Effect of Prior Cheilectomy on Outcomes of First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Fusion for Treatment of Hallux Rigidus.
PROMIS
cheilectomy
hallux rigidus
metatarsophalangeal fusion
patient-reported outcomes
revision
Journal
Foot & ankle orthopaedics
ISSN: 2473-0114
Titre abrégé: Foot Ankle Orthop
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101752333
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
entrez:
1
9
2022
pubmed:
2
9
2022
medline:
2
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with hallux rigidus who do not experience significant pain relief after cheilectomy often require a conversion to metatarsophalangeal (MTP) fusion. However, it is unclear whether the previous cheilectomy affects outcomes of the subsequent fusion. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes and complications in patients undergoing MTP fusion for hallux rigidus between patients with a history of cheilectomy and those undergoing a fusion as a primary procedure. This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent MTP fusion who had preoperative and minimum 1-year postoperative Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. Patients were divided into a "primary MTP fusion" cohort and a "prior cheilectomy" cohort based on their history of a previous cheilectomy. Preoperative, postoperative, and improvement in PROMIS scores, along with rates of complications including nonunion, infection, interphalangeal (IP) joint pain, and removal of hardware were compared between groups. The prior cheilectomy group had significantly lower preoperative physical function scores than the primary MTP fusion group ( This study found that a prior cheilectomy may not affect serious complication rates of a subsequent fusion, but it may be associated with worse baseline function. Overall, our results suggest that a prior failed cheilectomy does not influence the amount of improvement in function and pain from MTP fusion. Level III, retrospective cohort study.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Patients with hallux rigidus who do not experience significant pain relief after cheilectomy often require a conversion to metatarsophalangeal (MTP) fusion. However, it is unclear whether the previous cheilectomy affects outcomes of the subsequent fusion. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes and complications in patients undergoing MTP fusion for hallux rigidus between patients with a history of cheilectomy and those undergoing a fusion as a primary procedure.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent MTP fusion who had preoperative and minimum 1-year postoperative Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. Patients were divided into a "primary MTP fusion" cohort and a "prior cheilectomy" cohort based on their history of a previous cheilectomy. Preoperative, postoperative, and improvement in PROMIS scores, along with rates of complications including nonunion, infection, interphalangeal (IP) joint pain, and removal of hardware were compared between groups.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The prior cheilectomy group had significantly lower preoperative physical function scores than the primary MTP fusion group (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
This study found that a prior cheilectomy may not affect serious complication rates of a subsequent fusion, but it may be associated with worse baseline function. Overall, our results suggest that a prior failed cheilectomy does not influence the amount of improvement in function and pain from MTP fusion.
Level of Evidence
UNASSIGNED
Level III, retrospective cohort study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36046554
doi: 10.1177/24730114221119740
pii: 10.1177_24730114221119740
pmc: PMC9421027
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
24730114221119740Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002384
Pays : United States
Informations 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
Foot Ankle Int. 2021 Jul;42(7):859-866
pubmed: 33525945
Foot Ankle Clin. 2011 Mar;16(1):1-12
pubmed: 21338925
Foot Ankle Int. 2017 Apr;38(4):375-380
pubmed: 28367694
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Nov;85(11):2072-88
pubmed: 14630834
Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Jan;40(1):65-73
pubmed: 30282469
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015 Nov-Dec;54(6):1010-20
pubmed: 25981441
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020 Jan;30(1):57-65
pubmed: 31392522
Foot Ankle Clin. 2005 Mar;10(1):75-96
pubmed: 15831259
Foot Ankle Int. 1999 Mar;20(3):147-52
pubmed: 10195291
Foot Ankle Int. 2020 Sep;41(9):1031-1040
pubmed: 32723096
World J Orthop. 2017 May 18;8(5):364-371
pubmed: 28567339
Foot Ankle Int. 2018 Jul;39(7):763-770
pubmed: 29620940
Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Nov;40(11):1249-1259
pubmed: 31370692
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Sep;89(9):1979-85
pubmed: 17768195
Foot Ankle Int. 2022 Aug;43(8):1053-1061
pubmed: 35466738
Int Orthop. 2021 Mar;45(3):711-719
pubmed: 32929546
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Apr 3;95(7):606-10
pubmed: 23553295
Foot Ankle Spec. 2013 Jun;6(3):191-5
pubmed: 23606380
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Nov;471(11):3466-74
pubmed: 23749433
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010 May-Jun;49(3):232-7
pubmed: 20303801
Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Oct;40(10):1114-1121
pubmed: 31307212
Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Sep;26(9):680-90
pubmed: 16174497
Foot Ankle Int. 2021 Oct;42(10):1277-1286
pubmed: 34024138
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010 Sep-Oct;49(5):465-70
pubmed: 20797588
Foot Ankle Int. 2020 Mar;41(3):294-302
pubmed: 31910662