represents one of the most innovative surgical treatments of hallux valgus (HV). However, long-term outcomes still remain a matter of discussion within the orthopaedic community. The purpose of this longitudinal prospective study was to evaluate radiographic and functional outcomes in patients with mild-to-severe HV who underwent Reverdin-Isham and Akin percutaneous osteotomy, following exostosectomy and lateral release.Entities:
Keywords: Akin osteotomy; First ray; Forefoot; Hallux valgus; Minimally invasive surgery; Percutaneous distal osteotomy; Reverdin-Isham osteotomy
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27919259 PMCID: PMC5139107 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0491-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Portal placement (a) and rasp introduction (b). The protocolised incision protects the dorsomedial cutaneous nerve of the hallux (c): 1 dorsomedial cutaneous nerve of the hallux, 2 point of incision for Reverdin-Isham osteotomy
Fig. 2Reverdin-Isham osteotomy: intraoperative fluoroscopic imagine shoving the proper position and inclination of the burr to respect the distal first metatarsal bone (a). The final result of an ideal closing wedge osteotomy with a medial base that corrects also the DMAA (b)
Fig. 3Example of post-operative bandage (a) and rigid flat-soled orthopaedic shoe (b)
AOFAS score at different follow-ups
| Preoperative | 3 months | 12 months | 48 months |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean AOFAS score (pts) | 54.1 (±8.3) | 72.2 | 78.6 | 87.1 (±12.8) |
|
AOFAS score before surgery and at final follow-up (48 months)
| Preoperative (%) | Last follow-up (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Pain | ||
| None | 2.5 | 62.5 |
| Mild, occasional | 19 | 28.75 |
| Moderate, daily | 78.5 | 8.75 |
| Severe, almost always present | 0 | 0 |
| Activity limitations | ||
| No limitations | 7.5 | 76.5 |
| Limited daily and recreational activities | 60 | 21 |
| Severe limitation | 32.5 | 2.5 |
| Footwear requirements | ||
| Fashionable, conventional shoes | 13.5 | 44 |
| Comfort footwear, shoe insert | 82.5 | 56 |
| Modified shoes or brace | 4 | 0 |
| MTP joint motion | ||
| Normal or mild restriction >75° | 82.5 | 61 |
| Moderate restriction 30°–74° | 17.5 | 37.5 |
| Severe restriction <30° | 0 | 1.5 |
| Callus related to hallux MTP-IP | ||
| No callus or asymptomatic callus | 39 | 93.75 |
| Callus symptomatic | 61 | 6.25 |
| Alignment | ||
| Good, hallux well aligned | 0 | 68.75 |
| Fair, no symptoms | 0 | 23.7 |
| Poor obvious symptomatic malalignment | 100 | 7.5 |
Fig. 4Pre-op (a) and at 48-month last follow-up (b) clinical images of a 36-year-old woman after having undergone percutaneous Reverdin-Isham osteotomy, lateral release and Akin osteotomy for mild HV correction
Fig. 5Graph of statistical analysis of preoperative and post-operative AOFAS scores (P ≤ 0.05)
Angular values (IMA, HVA and DMAA), sesamoid position, metatarsal index and congruency of the metatarso-phalangeal-I articular surface
| Pre-op | 3-month FU | 12-month FU | 48-month FU | Efficacy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMA (degrees) | |||||
| Tot. (DS) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Mild | 9.1 | 7.1 | 22.0 | ||
| Moderate | 12.1 | 9.0 | 27.3 | ||
| Severe | 16.6 | 10.0 | 39.2 | ||
| HVA (degrees) | |||||
| Tot. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Mild | 16.4 | 9.8 | 40.2 | ||
| Moderate | 26.0 | 14.2 | 45.0 | ||
| Severe | 32.0 | 14.7 | 54.0 | ||
| DMAA (degrees) | |||||
| Tot. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Mild | 6.3 | 3.9 | 38.1 | ||
| Moderate | 10.0 | 5.3 | 47.0 | ||
| Severe | 12.4 | 6.5 | 47.6 | ||
| Sesamoid Position (pts) | |||||
| Tot. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Mild | 2.0 | 0.9 | 55.0 | ||
| Moderate | 2.3 | 1.3 | 43.5 | ||
| Severe | 2.8 | 1.7 | 39.3 | ||
| Metatarsal Index | |||||
| M1 < M2 | 34 | 58 | |||
| M1 = M2 | 28 | 19 | |||
| M1 > M2 | 18 | 3 | |||
| MTP-I Art. Sup. | |||||
| Congruent | 61 | 77 | |||
| Incongruous | 19 | 3 | |||
Preoperative and last follow-up (48 months) angular values
| Mild HV | Moderate HV | Severe HV |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMA | ||||
| Preoperative | 9.1 (±0.7) | 12.1 (±1.9) | 16.6 (±2.1) |
|
| Last follow-up | 7.1 (±0.8) | 9.0 (±1.9) | 10.0 (±2.2) |
|
| HVA | ||||
| Preoperative | 16.4 (±3.1) | 26.0 (±4.93) | 32.0 (±7.7) |
|
| Last follow-up | 9.8 (±5.8) | 14.2 (±5.9) | 14.7 (±7.3) |
|
| DMAA | ||||
| Preoperative | 6.3 (±1.22) | 10.0 (±4.0) | 12.4 (±4.7) |
|
| Last follow-up | 3.9 (±2.5) | 5.3 (±3.0) | 6.5 (±3.9) |
|
| Sesamoid position | ||||
| Preoperative | 2.0 (±0.6) | 2.3 (±0.6) | 2.8 (±0.4) |
|
| Last follow-up | 0.9 (±0.7) | 1.3 (±0.6) | 1.7 (±0.7) |
|
Fig. 6A 36-year-old woman with mild HV: 1 antero-posterior radiographic images, 2 sesamoid and 3 lateral view at preoperative period (a), 1-month follow-up (b), 3-month follow-up (c), 12-month follow-up (d) and 48-month follow-up (e), showing the maintained correction of the deformity
Fig. 7Graph of statistical analysis of preoperative and post-operative different angular values (p ≤ 0.05): IMA (a), HVA (b), DMAA (c) and tibial sesamoid position (d)