| Literature DB >> 35701770 |
Yasunari Ikuta1,2, Tomoyuki Nakasa3,4, Junichi Sumii3, Akinori Nekomoto3, Nobuo Adachi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypermobility of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint is frequently identified in patients with hallux valgus (HV); however, its association with the development of osteoarthritis in the first TMT joint in such patients remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to clarify the distribution of subchondral bone density of the first TMT joint via computed tomography (CT) using Hounsfield units (HU).Entities:
Keywords: Arthrodesis; Hallux valgus; Osteoarthritis; Subchondral bone density; Tarsometatarsal
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35701770 PMCID: PMC9195286 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05523-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.562
Demographic data of the control, osteotomy, and arthrodesis groups
| Age (years) | 29.7 (19–46) | 61.8 (28–79) | 71.2 (64–79) | < 0.01* | |
| Sex | Male | 7 | 0 | 2 | < 0.01** |
| Female | 6 | 20 | 21 | ||
| Side | Left | 5 | 10 | 10 | 0.66** |
| Right | 8 | 11 | 13 |
*One-way ANOVA
**Chi-squared test
Age is presented as mean (range)
Fig. 1Four subdivided areas of the first tarsometatarsal joint in the medial cuneiform (A) and the first metatarsal (B) on axial CT images. Red line: line that connects the midpoint of the mediolateral width; Yellow dotted line: bisection line of the dorsoplantar height
Radiographic parameters of hallux valgus
| Control versus Osteotomy | Control versus Arthrodesis | Osteotomy versus Arthrodesis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12.1 (8.8–15.3) | 32.7 (21.8–42.4) | 45.4 (41.8–49.0) | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |
| 9.4 (8.2–10.6) | 14.8 (12.2–19.8) | 18.9 (17.9–19.9) | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |
| 27.6 (26.0–29.2) | 35.9 (31.5–41.3) | 37.5 (35.5–39.6) | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | 0.49 | |
All parameters were statistically analyzed using Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison analysis. Each parameter is shown as the mean (95% confidence interval)
Abbreviation: M metatarsal bone
Fig. 2HU ratios of subdivided areas of the medial cuneiform and first metatarsal in the control, osteotomy, and arthrodesis groups. HU ratios are presented as mean ± standard deviation. * P < 0.05
Histopathological grade of the articular cartilage of the medial cuneiform and first metatarsal in the arthrodesis group
| Medial cuneiform | 1.26 (0.87–1.66) | 1.00 (0.61–1.39) | 0.74 (0.27–1.21) | 0.74 (0.34–1.14) | 0.21 |
| First metatarsal | 1.09 (0.72–1.45) | 1.13 (0.8–1.46) | 0.83 (0.55–1.11) | 0.74 (0.44–1.04) | 0.21 |
All parameters were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Each parameter is shown as the mean (95% confidence interval)
Fig. 3Representative histological images of the medial cuneiform (A, B) and the first metatarsal (C, D) in the arthrodesis group. A, C: Slight degenerative changes of the articular cartilage and increased bone volume fraction in the dorsal region. B, D: Normal articular cartilage in the plantar region