| Literature DB >> 35097433 |
Richard Paterson1, Nikiforos Pandelis Saragas2, Paulo Norberto Faria Ferrao1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A bunionette is a painful prominence of the fifth metatarsal head. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcome of 2 corrective osteotomies, namely, the Mau-type and Ludloff-type osteotomies. We report results with regard to correction, healing, complications, and patient-reported outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Ludloff; Mau; bowing; bunionette; fourth-fifth intermetatarsal angle; osteotomy
Year: 2021 PMID: 35097433 PMCID: PMC8702927 DOI: 10.1177/2473011421993793
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foot Ankle Orthop ISSN: 2473-0114
Etiology of the Bunionette.
| Anatomic causes | Biomechanical causes |
|---|---|
| Tight shoes resulting in pressure over lateral fifth metatarsal | Fifth metatarsal deformity (lateral curve) |
| Abnormal foot position causing the lateral border of the foot to rest on the ground | Fifth ray deformities—congenital plantar or dorsiflexion |
| A prominent lateral fifth metatarsal head | Hypermobility of the fifth metatarsal as a result of excessive pronation |
| Hypertrophy of soft tissues overlying the lateral aspect of the fifth metatarsal head | Pronation of the fifth metatarsal with subluxation is also associated with pronation of the subtalar and midtarsal joints |
| Widening of the fourth-fifth intermetatarsal angle due to extra ossicles on the fourth metatarsal lateral aspect | Hindfoot eversion in pes planus results in a more laterally pronounced fifth metatarsal |
| Fourth-fifth intermetatarsal angle widening | |
| Transverse metatarsal ligament abnormalities, eg, incomplete insertion or incomplete development |
Figure 1.Coughlin radiographic classification for bunionettes. (A) Type 1: Enlarged fifth metatarsal head. (B) Type 2: Lateral bowing of fifth metatarsal. (C) Type 3: Increased fourth-fifth intermetatarsal angle.
Figure 2.Mau-type osteotomy: results in bowing due to midosteotomy fixation point.
Figure 3.Ludloff-type osteotomy: No bowing caused as fixation is at proximal end of osteotomy.
Patient Bunionette Classified According to Coughlin’s Radiographic Classification.
| Coughlin Classification | Type 1 | Type 2 | Type 3 | Type 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ludloff osteotomy (n = 21) | 0 | 2 | 15 | 4 |
| Mau osteotomy (n = 22) | 0 | 3 | 18 | 1 |
Figure 4.Angle of bowing: measured between the longitudinal axis of the proximal and distal fragments.
Figure 5.(A) Distal half of osteotomy is performed first and secured with a cannulated screw inserted 75% of the way in. (B) The proximal half of the osteotomy is completed. (C) The distal half is rotated medially and secured. (D) A second cannulated screw is used for final fixation and the overhanging bony shelves are resected.
Figure 6.Supplemental fixation with a plate for the Ludloff-type osteotomy.
Figure 7.(A) A capsulorrhaphy of the lateral capsule is performed using the “shoe lace” technique. (B) A thin piece of sponge is used as a spacer in the fourth web to protect the capsulorrhaphy while it heals.
Radiographic Measurements.
| IMA Average, degrees | IMA Range, degrees | Bowing, degrees | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop | Postop | Preop | Postop | ||
| Mau | 10.5 | 4.3 | 5-18 | 0-11 | 9.8 (0-18) |
| Ludloff | 10.2 | 4 | 6-16 | 0-7° | 3.5 (0-7) |
Abbreviation: IMA, intermetatarsal angles.
SEFAS Scoring for Both Cohorts.
| SEFAS Score | Mau Type, n (%) | Ludloff Type, n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| (n=22) | (n=21) | |
| Excellent (>41) | 20 (90.9) | 19 (90.47) |
| Good (34-41) | 2 (10) | 2 (9.5) |
| Fair (27-33) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Poor (<27) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Abbreviation: SEFAS, Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score.