BACKGROUND: Dorsal cheilectomy of the first metatarsophalangeal joint is an accepted treatment to alleviate dorsal impingement, pain, and reduced dorsiflexion in hallux rigidus. Traditionally performed via an open incision, this procedure has more recently been performed using minimally invasive techniques despite limited supportive published evidence. METHODS: From December 2012 through December 2017, a retrospective analysis of all cheilectomies performed in our institution was done. The surgical technique was recorded along with any subsequent procedures performed for either persistent or recurrent pain, and complications were also noted. A comparison between open and minimally invasive outcomes was performed. In total, 171 cheilectomies were performed during this period. There were 38 open and 133 minimally invasive procedures. RESULTS: At a mean 3-year follow-up, the reoperation rates of the 2 groups were different with only 1 (2.6%) of the open group requiring a fusion, while 17 (12.8%) of the minimally invasive surgical (MIS) group required further surgery (relative risk, 4.86; P = .059). In the open group, there was 1 (2.6%) complication, compared with 15 (11.3%) in the minimally invasive group (relative risk, 4.29; P = .076). CONCLUSION: While patients may opt for MIS cheilectomy with a proposed faster recovery time and better cosmesis, they should be counseled about the risks and benefits of both methods, and that the technique of MIS cheilectomy utilized in this study appears to have an increased relative risk of requiring a further procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative series.
BACKGROUND: Dorsal cheilectomy of the first metatarsophalangeal joint is an accepted treatment to alleviate dorsal impingement, pain, and reduced dorsiflexion in hallux rigidus. Traditionally performed via an open incision, this procedure has more recently been performed using minimally invasive techniques despite limited supportive published evidence. METHODS: From December 2012 through December 2017, a retrospective analysis of all cheilectomies performed in our institution was done. The surgical technique was recorded along with any subsequent procedures performed for either persistent or recurrent pain, and complications were also noted. A comparison between open and minimally invasive outcomes was performed. In total, 171 cheilectomies were performed during this period. There were 38 open and 133 minimally invasive procedures. RESULTS: At a mean 3-year follow-up, the reoperation rates of the 2 groups were different with only 1 (2.6%) of the open group requiring a fusion, while 17 (12.8%) of the minimally invasive surgical (MIS) group required further surgery (relative risk, 4.86; P = .059). In the open group, there was 1 (2.6%) complication, compared with 15 (11.3%) in the minimally invasive group (relative risk, 4.29; P = .076). CONCLUSION: While patients may opt for MIS cheilectomy with a proposed faster recovery time and better cosmesis, they should be counseled about the risks and benefits of both methods, and that the technique of MIS cheilectomy utilized in this study appears to have an increased relative risk of requiring a further procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative series.