Abstract
Category:
Bunion; Midfoot/Forefoot
Introduction/Purpose:
The outcomes of Hallux Valgus (HV) surgical treatment are perfectible.
First ray dysmorphia in HV appears to incorporate a first metatarsal (M1) hyperpronation and a valgus deviation of M1 distal articular surface. Those could play a role in first ray destabilization and misalignment in HV. However, we do not know whether correction of these deformities could improve HV surgical treatment outcomes.
Therefore, we performed a study to assess the impact of M1 distal supination osteotomy, M1 distal varization osteotomy, and combination of both on HV clinical and radiological outcomes.
We hypothesized that M1 distal supination osteotomies would improve surgical outcomes in HV.
Methods:
We conducted an IRB-approved multicenter randomized control trial.
HV with an indication for surgical correction were included. HV requiring surgery of the lesser metatarsals were excluded. Feet were randomly divided into 4 groups corresponding to 4 different types of surgery (Figure):
1. Control, classical M1 distal chevron.
2. Supination M1 distal chevron
3. Varization M1 distal chevron
4. Combination of the latter two.
Preoperative evaluation and 6-months follow-up were performed. Demographics, AOFAS score, complications, and patient satisfaction (Likert Scale) were collected.
On conventional weight-bearing radiographs before and 6 months after surgery, we measured the Hallux Valgus Angle(HVA), the Intemetatarsal Angle(IMA) the Distal Metatarsal Articular Angle(DMAA), the Okuda's M1 head shape classification(from round to angular) and the sesamoid position according to Hardy and Clapham.
Normality of different variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Groups were compared using ANOVA for normal and Kruskall Wallis for nonnormal variables. Post-hoc pairwise analyses were performed with Dunn-Bonferoni’s test.
Results:
100 HV were included. 8 were lost to follow-up.
The Control (n=24), Supination (n=20), Varization (n=26) and Combination (n=22) groups were comparable on age, gender, BMI, and preoperative radiological parameters.
At 6 months, there was no difference on AOFAS improvement (p=0.39) and patients satisfaction (p=0.14) whereas there were significant differences on HVA (p < 0.001), IMA (p < 0.001), DMAA (p < 0.001), Okuda's classifcation (p < 0.001) and sesamoid position (p < 0.001) between groups.
We found lower HVA values for Combination VS Control (p < 0.001), Combination VS Varization (p < 0.001), Supination VS Control (p < 0.001) and Supination VS Varization (p = 0.005).
Asymptomatic recurrences (HVA>15°) were present in 5 cases in Control (20.8%), and 2 in Varization (7.7%). Asymptomatic Hallux Varus (HVA < 0°) were present in 4 cases in Combination (18.2%), and 1 in Supination (5%).
Conclusion:
Distal M1 supination osteotomies showed better improvement in radiological parameters without showing clinical benefit.
The combination of supination and varization osteotomies could lead to overcorrection while the classic M1 distal chevron could lead to insufficient corrections.
Routinely performing a supination osteotomy in HV surgical management may lead to erroneous correction and we recommend an à la carte treatment.
These results are preliminary and we recommend more patients and longer follow-up to confirm these findings.
