Impact of Asymptomatic Flatfoot on Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of the Modified Lapidus Procedure in Patients With Hallux Valgus.
Lapidus
PROMIS
bunionectomy
flatfoot
hallux valgus
patient-reported outcomes
Journal
Foot & ankle orthopaedics
ISSN: 2473-0114
Titre abrégé: Foot Ankle Orthop
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101752333
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
entrez:
26
5
2022
pubmed:
27
5
2022
medline:
27
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with hallux valgus commonly present with concomitant flatfoot deformity. First-ray hypermobility, among other biomechanical factors, has been suggested as a potential link between these deformities. However, not all hallux valgus patients exhibit symptoms associated with flatfoot deformity, and the necessity of correcting the asymptomatic flatfoot at the time of hallux valgus correction is unclear. We aimed to investigate the relationship between asymptomatic flatfoot and patient-reported and radiographic outcomes after the Lapidus procedure. This study included 142 patients who underwent the Lapidus procedure for hallux valgus at a single institution. Sixty-one patients met radiographic criteria for flatfoot. No patients exhibited symptoms related to flatfoot deformity on review of clinical notes. Preoperative, minimum 1-year postoperative, and change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores between asymptomatic flatfoot and control groups were compared. Radiographic outcomes including hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), Meary angle, talonavicular coverage angle (TNCA), and calcaneal pitch (CP) were compared. Preoperatively, the flatfoot group had higher BMI 22.6 vs 24.6 ( There were no significant postoperative differences in patient-reported outcomes of the Lapidus procedure between patients with and without asymptomatic flatfoot, and both groups achieved similar radiographic correction of their hallux valgus deformity. The Lapidus procedure appears to be a reasonable surgical option for hallux valgus correction in patients with asymptomatic flatfoot deformity.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Patients with hallux valgus commonly present with concomitant flatfoot deformity. First-ray hypermobility, among other biomechanical factors, has been suggested as a potential link between these deformities. However, not all hallux valgus patients exhibit symptoms associated with flatfoot deformity, and the necessity of correcting the asymptomatic flatfoot at the time of hallux valgus correction is unclear. We aimed to investigate the relationship between asymptomatic flatfoot and patient-reported and radiographic outcomes after the Lapidus procedure.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This study included 142 patients who underwent the Lapidus procedure for hallux valgus at a single institution. Sixty-one patients met radiographic criteria for flatfoot. No patients exhibited symptoms related to flatfoot deformity on review of clinical notes. Preoperative, minimum 1-year postoperative, and change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores between asymptomatic flatfoot and control groups were compared. Radiographic outcomes including hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), Meary angle, talonavicular coverage angle (TNCA), and calcaneal pitch (CP) were compared.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Preoperatively, the flatfoot group had higher BMI 22.6 vs 24.6 (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
There were no significant postoperative differences in patient-reported outcomes of the Lapidus procedure between patients with and without asymptomatic flatfoot, and both groups achieved similar radiographic correction of their hallux valgus deformity. The Lapidus procedure appears to be a reasonable surgical option for hallux valgus correction in patients with asymptomatic flatfoot deformity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35615073
doi: 10.1177/24730114221099922
pii: 10.1177_24730114221099922
pmc: PMC9125072
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
24730114221099922Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ICMJE forms for all authors are available online.
Références
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2022 Jan 23;:
pubmed: 35181204
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 May 11;2(5):221-229
pubmed: 28630759
Foot Ankle. 1992 Feb;13(2):53-6
pubmed: 1572587
Foot Ankle Int. 2017 Aug;38(8):870-878
pubmed: 28602138
Radiographics. 2019 Sep-Oct;39(5):1437-1460
pubmed: 31498747
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Jun;(435):197-202
pubmed: 15930939
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010 Jul-Aug;49(4):363-8
pubmed: 20537928
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Aug;87(8):1038-45
pubmed: 16049235
Foot Ankle. 1992 Feb;13(2):70-9
pubmed: 1349292
Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Sep;26(9):698-703
pubmed: 16174499
Foot Ankle Surg. 2022 Apr;28(3):331-337
pubmed: 33888397
Acta Biomed. 2020 May 04;91(3):e2020065
pubmed: 32921761
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Oct 6;92(13):2319-27
pubmed: 20926727
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Sep 7;93(17):1650-61
pubmed: 21915581
Foot Ankle Int. 2016 Sep;37(9):911-8
pubmed: 27530986
Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Nov;26(11):913-7
pubmed: 16309603
J Foot Ankle Res. 2010 Sep 27;3:21
pubmed: 20868524
Foot Ankle Surg. 2022 Mar 19;:
pubmed: 35346594
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021 Mar-Apr;60(2):318-321
pubmed: 33349539
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Apr;11(4):LC22-LC27
pubmed: 28571173
Foot Ankle Int. 2018 Jul;39(7):763-770
pubmed: 29620940
Foot Ankle Int. 2021 Nov;42(11):1454-1462
pubmed: 34085579
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020 May - Jun;59(3):513-517
pubmed: 31866373
Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Jan;40(1):65-73
pubmed: 30282469
Foot Ankle Int. 2020 Oct;41(10):1212-1218
pubmed: 32672066
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;43(5):290-5
pubmed: 15480403