advertising
-
1.
Nix S, Smith M, Vicenzino B: Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res 3: 21, 2010.
-
3.
Chopra S, Moerenhout K, Crevoisier X: Characterization of gait in female patients with moderate to severe hallux valgus deformity. Clin Biomech (Bristol) 30: 629, 2015.
-
4.
Menz HB, Morris ME, Lord SR: Foot and ankle risk factors for falls in older people: a prospective study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 61: 866, 2006.
-
5.
Abhishek A, Roddy E, Zhang W, et al: Are hallux valgus and big toe pain associated with impaired quality of life? A cross-sectional study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18: 923, 2010.
-
6.
Levy LA: Principles and Practice of Podiatric Medicine, Churchill Livingstone, New York, 1990.
-
7.
Klenerman L: The Foot and Its Disorders, 3rd Ed, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 1991.
-
8.
Fraissler L, Konrads C, Hoberg M, et al: Treatment of hallux valgus deformity. EFORT Open Rev 1: 295, 2016.
-
9.
Schuh R, Willegger M, Holinka J, et al: Angular correction and complications of proximal first metatarsal osteotomies for hallux valgus deformity. Int Orthop 37: 1771, 2013.
-
10.
Nyska M: Principles of first metatarsal osteotomies. Foot Ankle Clin 6: 399, 2001.
-
11.
Murawski DE, Beskin JL: Increased displacement maximizes the utility of the distal chevron osteotomy for hallux valgus deformity correction. Foot Ankle Int 29: 155, 2008.
-
12.
Lewis TL, Ray R, Gordon DJ: Minimally invasive surgery for severe hallux valgus in 106 feet. Foot Ankle Surg 28: 503, 2022.
-
13.
Lewis TL, Ray R, Robinson P, et al: Percutaneous chevron and Akin (PECA) osteotomies for severe hallux valgus deformity with mean 3-year follow-up. Foot Ankle Int 42: 1231, 2021.
-
14.
Kurashige T: Radiographic and clinical results of minimally invasive chevron Akin osteotomy for moderate to severe hallux valgus deformities. Foot Ankle Spec 17: 305, 2024.
-
15.
Choi JY, Kim BH, Suh JS: A prospective study to compare the operative outcomes of minimally invasive proximal and distal chevron metatarsal osteotomy for moderate-to-severe hallux valgus deformity. Int Orthop 45: 2933, 2021.
-
16.
Holme TJ, Sivaloganathan SS, Patel B, et al: Third-generation minimally invasive chevron Akin osteotomy for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 41: 50, 2020.
-
17.
de Carvalho KAM, Baptista AD, de Cesar Netto C, et al: Minimally invasive chevron-Akin for correction of moderate and severe hallux valgus deformities: clinical and radiologic outcomes with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Foot Ankle Int 43: 1317, 2022.
-
18.
Mikhail CM, Markowitz J, di Lenarda L, et al: Clinical and radiographic outcomes of percutaneous chevron-Akin osteotomies for the correction of hallux valgus deformity. Foot Ankle Int 43: 32, 2022.
-
19.
Lee M, Walsh J, Smith MM, et al: Hallux valgus correction comparing percutaneous chevron/Akin (PECA) and open scarf/Akin osteotomies. Foot Ankle Int 38: 838, 2017.
-
20.
Vernois J, Redfern D: Percutaneous chevron; the union of classic stable fixed approach and percutaneous technique. FussSprungg 11: 70, 2013.
-
21.
Vernois J, Redfern DJ: Percutaneous surgery for severe hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Clin 21: 479, 2016.
-
22.
Sharma J, Aydogan U: Algorithm for severe hallux valgus associated with metatarsus adductus. Foot Ankle Int 36: 1499, 2015.
-
23.
Bryant A, Tinley P, Singer K: A comparison of radiographic measurements in normal, hallux valgus, and hallux limitus feet. J Foot Ankle Surg 39: 39, 2000.
-
24.
Coughlin MJ, Jones CP: Hallux valgus: demographics, etiology, and radiographic assessment. Foot Ankle Int 28: 759, 2007.
-
25.
Richter M, Agren PH, Besse JL, et al: EFAS score—multilingual development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) by the score committee of the European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS). Foot Ankle Surg 24: 185, 2018.
-
26.
Richter M, Agren PH, Besse JL, et al: EFAS score—validation of Persian version by the score committee of the European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS). Foot Ankle Surg 27: 496, 2021.
-
27.
Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, et al: Assessing treatment outcomes using a single question: the Net Promoter Score. Bone Joint J 96-B: 622, 2014.
-
28.
Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, et al: What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open 3: e002525, 2013.
-
29.
Corless JR: A modification of the Mitchell procedure. J Bone Joint Surg 58B: 138, 1976.
-
30.
Johnson KA, Cofield RH, Morrey BF: Chevron osteotomy for hallux valgus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 142: 44, 1979.
-
31.
Austin DW, Leventen EO: A new osteotomy for hallux valgus: a horizontally directed “V” displacement osteotomy of the metatarsal head for hallux valgus and primus varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 157: 25, 1981. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/citation/1981/06000/a_new_osteotomy_for_hallux_valgus__a_horizontally.7.aspx. Accessed November 18, 2022.
-
32.
Badwey TM, Dutkowsky JP, Graves SC, et al: An anatomical basis for the degree of displacement of the distal chevron osteotomy in the treatment of hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 18: 213, 1997.
-
33.
Hattrup SJ, Johnson KA: Chevron osteotomy: analysis of factors in patients’ dissatisfaction. Foot Ankle 5: 327, 1985.
-
34.
Meier PJ, Kenzora JE: The risks and benefits of distal first metatarsal osteotomies. Foot Ankle 6: 7, 1985.
-
35.
Crosby LA, Bozarth GR: Fixation comparison for chevron osteotomies. Foot Ankle Int 19: 41, 1998.
-
36.
Mann RA, Donatto KC: The chevron osteotomy: a clinical and radiographic analysis. Foot Ankle Int 18: 255, 1997.
-
37.
Tan CC, Sayampanathan AA, Kwan YH, et al: Validity and reliability of the European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS) score in patients with hallux valgus in Singapore. J Foot Ankle Surg 62: 295, 2023.
-
38.
Brogan K, Lindisfarne E, Akehurst H, et al: Minimally invasive and open distal chevron osteotomy for mild to moderate hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 37: 1197, 2016.
-
39.
Kaufmann G, Mörtlbauer L, Hofer-Picout P, et al: Five-year follow-up of minimally invasive distal metatarsal chevron osteotomy in comparison with the open technique: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102: 873, 2020.
-
40.
Patnaik S, Jones NJ, Dojode C, et al: Minimally invasive hallux valgus correction: is it better than open surgery? Foot (Edinb) 50: 101871, 2022.
-
41.
Palmanovich E, Ohana N, Atzmon R, et al: MICA: a learning curve. J Foot Ankle Surg 59: 781, 2020.
-
42.
Niehaus R, Hodel S, Eid K, et al: Plantar plating in the modified Lapidus procedure: evaluation of function and impairment of the tibialis anterior tendon. J Foot Ankle Surg 61: 1203, 2022.
-
43.
Toepfer A, Strässle M: 3rd generation MICA with the “K-wires-first technique”—a step-by-step instruction and preliminary results. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23: 66, 2022.
-
44.
Poggio D, Melo R, Botello J, et al: Comparison of postoperative costs of two surgical techniques for hallux valgus (Kramer vs. scarf). Foot Ankle Surg 21: 37, 2015.
Outcome of Minimally Invasive Chevron and Akin Procedure With an Osteotomized Metatarsal Head Translation of More Than Fifty Percent for the Correction of Hallux Valgus
Search for other papers by Michael Michlin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by David Segal in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Meron Talmor in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ran Atzmon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dan Perl in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ezequiel Palmanovich in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nissim Ohana in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Surgical protocols for hallux valgus (HV) surgery rely on the severity of the deformity, utilizing various techniques for different severity grades. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the extent of the distal fragment translation and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with HV of varying severity grades who had undergone the same surgery, a minimally invasive chevron and Akin (MICA) procedure, with a fragment translation of at least 50%.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who had undergone a MICA procedure for HV between January 1, 2017, and August 1, 2022, and had had at least 1-year follow-up. We collected medical and demographic information and conducted radiographic measurements. PROMs (European Foot and Ankle Society questionnaire and satisfaction anchor questions) were the primary outcome measure and were collected via a telephone survey.
Results: Of the 140 cases reviewed, 105 (75% [97 patients]) were included: six (5.7%) were defined as mild HV, 66 (62.9%) as moderate HV, and 33 (31.4%) as severe HV. The mean preoperative and postoperative first intermetatarsal angles were 13.67 ± 2.94° and 3.1 ± 2.34°, respectively. The mean preoperative and postoperative HV angles were 31.41 ± 8.56° and 8.21 ± 5.02°, respectively. The mean translation was 77.49 ± 13.18%. The extent of translation did not correlate with intermetatarsal angle or HV angle (P = .45 and .62, respectively). The PROM questionnaires were answered by 73 patients (80 feet [76.19% of total cases]). The mean postoperative European Foot and Ankle Society score was 18.59 ± 6.63, and 67 patients (83.8%) declared that they were satisfied with the surgery. PROMs were not associated with preoperative HV severity or translation extent (P > .1).
Conclusions: With MICA distal osteotomy and translation of the first metatarsal head by more than 50% (up to 100%), we were able to correct even severe HV deformities that would previously have required proximal osteotomies and obtain significant angle correction with good clinical results.
advertising
