Abstract
Category:
Midfoot/Forefoot; Bunion
Introduction/Purpose:
Kim et al.'s simulated weight-bearing CT (WBCT) investigation classifying first metatarsal (M1) pronation and its relationship to the metatarso-sesamoid complex suggested a high prevalence (87.3%) of M1 hyper-pronation in hallux valgus (HV). These authors' conclusions have prompted a marked increase in M1 derotation (supination) in HV surgical correction. No subsequent study confirms their M1 pronation values, and two recent WBCT investigations suggest lower normative M1 pronation values. The objectives of our WBCT study were to (1) determine M1 pronation distribution in HV, (2) define the hyperpronation prevalence compared to preexisting normative values, and (3) assess the relationship of M1 pronation to the metatarso-sesamoid complex. We hypothesized identifying a high HV M1 head pronation distribution, but not as high as suggested by Kim et al.
Methods:
We retrospectively identified 88 consecutive feet with HV in our WBCT dataset and measured M1 pronation with two previously validated methods, the Metatarsal Pronation (MPA) and α angles. Similarly, using two previously published methods defining the pathologic pronation threshold, we assessed our cohort's M1 hyper-pronation prevalence, specifically (1) the upper value of the 95% confidence interval (CI95) and (2) adding 2 standard deviations at the mean normative value (2SD).The position of the sesamoids relative to the crista on the axial plane (sesamoid grading) was assessed according to Talbot et al. classification secondarily adapted by Yildirim et al. on CT scan (Figure).Normality of different variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test and distribution histogram. Two groups were compared using Student's t-test for normal, and Mann-Whitney U test for non- normal variables. P values less than .05 were considered significant.
Results:
The mean MPA was 11.4+/-7.4 degrees (IC95%:9.9-13.0; Range: -2.3-37.1) in our HV population and the α angle was 16.2+/-7.4 degrees (IC95%:14.7-17.7; Range: 2.8-43.2). A strong positive correlation was found between these two variables (ρ=0.82;r2=0.79;P<.001). According to the CI95 method, 69/88 HV (78.4%) were hyperpronated using the MPA, and 81/88 HV (92%) using the α angle. According to the 2SD method, 17/88 HV (19.3%) were hyperpronated using the MPA, and 20/88 HV (22.7%) using the α angle. There was a significant difference in M1 head pronation among sesamoid gradings (P=.025). Comparing HV sesamoid grade 3 to HV sesamoid grade 2 did not show any significant difference (P=.6). HV sesamoid grade 2 presented a decrease in MPA compared to HV sesamoid grade 1 (respectively 7.8+/-3.7 degrees for grade 2 and 10.8+/-4.9 degrees for grade 1,P=.026). Comparing HV sesamoid grade 1 to HV sesamoid grade 0 did not show any significant difference (P=.11).
Conclusion:
M1 head pronation distribution in HV was higher than in normative values, but threshold change demonstrated contradictory hyper-pronation prevalences (85% to 20%), calling into question the previously reported high prevalence of M1 hyper-pronation in HV. An increase in sesamoid subluxation was associated with a paradoxical decrease in M1 head pronation in our study. We suggest that a greater understanding of the impact of HV M1 pronation is warranted before routine axial plane M1 derotation (supination) is recommended for patients with HV.
