| Literature DB >> 35097369 |
Samantha Cronin1, Matthew Conti2, Nicholas Williams3, Scott J Ellis2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hallux valgus can alter load bearing in the foot leading to abnormal forces on the second toe. The purpose of this study was to determine demographic and radiographic factors associated with second ray hammertoes in hallux valgus using 3-dimensional weightbearing CT scans.Entities:
Keywords: bunion; hallux valgus; hammertoe; second ray; weightbearing CT
Year: 2020 PMID: 35097369 PMCID: PMC8697280 DOI: 10.1177/2473011420909088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foot Ankle Orthop ISSN: 2473-0114
Figure 1.Sample radiographic measurements from weightbearing CT scans. (A) Hallux valgus angle measured from axial weightbearing CT slices as the angle between the hallux and first metatarsal. (B) Intermetatarsal angle measured from axial weightbearing CT slices as the angle between the first and second metatarsals. (C) Metatarsus adductus angle was measured from axial weightbearing CT slices as the angle between the second metatarsal and a line perpendicular to a line bisecting the navicular and cuboid bones. (D) Absolute first MT measured on an axial weightbearing CT slice as the length from one end of the metatarsal bone to the other. (E) Effective first MT length was measured from sagittal weightbearing CT scans as the length between 2 lines projected down from each end of the bone to account for the angle of the metatarsal in the foot. (F) Meary angle was measured from sagittal weightbearing CT slices as the angle between a line bisecting the talus and another bisecting the first metatarsal. CT, computed tomographic; MT, metatarsal angle.
Foot Characteristics Stratified by Advanced Hammertoe Status.a
| Characteristic | Hallux Valgus Only | Advanced Hammertoe |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 49 (12.56) | 59 (5.90) |
|
| BMI | 24.54 (4.07) | 28.21 (4.63) |
|
| HVA | 34.4 (7.02) | 38.7 (8.92) |
|
| Absolute first MT | 60.6 (3) | 61.4 (3.48) | .26 |
| Absolute second MT | 72.8 (3.41) | 74.3 (4.42) | .11 |
| Absolute MT ratio 2:1 | 1.2 (0.03) | 1.21 (0.04) | .48 |
| Effective first MT | 64.4 (3.92) | 65.7 (4.03) | .14 |
| Effective second MT | 71.3 (4.43) | 74.7 (5.14) |
|
| Effective MT ratio 2:1 | 1.11 (0.06) | 1.14 (0.06) | .06 |
| IMA | 14.7 (2.76) | 17.4 (3.63) |
|
| MAA | 15.2 (4.26) | 17.5 (5.83) | .06 |
| Meary angle | 1.4 (6.16) | 5.6 (6.44) |
|
| Pronation (preop) | 30.5 (9.62) | 25.3 (6.92) | .18 |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; HVA, hallux valgus angle; IMA, intermetatarsal angle; MAA, metatarsus adductus angle; MT, metatarsal; Preop, preoperative.
a Presented as mean (SD) for each characteristic. Comparison of variables across outcome groups (hallux valgus only or hallux valgus and advanced second ray hammertoe). Bold values are statistically significant (P < .05).
Results of Simple Logistic Regression Using Different Hammertoe Groupings.a
| Variable | Advanced Hammertoe Only, | Mild Hammertoe Removed, | Severe Hammertoe Removed, |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age |
|
|
|
| BMI (continuous) |
|
|
|
| BMI (obese vs nonobese) |
|
|
|
| HVA |
|
| 1.08 (1, 1.16) |
| HVA (moderate vs mild) | 1.44 (0.41, 5.95) | 1.55 (0.43, 6.51) | 2.67 (0.6, 18.86) |
| HVA (severe vs mild) |
|
|
|
| IMA |
|
|
|
| MAA | 1.1 (1, 1.22) |
| 1.09 (0.99, 1.21) |
| Absolute first MT | 1.09 (0.94, 1.27) | 1.1 (0.95, 1.3) | 1.12 (0.96, 1.32) |
| Absolute second MT | 1.11 (0.98, 1.26) | 1.13 (0.99, 1.29) | 1.11 (0.98, 1.27) |
| Absolute MT ratio 2:1 | 146.68 (0, 214141488.1) | 2259.46 (0, 6109746048.53) | 1.79 (0, 7250286.13) |
| Effective first MT | 1.1 (0.97, 1.25) | 1.11 (0.98, 1.27) | 1.09 (0.97, 1.25) |
| Effective second MT |
|
|
|
| Effective MT ratio 2:1 | 3662.8 (1.22, 20842529.75) | 10350.79 (3.18, 69984346.58) | 24700.29 (4.26, 371731259.85) |
| Meary angle |
|
|
|
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; HVA, hallux valgus angle; IMA, intermetatarsal angle; MAA, metatarsus adductus angle; MT, metatarsal; OR, odds ratio.
a This table demonstrates the ORs of a second ray hammertoe occurring based on how a hammertoe is defined. Advanced hammertoes included those patients who underwent a proximal interphalangeal resection and MTPJ capsular release. Mild hammertoes were patients who had an MTPJ capsular release only. Severe hammertoes were patients who required a second metatarsal shortening osteotomy. Bold values are statistically significant (P < .05).
Results of Multivariable Logistic Regression on the Odds of Developing an Advanced Hammertoe.a
| Variable | OR (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| HVA | 1.04 (0.97, 1.12) | .28 |
| IMA | 1.22 (1.02, 1.49) |
|
| MAA | 1.05 (0.93, 1.18) | .46 |
| Absolute first MT | 1.04 (0.88, 1.24) | .64 |
| Absolute second MT | 1.08 (0.94, 1.25) | .29 |
| Effective first MT | 1.05 (0.9, 1.22) | .54 |
| Effective second MT | 1.12 (0.99, 1.27) | .07 |
| Meary angle | 1.13 (1.03, 1.25) |
|
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; HVA, hallux valgus angle; IMA, intermetatarsal angle; MAA, metatarsus adductus angle; MT, metatarsal; OR, odds ratio.
a This table shows the OR of certain radiographic parameters on the risk of having an advanced hammertoe after controlling for patient age and BMI. The OR correspond to the presence of an advanced hammertoe compared to presence of hallux valgus only for a 1-unit increase in the independent variable adjusting for age and BMI. Bold values are statistically significant (P < .05).