Post-operative outcomes of arthroscopic tarsal coalition resection: A systematic review

Outcomes of surgical management for tarsal coalitions: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To analyze the outcome of surgical treatment of tarsal coalition, assess the role of the surgical technique, as well as of coalition size and type on outcomes.

METHODS

The search followed the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and was performed in four databases: MEDLINE, Central, Scopus and Web of Science. The protocol has been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), complications, revisions and radiographic recurrence were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using MINORS criteria. A random-effects model for meta-analysis was applied for analysis of data heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies including 760 tarsal coalitions were included and had a weighted average follow-up of 44 months. Studies scored fair to poor on the risk of bias assessment with a mean MINORS score of 67% (44-81%). In 77.8% (37.5-100%) of surgically treated tarsal coalitions, good/excellent/non-limiting or improved PROMs were reported. Calculated data heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 57%). Open bar resection with material interposition had a clinical success rate of 78.8% (50-100%). Complications occurred in 4.96% of cases. Coalition size did not prove to be a determining factor in postoperative outcome. The influence of the coalition type was not investigated by any of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Data on outcomes of surgical management for tarsal coalitions is limited to retrospective case series with high risk of bias and moderate data heterogeneity. In about ¾ of cases, open resection and interposition of material results in improved PROMs. The arbitrary margin of ≥ 50% of TC coalition size in relation to the posterior facet has little importance in surgical decision-making. None of the studies reported on the influence of the coalition type on postoperative clinical success.

8 out of 10 patients do well after surgery for tarsal coalitions: A systematic review on 1284 coalitions

BACKGROUND

The primary aim was to determine the clinical success rate after treatment for talocalcaneal (TCC) and calcaneonavicular coalitions (CNC). The secondary aim was to evaluate the complication, recurrence and revision rate.

METHODS

A search was carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Methodological quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) criteria. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate and was pooled per type of coalition and treatment modality. 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the success rates were calculated. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, coalition recurrence rates, revision rates and pain improvement using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A sub-analysis on interposition material was performed.

RESULTS

43 articles comprising of 1284 coalitions were included, with a pooled mean follow-up of 51 months. Methodological quality was fair. The overall pooled success rate for TCCs was 79% (95% CI, 75%-83%). Conservative treatment, open resection and arthroscopic resection of TCCs resulted in success rates of 58% (95% CI, 42%-73%), 80% (95% CI, 76%-84%) and 86% (95% CI, 71%-94%), respectively. CNCs have an overall success rate of 81% (95% CI, 75%-85%), with 100% (95% CI, 34%-100%), 80% (95% CI, 74%-85%) and 100% (95% CI, 65%-100%) for conservative treatment, open resection and arthroscopic resection, respectively. Pooled complication rates of 4% (95% CI, 3%-7%) for TCCs and 6% (95% CI, 4%-11%) for CNCs were found. The success rates of resection with and without interposition material for TCCs were 83% (95% CI, 78%-87%) and 79% (95% CI, 65%-88%), and for CNCs 81% (95% CI, 76%-86%) and 69% (95% CI, 44%-85%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of tarsal coalitions can be considered good to excellent as well as safe, with an overall clinical success rate of 79% for TCCs and 81% for CNCs. Arthroscopic resection of the coalition appears to be non-inferior to open resection of TCCs and CNCs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Systematic Review.