McGlamry ED: “Lesser Ray Deformities,” in Comprehensive Textbook of Foot Surgery, p 78, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1987..
Schlefman BS, Fenton CF, McGlamry ED: Peg in hole arthrodesis. .JAPA 73::187. ,1983. .
Soule RE: Operation for the cure of hammertoes. .NY Med J 91::649. ,1910. .
Pichney GA, Derner R, Lauf E: Digital ‘V’ arthrodesis. .J Foot Ankle Surg 32::473. ,1993. .
Winter DA: “Kinetics,” in The Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait: Normal, Elderly and Pathological, p 35, Waterloo Biomechanics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1991..
Sammarco JG: “Biomechanics of the Foot,” in Basic Biomechanics of the Musculoskeletal System, 2nd Ed, ed by M Nordin, V Frankel, p 163, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1989..
Harmonson JK, Harkless LB: Operative procedures for the correction of hammertoe, claw toe, and mallet toe. .Clin Podiatr Med Surg 13::211. ,1996. .
Kimmel HM, Garrow S: A comparison of end-to-end versus ‘V’ arthrodesis procedures for the correction of digital deformities. .Clin Podiatr Med Surg 13::239. ,1996. .
The proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis is frequently performed to correct hammer toe deformities. This study was conducted to compare the inherent stability of the three proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodeses—peg-in-hole, end-to-end, and V constructs—in the sagittal plane by means of load-to-failure testing of 30 fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens fixated with a 0.045 Kirschner wire. The peg-in-hole construct was associated with significantly higher peak loads at failure compared with the other two procedures. Furthermore, the peg-in-hole construct had significantly higher stiffness values as compared with the V procedure. This study thus provides evidence that the peg-in-hole procedure is the most biomechanically stable surgical construct for proximal interphalangeal joint fusions under sagittal plane loading. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 91(2): 63-67, 2001)