Shaped titanium wedges for subtalar distraction arthrodesis: Early clinical and radiological results

Clinical, Radiographic, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of First Metatarsophalangeal Interposition Arthrodesis Using Porous Titanium Wedges

BACKGROUND

First metatarsophalangeal (MTP) arthrodesis is a common surgical procedure for addressing hallux MTP pathology. In the setting of revision procedures with significant bone loss, porous titanium wedges may provide an alternative to structural bone autograft or allograft.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to report the clinical and radiographic outcomes achieved in first MTP interposition arthrodesis using porous titanium wedges.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 9 patients with a mean age 65.4 years (45-82 years) who underwent first MTP interposition arthrodesis with the use of porous titanium wedges from February 2014 to September 2017 was performed. Outcomes were assessed using both plain-film radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans, as well as patient-reported outcome measures, including Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) (Sports and Activities of Daily Living), pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Average follow-up time was 34.2 months (14-72 months).

RESULTS

At final follow-up, the average FAAM score was 91.1 ± 14.7 (75.1 ± 5.3 FAAM Activities of Daily Living; 17.9 ± 9.9 FAAM Sports). Average pain VAS score was 1.9 ± 1.7. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging was obtained for 5 patients, all of which demonstrated good bony apposition or osseous integration of the wedge. Four patients underwent subsequent surgical procedures, including 3 isolated dorsal fixation revisions, and 1 complete MTP arthrodesis revision.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this study represents the first reported clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing first MTP interposition arthrodesis with use of porous titanium wedges. While we found this technique to be a viable alternative to bone grafting for this difficult problem, further research should focus on comparative data with other commonly performed operative techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV: Case series.

Is There a Borderline Value in the Radiological Findings of Patients With Calcaneal Malunion That May Help to Select an Appropriate Treatment Option?

BACKGROUND

Despite the constant evolution of technological support, operative techniques, and rehabilitation techniques after conservative treatment and operative treatment, a considerable number of patients with calcaneal fractures have constant pain, frequently resulting in loss of occupation. There are numerous options for the operative treatment of painful calcaneal malunion; however, very few publications suggest specific radiological measurements for pre- and postoperative planning-even fewer have statistically analyzed how these radiological measurements affect clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 100 patients after operative treatment of calcaneal malunion to determine the correlation between radiological measurements and clinical outcomes. Data were used to create an algorithm that would help to choose between in situ subtalar arthrodesis and complex reconstructive operations. The algorithm was then used to treat 27 prospective patients. The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score and visual analog scale (VAS) were used for clinical assessment, whereas standard weightbearing anteroposterior (AP), lateral (LAT) ankle x-rays, and long axial hindfoot view were used for radiological assessment.

RESULTS

The talar declination angle was positively correlated with clinical outcome. Patients with talar declination angles less than 6.5 degrees showed worse results in AOFAS score than patients with a greater angle did (57.3 ± 15.3 and 81 ± 15.6, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The combination of subtalar arthrodesis with distraction bone block or calcaneal osteotomy in patients with calcaneal malunion and a talar declination angle less than 6.5 degrees showed better results than isolated in situ arthrodesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study, case series.