Open AccessHallux Valgus Correction Comparing Percutaneous Oblique Osteotomy and Open Chevron Osteotomy at a 2‐year Follow‐up
Author(s) -
Guo Changjun,
Li Chunguang,
Li Xingchen,
Xu Yang,
Cai Ming,
Xu Xiangyang
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
orthopaedic surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.666
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 1757-7861
pISSN - 1757-7853
DOI - 10.1111/os.13029
Subject(s) - medicine , valgus , orthopedic surgery , valgus deformity , surgery , osteotomy , ankle , chevron (anatomy) , percutaneous , deformity
Objective This study aimed to compare the percutaneous oblique osteotomy (POO) and the open chevron osteotomy technique for correction of hallux valgus deformity at a 2‐year follow‐up. Methods This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing operative correction of hallux valgus using one of two techniques (POO vs open chevron osteotomy) from 2014 to 2018. Forty eight feet (41 patients) that underwent the POO was compared with 64 feet (58 patients) that underwent open chevron osteotomy. The hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA) and American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society Hallux Metatarsophalangeal‐Interphalangeal scores (AOFAS‐HMI) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at the 1, 2‐year follow‐up. The Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at the 2‐year follow‐up. The VAS score was collected preoperatively and on 2 weeks,1 year and 2‐year follow‐up. Results Both groups achieved significant correction of the hallux deformity. The HVA in the POO group during the follow‐up period were 12.5 ± 2.22 and 17.9 ± 9.31, respectively, and in the open chevron group were 14.1 ± 6.78 and 14.8 ± 7.83, respectively. The IMA in the POO group during the follow‐up period were 7.61 ± 1.63 and 6.94 ± 1.53, respectively, and in the open chevron group were 6.89 ± 3.06 and 6.97 ± 2.95, respectively. Postoperative MOXFQ scores in all domains were significantly improved in both groups, however there was no significant difference in the improvement of any domain between POO and open groups at a 2‐year follow‐up. The AOFAS HMI scores in the POO group during the follow‐up period were 86.5 ± 10.7 and 85.2 ± 13.8, respectively, and in the open chevron group were 88.2 ± 10.8 and 79.5 ± 23.7, respectively. The VAS scores in the POO group during the follow‐up period were 2.00 ± 0.98, 2.00 ± 0.99 and 1.55 ± 1.11, respectively, and in the open chevron group were 5.51 ± 1.45, 2.56 ± 2.88 and 2.56 ± 2.88 respectively. The 1‐year and 2‐year follow‐up outcomes between POO and open groups showed no significant difference regarding AOFAS HMI scores and VAS scores, however the POO group showed statistically significant improvement of VAS scores in the postoperative 2 weeks ( P < 0.001). There was no statistical significance between the POO and open group in terms of complications rates (8.3% vs 12.5%, P = 0.480). Conclusion The POO technique is reliable and shows a comparable outcome to the open chevron osteotomy. However, the POO technique shows significantly less pain in the first 2 weeks after surgery.