Matched retrospective analysis of three different fixation devices for chevron osteotomy |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Orthopaedics of Herz Jesu Krankenhaus Vienna, Baumgasse 20A, 1030 Wien, Austria;2. Johannes Kepler University Linz, Medical Faculty, Altenbergerstraße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria;3. maz – Microsurgical Training and Research Center, Industriezeile 36/7, 4020 Linz, Austria;1. Premier Orthopaedic and Trauma Specialists 160 E. Artesia Street, Suite 310, Pomona, CA 91767, USA;2. Orthopaedic Specialty Institute Medical Group of Orange County, 280 South Main Street, Suite 200, Orange, CA 92868, USA;3. Loma Linda University, 24851 Circle Drive, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA;4. Restore Orthopedic and Spine Center, 1120 W. La Veta Avenue, Suite #300, Orange, CA 92868, USA;5. Loma Linda University, Department of Orthopedics, 24851 Circle Dr, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA;1. Shandong University Cheeloo College of Medicine, Wenhua West Road 44#, Jinan, Shandong Province, 250012, PR China;2. Department of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Wenhua West Road 107#, Jinan, Shandong Province, 250012, PR China;3. Department of Spine Surgery of Traditional Chinese Hospital Affiliated with Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, PR China;1. Consultant, Department of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany;2. Scientific Consultant, StatSol, Lübeck, Germany; and School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa;3. Professor and Head, Department of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany;4. Resident, Department of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany;1. Orthopädische Klinik der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover im Annastift, Hannover, Deutschland;2. Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Deutschland |
| |
| Abstract: | Chevron osteotomy with consecutive fixation is a commonly performed operative treatment option for hallux valgus deformities. The present retrospective study aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of novel bioabsorbable magnesium screw fixation with metal screw and Kirschner wire fixation.Eighteen matched triplets were assembled according to the following criteria: female gender, age difference less than 5 years, date of operation within 4 months, difference in preoperative intermetatarsal angle less than 5°, and equal experience of the first and second surgeon. These patients, between 18 and 85 years of age and with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, were invited to a follow-up examination, of which only 16 matched triplets of patients entirely kept the appointment. Thus, 48 feet of 44 patients were clinically evaluated using the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society scale, Foot Function Index, University of California and Los Angeles Activity Score, as well as a visual analogue scale for pain, satisfaction, cosmetic results, and functional impairment. Radiographical assessment included measuring intermetatarsal angle and first metatarsophalangeal angles. All occurring complications and revision surgeries were noted.Significant differences were observed for postoperative intermetatarsal angle between magnesium screw and pin fixation (p = 0.009). Moreover, patients receiving magnesium screw were significantly more prone to undergo the same procedure again (p = 0.03).In conclusion, if the advantages of bioabsorbable magnesium screws outweigh the drawbacks of increased costs and a higher surgical demand, this implant might serve as possible chevron osteotomy fixation method. Compression screws and Kirschner wires also show comparable satisfactory outcomes.Level of evidenceIII retrospective comparative study |
| |
| Keywords: | Austin osteotomy Chevron osteotomy Bioabsorbable screw Hallux valgus Magnezix® |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
