First metatarsophalangeal fusion with dorsal plate: clinical outcomes.
Arthrodesis
Hallux
Metatarsophalangeal joint fusion
Plating
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jun 2021
06 Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
21
02
2021
accepted:
04
05
2021
entrez:
7
6
2021
pubmed:
8
6
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
First metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) fusion is the most effective technique for the treatment of MTPJ primary arthritis, severe hallux valgus and failure of primary corrective surgery of these conditions. It can be achieved through different techniques. We evaluated the outcomes in a cohort of patients treated with dorsal plate arthrodesis. We treated 30 feet for 28 patients; the mean follow-up was 35 months. For each foot, we collected radiological and clinical assessment, with the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and the Manchester and Oxford Foot questionnaire (MOFQ). The technique consisted in a cup and cone arthrodesis with the application of a low profile dorsal plate. Patients were allowed for immediate weight bearing. Consolidation was achieved in all cases; in 29 cases, radiographic union was recorded within 6 months from surgery, in one case after 9 months. Comparison between the preoperative and postoperative of VAS and MOXFQ values showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Only one case developed wound dehiscence as complication. Even if there is still a debate regarding the best system for MTPJ fusion, we believe cup and cone fusion with dorsal plating is an effective method. Moreover, the stability of the osteosynthesis obtained allows for immediate post-operative weight bearing, making patients able to return soon to their normal life. We present a retrospective study; all patients enrolled were retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
First metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) fusion is the most effective technique for the treatment of MTPJ primary arthritis, severe hallux valgus and failure of primary corrective surgery of these conditions. It can be achieved through different techniques. We evaluated the outcomes in a cohort of patients treated with dorsal plate arthrodesis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
We treated 30 feet for 28 patients; the mean follow-up was 35 months. For each foot, we collected radiological and clinical assessment, with the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and the Manchester and Oxford Foot questionnaire (MOFQ). The technique consisted in a cup and cone arthrodesis with the application of a low profile dorsal plate. Patients were allowed for immediate weight bearing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Consolidation was achieved in all cases; in 29 cases, radiographic union was recorded within 6 months from surgery, in one case after 9 months. Comparison between the preoperative and postoperative of VAS and MOXFQ values showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Only one case developed wound dehiscence as complication.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Even if there is still a debate regarding the best system for MTPJ fusion, we believe cup and cone fusion with dorsal plating is an effective method. Moreover, the stability of the osteosynthesis obtained allows for immediate post-operative weight bearing, making patients able to return soon to their normal life.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
We present a retrospective study; all patients enrolled were retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34092260
doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02453-y
pii: 10.1186/s13018-021-02453-y
pmc: PMC8183079
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
361Références
Foot Ankle Int. 1994 Jan;15(1):18-28
pubmed: 7981791
Foot Ankle Clin. 2000 Sep;5(3):673-86, ix
pubmed: 11232403
Aust N Z J Surg. 1949 Aug;19(1):64-71
pubmed: 18138090
Foot Ankle Int. 2002 Jun;23(6):496-502
pubmed: 12095117
Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2004 Jan;21(1):65-96
pubmed: 15012033
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Jan - Feb;56(1):50-53
pubmed: 27866887
Surgeon. 2021 Jan 7;:
pubmed: 33423923
Foot Ankle Int. 2003 Apr;24(4):332-7
pubmed: 12735376
Foot Ankle Int. 2001 Aug;22(8):687-8
pubmed: 11527033
Open Orthop J. 2017 Jul 31;11:724-731
pubmed: 28979586
JBJS Rev. 2017 Nov;5(11):e2
pubmed: 29135720
World J Orthop. 2017 May 18;8(5):364-371
pubmed: 28567339
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Mar 13;2(1):13-20
pubmed: 28607766
Foot Ankle Int. 2010 Aug;31(8):670-5
pubmed: 20727314
Foot Ankle Clin. 2009 Mar;14(1):43-50
pubmed: 19232991
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1994 Jun;84(6):266-80
pubmed: 8051631
Ir J Med Sci. 2019 Aug;188(3):885-891
pubmed: 30617457
Foot Ankle Clin. 2014 Jun;19(2):245-58
pubmed: 24878413
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2006 Jul-Aug;45(4):244-51
pubmed: 16818152
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2012 Mar-Apr;51(2):172-5
pubmed: 22178200
Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Sep;26(9):680-90
pubmed: 16174497