| Literature DB >> 29606549 |
Namık Şahin1, Gökhan Cansabuncu2, Nazan Çevik3, Oğuz Türker3, Güven Özkaya4, Yüksel Özkan3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological results of proximal crescentic osteotomy (PCO) and rotational scarf osteotomy performed in the treatment of hallux valgus.Entities:
Keywords: Foot; Hallux valgus; Proximal crescentic osteotomy; Scarf osteotomy; Surgical treatment
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29606549 PMCID: PMC6150448 DOI: 10.1016/j.aott.2018.02.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc ISSN: 1017-995X Impact factor: 1.511
Fig. 1Flow diagram.
Clinical evaluation.
| Clinical parameters | PCO Group | Scarf Group | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | 42 (±16.2) | 36.2 (±16.1) | p = 0.168 |
| 12 months postoperative | 66.7 (±13.4) | 73.2 (±13.5) | p = 0.076 |
| change (%) | 0.89 (±1.12) | 1.66 (±2.02) | |
| p value | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | |
| Preoperative | 6.3 (±1.3) | 6.5 (±1.9) | p = 0.546 |
| 12 months postoperative | 2.4 (±2) | 2.5 (±1.3) | p = 0.811 |
| change (%) | −3.9 (±2.02) | −4 (±2.49) | |
| p value | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | |
PCO: proximal crescentic osteotomy.
Radiographic evaluation.
| Radiological parameters | PCO Group | Scarf Group | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | 38.1 (±7.1) | 36.1 (±7.5) | p = 0.301 |
| 12 months postoperative | 23.8 (±8.5) | 22.2 (±7.5) | |
| change (%) | −0.37 (±0.21) | −0.39 (±0.14) | p = 0.656 |
| p value | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | |
| Preoperative | 17.3 (±3.8) | 16.2 (±2.6) | p = 0.215 |
| 12 months postoperative | 11.8 (±3.3) | 9.3 (±2.4) | |
| change (%) | −0.31 (±0.17) | −0.42 (±0.17) | p = 0.017 |
| p value | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | |
| Preoperative | 17.1 (±4.8) | 15 (±6.7) | p = 0.182 |
| 12 months postoperative | 15.4 (±7.6) | 9.8 (±4.9) | |
| change (%) | −0.11 (±0.36) | −0.31 (±0.32) | p = 0.028 |
| p value | p > 0.05 | p < 0.01 | |
PCO: proximal crescentic osteotomy, IMA: intermetatarsal angle, DMAA: distal metatarsal articular angle.
Fig. 2Preoperative antero-posterior (A), postoperative anteroposterior (B) and lateral (C) weight bearing X-rays of a patient who has undergone proximal crescentic osteotomy.
Fig. 3Preoperative antero-posterior (A), postoperative anteroposterior (B) and lateral (C) weight bearing X-rays of a patient who has undergone rotational scarf osteotomy.
Evaluation of the joint congruency.
| MTP joint congruency n (%) | PCO Group | Scarf Group | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| congruent | 5 (16.7) | 8 (26.7) | p = 0.347 |
| incongruent | 25 (83.3) | 22 (73.3) | |
| congruent | 24 (80) | 26 (86.7) | p = 0.893 |
| incongruent | 6 (20) | 4 (13.3) | |
| p value | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | |
PCO: proximal crescentic osteotomy, MTP: metatarsophalangeal joint.
Evaluation of the lateral sesamoid subluxation percent.
| Lateral sesamoid subluxation | PCO Group n (%) | Scarf Group n (%) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| %0-25 | 2 (6.7) | 0 (0) | p = 0.582 |
| %25-50 | 5 (16.7) | 6 (20) | |
| %50-100 | 23 (76.7) | 24 (80) | |
| %0-25 | 7 (23.3) | 7 (23.3) | p = 0.167 |
| %25-50 | 7 (23.3) | 14 (46.7) | |
| %50-100 | 16 (53.3) | 9 (30) | |
| p = 0.053 | P < 0.001 | ||
PCO: proximal crescentic osteotomy.