Revision surgeries for failed hallux valgus correction: A systematic review.
Failure
Hallux valgus correction
Non-union
Revision
Journal
The surgeon : journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland
ISSN: 1479-666X
Titre abrégé: Surgeon
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101168329
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
30
08
2020
revised:
13
11
2020
accepted:
27
11
2020
pubmed:
12
1
2021
medline:
17
11
2021
entrez:
11
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Failure of hallux valgus (HV) correction is not uncommon, and its management can be challenging. The available literature is not exhaustive. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to investigate the current evidence on the role of revision surgery for failed HV correction, including clinical presentation, indications, surgical strategies and outcomes. The present systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Pubmed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Scopus online databases were accessed in November 2020. All the clinical studies on revision for failed HV correction were analysed, and only studies reporting quantitative data under the outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion. Data from 20 studies (586 procedures) were retrieved. The HV angle, the intermetatarsal angle and the distal metatarsal articular angle were reduced of 17.8° (P < 0.001), 3.3° (P = 0.05) and 7.3° (P < 0.001) respectively. The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score improved of 24.7% (P < 0.001). The visual analogue scale improved by 40.8% (P < 0.001). Dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the first metatarso-phalangeal joint remained similar to their preoperative values (P = 0.2 and P = 0.4, respectively). After revision surgery the following complications were further detected: recurrences 5.1% (30 of 586 patients), non-unions 4.1% (24/586), additional surgical procedures 8.7% (51 of 586 patients). Revision surgery for failed primary HV correction can yield satisfying results. Accurate preoperative planning is necessary to try and identify the causes of failure, and address them appropriately.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Failure of hallux valgus (HV) correction is not uncommon, and its management can be challenging. The available literature is not exhaustive. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to investigate the current evidence on the role of revision surgery for failed HV correction, including clinical presentation, indications, surgical strategies and outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
The present systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Pubmed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Scopus online databases were accessed in November 2020. All the clinical studies on revision for failed HV correction were analysed, and only studies reporting quantitative data under the outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Data from 20 studies (586 procedures) were retrieved. The HV angle, the intermetatarsal angle and the distal metatarsal articular angle were reduced of 17.8° (P < 0.001), 3.3° (P = 0.05) and 7.3° (P < 0.001) respectively. The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score improved of 24.7% (P < 0.001). The visual analogue scale improved by 40.8% (P < 0.001). Dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the first metatarso-phalangeal joint remained similar to their preoperative values (P = 0.2 and P = 0.4, respectively). After revision surgery the following complications were further detected: recurrences 5.1% (30 of 586 patients), non-unions 4.1% (24/586), additional surgical procedures 8.7% (51 of 586 patients).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Revision surgery for failed primary HV correction can yield satisfying results. Accurate preoperative planning is necessary to try and identify the causes of failure, and address them appropriately.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33423923
pii: S1479-666X(20)30183-9
doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.11.010
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e497-e506Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest None.