Percutaneous Chevron Osteotomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.
hallux valgus
osteotomy
percutaneous
Journal
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)
ISSN: 1648-9144
Titre abrégé: Medicina (Kaunas)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9425208
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2022
01 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
12
01
2022
revised:
13
02
2022
accepted:
21
02
2022
entrez:
26
3
2022
pubmed:
27
3
2022
medline:
31
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction: Minimally invasive surgical techniques for hallux valgus have gained popularity, showing good results characterized by smaller postoperative scars, less pain, lower infection risk, and fewer wound complications. Given the lack of evidence available in our country regarding this subject, especially about this type of surgical technique, our paper aims to compare open and MIS approaches for chevron osteotomy. We evaluated the outcome and complications after 12 months. Materials and Methods: We undertook a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center study between October 2017 and December 2020. The patients were randomized into two groups: one group that received percutaneous chevron osteotomy (MIS), and the other, open chevron osteotomy (OC). For clinical assessment, we determined the function and the level of pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgery score (AOFAS). The VAS scale was measured before the surgical procedure, at discharge, and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. The AOFAS score was calculated preoperatively and after 6 months. The hallux angle (HVA) and intramedullary angle (IMA) were measured preoperatively, and at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months. Results: We included 26 cases in the open chevron osteotomy group (24 female, 2 male) and 24 in the MIS group (24 female, 0 male). Both groups demonstrated improvements regarding the IMA and HVA at the last follow-up without any significant differences between the groups at the final assessment. The VAS showed significantly better post-operative results for the MIS group at discharge (p < 0.001) and 3 weeks (p < 0.001), 6 weeks (p < 0.001), and 6 months (p = 0.004) post-surgery. The AOFAS showed no significant differences either before or after surgery. Four cases with screw prominence were reported, three of which belonged to the MIS group. Only one case with metatarsalgia was found in the OC group. Conclusions: This paper demonstrates that minimally invasive chevron osteotomy has comparable results with open chevron osteotomy, even though surgical time and radiological exposure are significantly longer. More studies are required to evaluate the complications and the risk of recurrences.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35334535
pii: medicina58030359
doi: 10.3390/medicina58030359
pmc: PMC8948867
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009 May-Jun;48(3):380-7
pubmed: 19423043
Foot Ankle Int. 2001 Dec;22(12):970-6
pubmed: 11783923
Foot Ankle Int. 2009 Oct;30(10):955-63
pubmed: 19796589
Int Orthop. 2014 Oct;38(10):2115-21
pubmed: 25128969
Foot Ankle Clin. 2003 Mar;8(1):15-35
pubmed: 12760572
Int Orthop. 2013 Sep;37(9):1771-80
pubmed: 23884327
Foot Ankle Int. 2016 Nov;37(11):1197-1204
pubmed: 27381179
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2013 Apr;21(1):47-50
pubmed: 23629987
Foot Ankle Int. 2017 Aug;38(8):838-846
pubmed: 28476096
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Aug;87(8):1038-45
pubmed: 16049235
Foot Ankle Int. 2007 Jun;28(6):748-58
pubmed: 17592710
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981 Jun;(157):31-41
pubmed: 7249460
Bone Joint J. 2016 Mar;98-B(3):365-73
pubmed: 26920962
Int Orthop. 2013 Sep;37(9):1731-5
pubmed: 23989262
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 May - Jun;56(3):445-452
pubmed: 28237566
Foot Ankle Clin. 2014 Jun;19(2):181-9
pubmed: 24878408
Br Med Bull. 2011;97:149-67
pubmed: 20710024
Arthroscopy. 2008 Aug;24(8):875-80
pubmed: 18657735
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1993 Apr;83(4):173-80
pubmed: 8473988
Sci Rep. 2021 Jul 15;11(1):14515
pubmed: 34267276
Foot Ankle Int. 2004 Aug;25(8):532-6
pubmed: 15363373
Int Orthop. 2019 Feb;43(2):343-350
pubmed: 29869014
Foot Ankle Int. 2013 Jul;34(7):969-77
pubmed: 23463780
Foot Ankle Surg. 2016 Jun;22(2):109-13
pubmed: 27301730
Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 Dec;17(4):308-11
pubmed: 22017908
Int Orthop. 2013 Sep;37(9):1799-803
pubmed: 23722318
Foot Ankle Int. 2011 May;32(5):S503-7
pubmed: 21733458
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Mar;85(3):494-9
pubmed: 12637437
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 18;11(11):e0166197
pubmed: 27861517
Int Wound J. 2017 Oct;14(5):782-785
pubmed: 27928895
Foot Ankle Int. 2016 Oct;37(10):1071-1075
pubmed: 27325622
Foot Ankle Int. 2019 May;40(5):515-525
pubmed: 30688526
Int Orthop. 2018 Aug;42(8):1853-1863
pubmed: 29427126
Foot Ankle Int. 2007 Mar;28(3):355-60
pubmed: 17371659
Foot Ankle Int. 1996 Jun;17(6):307-16
pubmed: 8791076
Foot Ankle Int. 1994 Jul;15(7):349-53
pubmed: 7951968
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Oct;(391):59-71
pubmed: 11603690
Int Orthop. 2013 Sep;37(9):1805-13
pubmed: 23820757
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD000964
pubmed: 14973960
Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol (Engl Ed). 2020 Nov - Dec;64(6):401-408
pubmed: 32912712
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015 Mar-Apr;54(2):230-2
pubmed: 25618809
Orthop Clin North Am. 2009 Oct;40(4):459-64, vii
pubmed: 19773050
Int Orthop. 2019 Mar;43(3):625-637
pubmed: 30218181
Orthop Clin North Am. 2009 Oct;40(4):479-89, viii
pubmed: 19773053