Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

First tarsometatarsal (TMT) arthrodesis is a surgical option for moderate to severe hallux valgus, particularly in the setting of first-ray instability. The use of a supplemental intermetatarsal screw (IMS) has emerged as a technique intended to enhance transverse plane stability and may help maintain correction; however, limited clinical data exist regarding its radiographic and complication profile. This study compared radiographic correction, maintenance of alignment, and postoperative complications following TMT arthrodesis with vs without IMS fixation.

Methods:

A retrospective review was performed of adult patients who underwent first TMT arthrodesis for hallux valgus from 2013 to 2023 at a tertiary academic center. Patients undergoing additional midfoot fusion or with <6-month follow-up were excluded. Patients were grouped by whether supplemental IMS fixation was used, which was determined at surgeon discretion. Demographic, operative, and clinical data were recorded. Radiographic measurements included intermetatarsal angle (IMA) and relative first metatarsal (MT) length preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at latest follow-up.

Results:

Eighty-nine patients met criteria (51 IMS; 38 no IMS). Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups. Immediately postoperatively, the IMS cohort demonstrated a smaller IMA (5.8 vs 7.8 degrees, P = .010), which persisted at latest follow-up (7.3 vs 9.3 degrees, P = .015). The IMS group demonstrated a greater reduction in IMA from preoperative to final follow-up (6.9 vs 3.9 degrees, P = .001). Relative first MT length remained greater in the IMS cohort across all time points (P ≤ .045) but change‑score (Postop-Preop) differences in length were not statistically significant. Complication rates, including nonunion (2.0% vs 2.6%), revision surgery (9.8% vs 18.4%), and hardware-related complications (7.8% vs 2.6%), did not differ significantly between groups (P > .05).

Conclusion:

Supplemental IMS fixation in first tarsometatarsal arthrodesis for hallux valgus was associated with greater maintenance of radiographic correction without observed differences in complication rates. These findings support IMS augmentation as a potential adjunct in appropriately selected patients.

Level of Evidence:

Level III, retrospective review.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

hallux valgus tarsometatarsal arthrodesis Lapidus intermetatarsal screw radiographic outcomes

Introduction

Hallux valgus is among the most common forefoot deformities requiring surgical correction.^1,2 First tarsometatarsal (TMT) arthrodesis, including the Lapidus procedure, is commonly performed for moderate to severe deformities or in the presence of first-ray instability.^3,4 Despite high rates of deformity correction and patient satisfaction, complications such as nonunion, recurrence, and loss of correction remain concerns, particularly in cases with residual intercuneiform instability.^3,5,6

To address persistent instability between the first and second metatarsals, the use of an intermetatarsal screw (IMS) has been introduced as an adjunct to TMT arthrodesis (Figure 1).^7
-9 Biomechanical and clinical data suggest that an IMS enhances stabilization of the first-second metatarsal interval, which may help preserve correction and lower recurrence rates.^8,10,11 However, the addition of an IMS also increases hardware load and soft tissue dissection, which may elevate the risk of complications such as nerve irritation, hardware failure, or iatrogenic joint violation.¹²

Figure 1.

Preoperative (A) and postoperative (B) weightbearing anteroposterior radiographs demonstrating correction of hallux valgus following first tarsometatarsal (TMT) arthrodesis with intermetatarsal screw (IMS) fixation.

Although previous studies have demonstrated enhanced construct rigidity with IMS fixation,^{4,7,8,10,11,13} limited clinical data exist regarding its radiographic and clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare radiographic outcomes, complication rates, and clinical characteristics of patients undergoing hallux valgus correction with and without IMS fixation in first TMT arthrodesis. We hypothesized that the addition of an IMS would improve maintenance of intermetatarsal correction without increasing postoperative complication rates.

Methods

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

Following institutional review board approval, a retrospective review was conducted to identify patients who underwent first TMT arthrodesis from 2013 to 2023 at a tertiary academic medical center. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 28740 and 28297. Patients were excluded who underwent fusion of rays 2 through 5, fusion involving the intermediate cuneiform, or had less than 6 months of follow-up.

Demographic and clinical variables were recorded, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tobacco use, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, intravenous drug use, and duration of clinical follow-up. Operative variables noted were laterality, fixation method (screw-only or plate-assisted), and use of an IMS, which was determined at surgeon discretion (Figure 1). Time to full weightbearing was also recorded.

Clinical outcomes recorded were the incidence of infection requiring treatment, symptomatic nerve irritation or injury, implant failure, implant removal, nonunion, and revision surgery. Nonunion was defined radiographically as the absence of bridging trabeculae across the arthrodesis site and clinically by persistent pain or hardware failure prompting reoperation at or beyond 6 months postoperatively.¹⁴ In addition, variation in IMS fixation by surgeon was reviewed to provide context for potential differences in surgical technique (Supplemental Table S1). All variables were collected via retrospective review of the electronic medical record.

Postoperatively, all patients were immobilized in a posterior splint and subsequently transitioned to a controlled ankle-foot walking boot. Progression of weightbearing followed a standardized institutional protocol, with advancement based on clinical and radiographic assessment at the discretion of the treating surgeon. Full weightbearing was typically permitted between 6 and 8 weeks postoperatively.

Radiographic Measurements

Radiographic parameters were measured preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at latest follow-up, and included the intermetatarsal angle (IMA) between the first and second ray, as well as the relative first MT length.

The IMA was measured on standardized weightbearing anteroposterior radiographs as the angle formed by the longitudinal axes of the first and second metatarsals (Figure 2). Each axis was defined by a line drawn through the midpoints of the diaphysis of the respective metatarsal shafts, consistent with the method described by Coughlin and Mann.^13,15 Smaller postoperative and follow-up IMA values reflected greater correction and maintenance of alignment following arthrodesis. A normal IMA was considered ≤9 degrees, consistent with standard radiographic criteria for hallux valgus.²

Figure 2.

Method for measuring the intermetatarsal angle (IMA) on weightbearing anteroposterior radiographs. The angle is formed by lines drawn along the longitudinal axes of the first and second metatarsal shafts.

Relative first MT length was measured using a method previously described by Morton¹⁶ (Figure 2). A line was drawn along the longitudinal axis of the second metatarsal, with a perpendicular line at the apex of the second metatarsal head. A parallel line was then drawn at the apex of the first metatarsal head, and the distance between these lines was recorded. Negative values indicated that the first metatarsal apex was proximal to the second (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Method for measuring relative first metatarsal length (protrusion) on weightbearing anteroposterior radiographs. A line was drawn along the longitudinal axis of the second metatarsal, with a perpendicular line at the apex of the second metatarsal head. A parallel line was then drawn at the apex of the first metatarsal head. The distance between these lines represents the relative metatarsal length.

All radiographic measurements were obtained using Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) digital tools by a single reviewer and verified by a fellowship-trained foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeon. Changes in IMA and first MT length were calculated across time points (preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, latest follow-up) to assess maintenance of correction.

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize the study population. Categorical variables are presented as counts and percentages and were compared using χ² or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Continuous variables are reported as means with SDs and were compared using independent t tests. The threshold for statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided P value of ≤ .05. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 31.0.0.0).

Results

Of 311 patients identified using CPT codes 28740 and 28297, 89 patients who underwent first TMT arthrodesis for hallux valgus met inclusion criteria, of which 51 (57.3%) received an intermetatarsal screw (IMS) and 38 (42.7%) did not. The mean age of this cohort was 50.1 years (range: 18-76 years), and the mean duration of follow-up was 487.7 days (range 180-2244 days). This cohort was predominantly female (75.3%). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between groups (Table 1). There were no statistically significant differences in age (P = .235), sex (P = .234), body mass index (P = .129), diabetes (P = .362), tobacco use (P = .546), peripheral vascular disease (P = .060), intravenous drug use (P = .326), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P = .178), or duration of follow-up (P = .694) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients Who Underwent Hallux Valgus Correction With and Without Intermetatarsal Screw Fixation.

Variable	IMS(n = 51)	No IMS(n = 38)	P Value
Age, y, mean (SD)	48.3 (18.5)	52.6 (13.8)	.235
Follow-up, d, mean (SD)	472.1 (398.1)	508.5 (469.0)	.694
Sex, n (%)			.234
Male Female	15 (29.4)36 (70.6)	7 (18.4)31 (81.6)
Body mass index, mean (SD)	29.5 (7.1)	31.7 (6.7)	.129
Diabetes, n (%)	2 (3.9)	3 (7.9)	.362
PVD, n (%)	2 (3.9)	6 (15.8)	.060
Tobacco use, n (%)	6 (11.8)	5 (13.2)	.546
IVDU, n (%)	2 (3.9)	0	.326
ASA score, n (%)			.178
I II III	9 (17.6)18 (35.3)24 (47.1)	2 (5.3)13 (34.2)23 (60.5)

Abbreviations: ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; IMS, intermetatarsal screw; IVDU, intravenous drug use; PVD, peripheral vascular disease.

Operative and rehabilitation characteristics are presented in Table 2. Plate fixation was used more frequently in cases without supplemental IMS fixation (31.6% vs 13.7%, P = .042) (Table 2). Time to full weightbearing did not differ significantly between groups (47.3 vs 47.7 days, P = .943) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Operative Characteristics and Postoperative Rehabilitation of Patients Who Underwent Hallux Valgus Correction With and Without Intermetatarsal Screw Fixation.

Variable	IMS(n = 51)	No IMS(n = 38)	P Value^a
Laterality, n (%)			.284
Left Right	21 (41.2)30 (58.8)	20 (52.6)18 (47.4)
Plate used, n (%)	7 (13.7)	12 (31.6)	.042
Time to full WB (days), mean (SD)	47.3 (20.7)	47.7 (28.1)	.943

Abbreviations: IMS, intermetatarsal screw; WB, weightbearing.

Boldface indicates statistical significance (P < .05).

Radiographic outcomes are summarized in Table 3. Preoperatively, the mean IMA was comparable between groups (14.2 vs 13.3 degrees, P = .299). Immediately postoperatively, patients treated with IMS fixation demonstrated a smaller IMA (5.8 vs 7.8 degrees, P = .010) (Table 3). This difference persisted at latest follow-up (7.3 vs 9.3 degrees, P = .015). The change in IMA from pre- to postoperative and from pre- to final follow-up was significantly greater in the IMS group (8.4 vs 5.5 degrees, P = .002; and 6.9 vs 3.9 degrees, P = .001, respectively) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Radiographic Outcomes Before and After Hallux Valgus Correction in Patients With and Without Intermetatarsal Screw Fixation.

Variable	IMS (n = 51)	No IMS (n = 38)	P Value^a
Preoperative
IMA, degrees, mean (SD)	14.2 (3.9)	13.3 (4.6)	.299
First MT length, mm, mean (SD)	−1.4 (3.4)	−3.0 (4.0)	.045
Immediate postoperative
IMA, degrees, mean (SD)	5.8 (3.7)	7.8 (3.3)	.010
First MT length, mm, mean (SD)	−1.8 (3.2)	−3.6 (3.8)	.014
Latest follow-up
IMA, degrees, mean (SD)	7.3 (4.0)	9.3 (3.4)	.015
First MT length, mm, mean (SD)	−1.6 (3.3)	−4.0 (3.9)	.003
Change over time
Δ in IMA, pre- to postop, mean (SD)	8.4 (4.0)	5.5 (4.4)	.002
Δ in IMA, preop to latest FU, mean (SD)	6.9 (4.3)	3.9 (3.7)	.001
Δ in first MT length, pre- to postop, mm, mean (SD)	−0.4 (2.1)	−0.6 (2.1)	.551
Δ in first MT length, preop to latest FU, mm, mean (SD)	−0.2 (1.6)	−0.9 (2.2)	.080

Abbreviations: Δ, change; FU, follow-up; IMA, intermetatarsal angle; IMS, intermetatarsal screw; MT, metatarsal; postop, postoperative; preop, preoperative.

Boldface indicates statistical significance (P < .05).

Relative first MT length was consistently greater in the IMS group at all time points (Table 3). Preoperatively, the relative first MT length was −1.4 mm in the IMS group and −3.0 mm in the no-IMS group (P = .045). This relationship persisted both immediately postoperatively (−1.8 mm vs −3.6 mm, P = .014) and at latest follow-up (−1.6 mm vs −4.0 mm, P = .003) (Table 3).

Postoperative complications are shown in Table 4. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of infection (0% vs 2.6%, P = .427), nerve injury (15.7% vs 21.1%, P = .514), nonunion (2.0% vs 2.6%, P = .674), revision surgery (9.8% vs 18.4%, P = .239), implant failure (7.8% vs 2.6%, P = .285), or implant removal (9.8% vs 7.9%, P = .531) between patients with and without IMS fixation (Table 4).

Table 4.

Postoperative Complications in Patients With and Without Intermetatarsal Screw Fixation for Correction of Hallux Valgus.

Variable, n (%)	IMS (n = 51)	No IMS (n = 38)	P Value
Infection	0	1 (2.6)	.427
Nerve injury	8 (15.7)	8 (21.1)	.514
Nonunion	1 (2.0)	1 (2.6)	.674
Revision surgery	5 (9.8)	7 (18.4)	.239
Implant failure	4 (7.8)	1 (2.6)	.285
Implant removal	5 (9.8)	3 (7.9)	.531

Abbreviation: IMS, intermetatarsal screw.

Surgeon-specific use of IMS fixation is summarized in Supplemental Table S1. Surgeon A used an IMS in 72.7% of cases, surgeon B in 40.0% of cases, and surgeon C in 11.1% of cases.

Discussion

In this retrospective study of patients who underwent first TMT arthrodesis for hallux valgus, supplemental IMS fixation was associated with greater initial correction of the IMA and improved maintenance of alignment at latest follow-up, without an increase in postoperative complications. These associations provide observational evidence that IMS augmentation may be linked to greater transverse plane stability and improved maintenance of correction, although surgeon‑level practice patterns and fixation construct differences could confound these associations. Although further investigation is warranted, IMS fixation appears to be a viable adjunct in appropriately selected patients undergoing first TMT arthrodesis for hallux valgus.

Prior investigation has demonstrated that transverse fixation across the first and second metatarsal bases can increase construct rigidity and limit intermetatarsal splay under load.^7,11,17 Consistent with this, Jones et al¹⁷ compared first TMT arthrodesis with vs without a first-second metatarsal base screw and found greater initial IMA correction (11.6 vs 7.8 degrees) and better maintenance at 1 year (change 0.5 vs 2.3 degrees) in the screw cohort. Notably, IMS placement in the Jones et al¹⁷ study was guided by a standardized intraoperative criterion, whereas in our cohort, the decision to use IMS was made at surgeon discretion, representing a methodological difference between the studies. To contrast, Scheele et al¹⁰ observed greater initial hallux valgus angle (HVA) reduction with intermetatarsal fusion plus a stabilization screw, but no difference in IMA/HVA or recurrence at final follow-up compared with isolated TMT arthrodesis. Taken together, these findings suggest that supplemental first-second ray stabilization may enhance initial alignment and maintain correction, although consistent long-term benefit has not been definitively demonstrated.

In this study, relative first MT length was greater in the IMS cohort at all time points. Although fixation technique variation may contribute, this finding could reflect improved first-ray stability and resistance to shortening during correction.^18,19 Because shorter relative first-ray length is associated with metatarsalgia,^20,21 preservation of first-ray length may be another way IMS augmentation confers clinical benefit. However, previous work has suggested that sagittal plane alignment and overall first-ray mechanics may play a greater clinical role than length alone.²² Thus, although IMS fixation may assist in maintaining first-ray length, a factor linked to forefoot biomechanics, its clinical significance warrants further investigation.

Notably, IMS fixation did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences in postoperative complications. Complication rates, including infection, nerve symptoms, hardware-related complications, nonunion, and reoperation, were comparable between groups. Prior studies report nonunion in 3.3% to 12%,^5,23-25 infection in 2.3% to 7%,²⁶ and hardware removal in up to 15%,²⁷ which aligns with the rates observed in this cohort. These findings suggest that IMS augmentation can be used safely as an adjunct to the Lapidus procedure.

In addition to radiographic parameters, this study evaluated clinical outcomes, providing a more comprehensive assessment of deformity correction. As the modified Lapidus procedure continues to evolve, defining indications for adjunctive fixation techniques remains an important area of study. Future studies incorporating patient-reported outcomes and longer-term follow-up will be important to better define which patients may benefit most from supplemental fixation in hallux valgus correction.

Limitations

This study has limitations that should be considered when interpreting these findings, including those inherent to its retrospective design. Because this was a retrospective study with a fixed available sample and no a priori power calculation, the study may be underpowered to detect small between-group differences, and the results should be interpreted within this context. Similarly, multiple comparisons were performed across time points and outcomes without formal multiplicity adjustment (for P value level “significance”); thus, results should be interpreted as exploratory. Radiographic measurements were performed by a single reviewer, although verified by a fellowship-trained foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeon. However, interobserver reliability was not assessed. Clinical follow-up duration varied, and longer-term assessment may better capture complications such as recurrence and symptomatic hardware removal. In addition, differences in surgeon technique and implant constructs, including compression strategy and plate configuration, were not controlled and may have influenced the observed radiographic and clinical outcomes. This study did not capture specific surgical indications for first TMT arthrodesis, including the presence or severity of clinical first-ray instability. As a result, some patients in this cohort may have had relatively modest radiographic deformity at baseline. Furthermore, the heterogeneity in preoperative IMA values may reflect real-world variation in surgeon practice patterns rather than a single, standardized indication for Lapidus arthrodesis at this institution. This cohort was limited to procedures identified by CPT codes specific to first TMT arthrodesis (28740 and 28297). As a result, the study does not capture the full volume of hallux valgus correction procedures performed at our institution during this time frame. Because Morton’s method may underestimate relative first metatarsal length in cases of transverse plane deformity,²⁸ the ability to detect subtle changes in metatarsal length may be limited, although all measurements were performed using a standardized technique applied uniformly to both cohorts.

Conclusion

Supplemental IMS fixation in first TMT arthrodesis for hallux valgus was associated with greater maintenance of radiographic correction without observed differences in complication rates. These findings support IMS augmentation as a potential adjunct in appropriately selected patients.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-fao-10.1177_24730114251413242 – Supplemental material for Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Intermetatarsal Screw Fixation in First Tarsometatarsal Arthrodesis for Hallux Valgus

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-fao-10.1177_24730114251413242 for Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Intermetatarsal Screw Fixation in First Tarsometatarsal Arthrodesis for Hallux Valgus by Ashley N. Kimbel, Robin M. Litten, Allison D. Desforges, Robert W. Rutz and Michael D. Johnson in Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics

Footnotes

Appendix

Supplemental Table S1.

Distribution of intermetatarsal screw use by surgeon for hallux valgus correction.

Surgeon	Total cases, n	IMS used, n (%)	No IMS, n (%)
A	55	40 (72.7)	15 (27.3)
B	25	10 (40.0)	15 (60.0)
C	9	1 (11.1)	8 (88.9)

Abbreviation: IMS, intermetatarsal screw.

ORCID iDs

Robin M. Litten, MS,

Michael D. Johnson, MD,

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for this study was sought and deemed exempt by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board (IRB 300011914) because this retrospective review of existing medical records posed minimal risk and met criteria for exemption.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Disclosure forms for all authors are available online.

References

Hecht

Lin

TJ.

Hallux valgus. Med Clin North Am. 2014;98(2):227-232.

Ray

Friedmann

Hanselman

, et al Hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2019;4(2):2473011419838500.

Coetzee

Wickum

The Lapidus procedure: a prospective cohort outcome study. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25(8):526-531.

Espinosa

Wirth

SH.

Tarsometatarsal arthrodesis for management of unstable first ray and failed bunion surgery. Foot Ankle Clin. 2011;16(1):21-34.

Mcinnes

Bouché

RT.

Critical evaluation of the modified Lapidus procedure. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2001;40(2):71-90.

Vieira Cardoso

Veljkovic

Wing

Penner

Gagne

Younger

. Cohort comparison of radiographic correction and complications between minimal invasive and open Lapidus procedures for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2022;43(10):1277-1284.

Langan

Greschner

Brandão

Goss

Jr Smith

Hyer

CF.

Maintenance of correction of the modified Lapidus procedure with a first metatarsal to intermediate cuneiform cross-screw technique. Foot Ankle Int. 2020;41(4):428-436.

Thompson

Hyer

CF.

Maintenance of correction of the modified lapidus procedure with a first metatarsal to second metatarsal screw with “spot weld” technique: a retrospective and radiographic analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2023;62(4):707-711.

Dujela

Langan

Cottom

DeCarbo

McAlister

Hyer

CF.

Lapidus arthrodesis. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2022;39(2):187-206.

10.

Scheele

Kinast

Lenze

Wimmer

Beischl

Harrasser

Radiographic evaluation of first tarsometatarsal joint arthrodesis for hallux valgus deformity: does the fusion of the first to the second metatarsal base reduce the radiological recurrence rate?

Foot Ankle Spec. 2024;17(4):382-390. doi:10.1177/19386400231164209

11.

Vacketta

Perkins

Christie

Brandao

Prissel

Hyer

CF.

1st to 2nd metatarsal base cross-screw in the modified Lapidus proc. Foot Ankle Surg Tech Rep Cases. 2024;4(1):100338. doi:10.1016/j.fastrc.2023.100338

12.

Van Dyke

McGann

Brandao

Larson

Hyer

CF.

Structures at risk from an intermetatarsal screw for Lapidus bunionectomy: a cadaveric study. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;58(1):62-65.

13.

Coughlin

Mann

Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint as salvage for the failed Keller procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(1):68-75.

14.

Füssenich

Seeber

van Raaij

, et al Factors associated with nonunion in arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Foot Ankle Int. 2023;44(6):508-515. doi:10.1177/10711007231160754

15.

Mann

Coughlin

MJ.

Hallux valgus—etiology, anatomy, treatment and surgical considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;157:31-41.

16.

Morton

DJ.

Structural factors in static disorders of the foot. Am J Surg. 1930;9(2):315-328.

17.

Jones

Schleunes

Vacketta

, et al First tarsometatarsal joint arthrodesis for hallux valgus with and without intermetatarsal screw fixation: a comparison of correction and maintenance of correction. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2022;61(6):1255-1262. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2022.02.014

18.

Busch

Wegner

Haversath

Brandenburger

Jäger

Beck

First ray alignment in Lapidus arthrodesis - effect on plantar pressure distribution and the occurrence of metatarsalgia. Foot (Edinb). 2020;45:101686. doi:10.1016/j.foot.2020.101686

19.

Hatch

Dayton

DeCarbo

, et al Analysis of shortening and elevation of the first ray with instrumented triplane first tarsometatarsal arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2020;5(4):2473011420960678. doi:10.1177/2473011420960678

20.

Nakagawa

Fukushi

J-i

Nakagawa

Mizu-uchi

Iwamoto

Association of metatarsalgia after hallux valgus correction with relative first metatarsal length. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(6):582-588. doi:10.1177/1071100716634792

21.

Tóth

Huszanyik

Kellermann

Boda

Róde

The effect of first ray shortening in the development of metatarsalgia in the second through fourth rays after metatarsal osteotomy. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28(1):61-63. doi:10.3113/fai.2007.0011

22.

Greeff

Strydom

Saragas

Ferrao

PNF

. Radiographic assessment of relative first metatarsal length following modified Lapidus procedure. Foot Ankle Int. 2020;41(8):972-977. doi:10.1177/1071100720924016

23.

Catanzariti

Mendicino

Lee

Gallina

MR.

The modified Lapidus arthrodesis: a retrospective analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 1999;38(5):322-332. doi:10.1016/s1067-2516(99)80003-9

24.

Sangeorzan

Hansen

Jr.

Modified Lapidus procedure for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle. 1989;9(6):262-266.

25.

Patel

Ford

Etcheverry

Rush

Hamilton

GA.

Modified lapidus arthrodesis: rate of nonunion in 227 cases. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2004;43(1):37-42. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2003.11.009

26.

Nair

Bence

Saleem

Yousaf

Al-Hilfi

Kunasingam

A systematic review of open and minimally invasive surgery for treating recurrent hallux valgus. Surg J (N Y). 2022;8(4):e350-e356. doi:10.1055/s-0042-1759812

27.

Peterson

McAlister

Hyer

Thompson

Symptomatic hardware removal after first tarsometatarsal arthrodesis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;55(1):55-59.

28.

Arie

Moreira

NSA

Freire

dos Santos

LC.

Study of the metatarsal formula in patient with primary metatarsalgia. Rev Bras Ortop. 2015;50(4):438-444. doi:10.1016/j.rboe.2015.06.018

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.72 MB