Reconceptualizing the Juvenile Bunion.
Journal
Journal of pediatric orthopedics
ISSN: 1539-2570
Titre abrégé: J Pediatr Orthop
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8109053
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jan 2023
01 Jan 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
13
10
2022
medline:
15
12
2022
entrez:
12
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The operative management of the juvenile bunion has not enjoyed the same level of success as its adult counterpart leading to the concern that we do not fully understand what differentiates these 2 deformities. This study aims to (1) characterize the radiographic and pedobarographic features commonly encountered in the juvenile bunion and (2) determine which of these radiographic or pedobarographic parameters correlate with patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores at the time of presentation. An IRB-approved retrospective analysis of prospectively enrolled patients between 10 and 18 years of age with bunion deformities was performed at a single pediatric institution over a 4-year period. Standardized weight-bearing radiographs were used to determine hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle, sesamoid position (SP), distal metatarsal articular angle (DMAA), and other radiographic parameters. Pedobarographic analysis was used to determine peak pressure, contact area, contact time, and pressure-time integral within 11 plantar regions. Foot-specific PRO measures were administered at the initial presentation. Thirty-two patients (57 feet) met the inclusion criteria of which56/57 feet (98.2%) had an elevated DMAA (average 21.4degrees±8.9 degrees), and 51/57 (89.4%) had a congruent joint. The DMAA correlated positively with the HVA (r=0.734 P <0.001), intermetatarsal angle (r=0.439 P =0.001), and SP (r=0.627 P <0.001). Pedobarographic analysis (available in 15/32 patients) demonstrated that the HVA correlated with increased second metatarsal head peak pressure (r=0.667 P =0.011) and pressure-time integral (r=0.604 P =0.002), which in turn was strongly correlated with worse PROs. Conversely, increased first metatarsal head contact area correlated with improved PROs. Analysis of radiographic measurements demonstrated that HVA and lateralized SP correlated significantly with worse PRO scores. Nearly all juvenile bunions have an elevated DMAA and a congruent joint. There is a clear correlation between the severity of radiographic and pedobarographic deformity and worse PRO scores at the time of presentation. We believe that the presence of elevated DMAA is the defining factor that differentiates the juvenile bunion from the deformity typically seen in adults. III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The operative management of the juvenile bunion has not enjoyed the same level of success as its adult counterpart leading to the concern that we do not fully understand what differentiates these 2 deformities. This study aims to (1) characterize the radiographic and pedobarographic features commonly encountered in the juvenile bunion and (2) determine which of these radiographic or pedobarographic parameters correlate with patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores at the time of presentation.
METHODS
METHODS
An IRB-approved retrospective analysis of prospectively enrolled patients between 10 and 18 years of age with bunion deformities was performed at a single pediatric institution over a 4-year period. Standardized weight-bearing radiographs were used to determine hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle, sesamoid position (SP), distal metatarsal articular angle (DMAA), and other radiographic parameters. Pedobarographic analysis was used to determine peak pressure, contact area, contact time, and pressure-time integral within 11 plantar regions. Foot-specific PRO measures were administered at the initial presentation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-two patients (57 feet) met the inclusion criteria of which56/57 feet (98.2%) had an elevated DMAA (average 21.4degrees±8.9 degrees), and 51/57 (89.4%) had a congruent joint. The DMAA correlated positively with the HVA (r=0.734 P <0.001), intermetatarsal angle (r=0.439 P =0.001), and SP (r=0.627 P <0.001). Pedobarographic analysis (available in 15/32 patients) demonstrated that the HVA correlated with increased second metatarsal head peak pressure (r=0.667 P =0.011) and pressure-time integral (r=0.604 P =0.002), which in turn was strongly correlated with worse PROs. Conversely, increased first metatarsal head contact area correlated with improved PROs. Analysis of radiographic measurements demonstrated that HVA and lateralized SP correlated significantly with worse PRO scores.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Nearly all juvenile bunions have an elevated DMAA and a congruent joint. There is a clear correlation between the severity of radiographic and pedobarographic deformity and worse PRO scores at the time of presentation. We believe that the presence of elevated DMAA is the defining factor that differentiates the juvenile bunion from the deformity typically seen in adults.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36224093
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000002277
pii: 01241398-202301000-00013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e43-e47Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Coughlin MJSCLMRA. Surgery of the Foot and Ankle. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier; 2007.
Chell J, Dhar S. Pediatric hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Clin. 2014;19:235–243.
Herring JA. Tchdijian’s Pediatric Orthopaedics. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2008;2:1166–1172.
George HL, Casaletto J, Unnikrishnan PN, et al. Outcome of the scarf osteotomy in adolescent hallux valgus. J Child Orthop. 2009;3:185–190.
Agrawal Y, Bajaj SK, Flowers MJ. S carf-Akin osteotomy for hallux valgus in juvenile and adolescent patients. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2015;24:535–540.
Scranton PE Jr, Zuckerman JD. Bunion surgery in adolescents: results of surgical treatment. J Pediatr Orthop. 1984;4:39–43.
Geissele AE, Stanton RP. Surgical treatment of adolescent hallux valgus. J Pediatr Orthop. 1990;10:642–648.
Helal B. Surgery for adolescent hallux valgus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;157:50–63.
Amarnek DL, Jacobs AM, Oloff LM. Adolescent hallux valgus: its etiology and surgical management. J Foot Surg. 1985;24:54–61.
Kalen V, Brecher A. Relationship between adolescent bunions and flatfeet. Foot Ankle. 1988;8:331–336.
Auerbach AM. Review of distal metatarsal osteotomies for hallux valgus in the young. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1970;70:148–151.
Hardy RH, Clapham JC. Observations on hallux valgus; based on a controlled series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1951;33-B:376–391.
Coughlin MJ, Carlson RE. Treatment of hallux valgus with an increased distal metatarsal articular angle: evaluation of double and triple first ray osteotomies. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20:762–770.
Goldner JL, Gaines RW. Adult and juvenile hallux valgus: analysis and treatment. Orthop Clin North Am. 1976;7:863–887.
Piggott H. The natural history of hallux valgus in adolescence and early adult life. J Bone and Joint Surg Br. 1960;42-B:749–760.
Al-Nammari SS, Christofi T, Clark C. Double first metatarsal and akin osteotomy for severe hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36:1215–1222.
Coughlin MJ. Roger A. Mann Award. Juvenile hallux valgus: etiology and treatment. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16:682–697.
Kaiser P, Livingston K, Miller PE, et al. Radiographic evaluation of first metatarsal and medial cuneiform morphology in juvenile hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39:1223–1228.
Sutherland J, Liu G, Crump T, et al. Relationship between preoperative patient-reported outcomes and hospital length of stay: a prospective cohort study of general surgery patients in Vancouver, Canada. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019;24:29–36.
Kim S, Duncan PW, Groban L, et al. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) as a preoperative assessment tool. J Anesth Perioper Med. 2017;4:274–281.
Richardson EG, Graves SC, McClure JT, et al. First metatarsal head-shaft angle: A method of determination. Foot Ankle. 1993;14:181–185.
Das De S. Distal metatarsal osteotomy for adolescent hallux valgus. J Pediatr Orthop. 1984;4:32–38.
Petratos DV, Anastasopoulos JN, Plakogiannis CV, et al. Correction of adolescent hallux valgus by proximal crescentic osteotomy of the first metatarsal. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74:496–502.
Farrar NG, Duncan N, Ahmed N, et al. Scarf osteotomy in the management of symptomatic adolescent hallux valgus. J Child Orthop. 2012;6:153–157.
John S, Weil L Jr, Weil LS Sr, et al. Scarf osteotomy for the correction of adolescent hallux valgus. Foot & Ankle Specialist. 2010;3:10–14.
Johnson AE, Georgopoulos G, Erickson MA, et al. Treatment of adolescent hallux valgus with the first metatarsal double osteotomy: the denver experience. J Pediatr Orthop. 2004;24:358–362.
Marshall TJ, Shung JR, Khoury JG. Adolescent hallux valgus revisited. Orthopedics. 2014;37:531–535.
Zimmer TJ, Johnson KA, Klassen RA. Treatment of hallux valgus in adolescents by the chevron osteotomy. Foot Ankle. 1989;9:190–193.
Peterson HA, Newman SR. Adolescent bunion deformity treated with double osteotomy and longitudinal pin fixation of the first ray. J Pediatr Orthop. 1993;13:80–84.
Potenza V, Caterini R, Farsetti P, et al. Chevron osteotomy with lateral release and adductor tenotomy for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30:512–516.
Ball J, Sullivan JA. Treatment of the juvenile bunion by Mitchell osteotomy. Orthopedics. 1985;8:1249–1252.
Edmonds EW, Ek D, Bomar JD, et al. Preliminary radiographic outcomes of surgical correction in juvenile hallux valgus: single proximal, single distal versus double osteotomies. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35:307–313.
Jastifer JR, Coughlin MJ, Schutt S, et al. Comparison of radiographic and anatomic distal metatarsal articular angle in cadaver feet. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35:389–393.
Smith BW, Coughlin MJ. Treatment of hallux valgus with increased distal metatarsal articular angle: use of double and triple osteotomies. Foot Ankle Clin. 2009;14:369–382.
Young KW, Kim JS, Cho JW, et al. Characteristics of male adolescent-onset hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34:1111–1116.