| Literature DB >> 31651315 |
Ming-Hung Chiang1, Ting-Ming Wang2,3, Ken N Kuo2,4, Shier-Chieg Huang2, Kuan-Wen Wu5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of percutaneous hemiepiphysiodesis for gradual correction of symptomatic juvenile hallux valgus (HV) deformity.Entities:
Keywords: Hallux valgus angle; Hemiepiphysiodesis; Intermetatarsal angle; Juvenile hallux valgus
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31651315 PMCID: PMC6813977 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2867-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Radiographic angle measurements: (a) Intermetatarsal angle (IMA), hallux valgus angle (HVA), proximal metatarsal articular angle-AP (PMAA-AP), proximal phalangeal articular angle (PPAA) (b) proximal metatarsal articular angle (PMAA-LAT)
Fig. 2Line A: from center of screw at physeal crossing to lateral border of physis parallel to line B. Line B: length of proximal physis, “A/B” represents screw position
Fig. 3Under fluoroscopic guidance, a guide wire is inserted from the medial cortex distal to the first metatarsal physis, directing to lateral third of the physis in AP view and center of the physis in lateral view
Demographic data
| Results | SD | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of feet | 37 | N/A | N/A |
| Gender (M/F) | 9/12 | N/A | N/A |
| Laterality (right/left) | 17/20 | N/A | N/A |
| Mean age at surgery (years) | 12.0 | 1.3 | 9.5~14.5 |
| Mean length of follow-up (months) | 35.1 | 6.0 | 26.9~51.1 |
| Mean time to physeal closure (months) | 15 | 4.8 | 8.9~26.2 |
| Screw position-AP | 0.25 | 0.07 | 0.11~0.40 |
| Screw position-LAT | 0.56 | 0.07 | 0.41~0.67 |
Summary of Radiographic Measurements and Functional Assessments
| Pre-OP | Post-OP | Difference | Intra-rater reliabilityc | Inter-rater reliabilityc | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | 95% CI | SD | ||||
| HVA | 25.1 | 4.8 | 20.4 | 6.3 | −4.7 | −6.1~ − 3.3 | 4.1 | <0.001* | 0.969 | 0.916 |
| IMA | 12.3 | 2.4 | 10.0 | 2.7 | −2.2 | −2.9~ − 1.6 | 2.0 | <0.001* | 0.914 | 0.876 |
| PMAA-AP | 91.9 | 5.0 | 89.4 | 6.6 | −2.5 | −4.1~ − 0.9 | 4.9 | 0.004* | 0.941 | 0.917 |
| PPAA | 97.4 | 2.7 | 95.4 | 2.8 | −1.9 | −2.7~ − 1.2 | 2.2 | <0.001* | 0.897 | 0.813 |
| PMAA-LAT | 86.0 | 1.9 | 85.8 | 1.8 | −0.2 | −0.7~0.4 | 1.6 | 0.564 | 0.816 | 0.859 |
| MTLR | 0.83 | 0.03 | 0.83 | 0.04 | 0.00 | −0.01~0.01 | 0.02 | 0.216 | 0.922 | 0.940 |
| AOFAS | 68.7 | 10.1 | 85.2 | 12.3 | 16.5 | 13.9~19.1 | 7.8 | <0.001 | – | – |
HVA hallux valgus angle, IMA intermetatarsal angle, PMAA-AP proximal metatarsal articular angle in AP view, PPAA proximal phalangeal articular angle, PMAA-LAT proximal metatarsal articular angle in lateral view, MTLR 1st/2nd metatarsal length ratio, CI confidence interval. * P < 0.05 in Paired Samples T-test. c Correlation Coefficient. SD: Standard deviation
Pearson Correlation Coefficients (r) for the Relation of Final HVA Change and Pre-operative Parameters
| Variables | r | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | −0.133 | 0.556 |
| Time to physeal closure | −0.611 | 0.003* |
| Pre-OP HVA | −0.005 | 0.977 |
| Pre-OP IMA | 0.214 | 0.204 |
| Pre-OP PPAA | −0.312 | 0.060 |
| Pre-OP PMAA-AP | 0.271 | 0.104 |
| Pre-OP MTLR | 0.266 | 0.112 |
*P < 0.05
Fig. 4a The case example shows the initial HVA was 25.5 degrees, and IMA was 8.5 degrees at age of twelve. b Two years and 2 months after the operation, the HVA improved to 14.6 degrees, and IMA improved to 4.7 degrees
Comparison of Current Study and Natural Course Study (Sung et al)
| Current Study | Sung et al | |
|---|---|---|
| Age at first visit (years) | 12.0 | 10.2 |
| HVA at first visit | 25.1 | 18.4 |
| IMA at first visit | 12.3 | 10.1 |
| Follow-up duration (years) | 2.9 | 2.8 |
| Progression rate of HVA (degrees/year) | −1.8 | 0.8 |
| Progression rate of IMA (degrees/year) | −0.8 | 0.0 |
HVA hallux valgus angle, IMA intermetatarsal angle
Negative value in progression rate indicative of improvement