Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 8/2018

01-08-2018 | Review Article

Proximal versus distal metatarsal osteotomies for moderate to severe hallux valgus deformity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes

Authors: Konstantinos Tsikopoulos, Periklis Papaioannou, Dimitrios Kitridis, Dimitris Mavridis, Dimitrios Georgiannos

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 8/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The conventional surgical treatment of moderate to severe hallux valgus (HV) deformity includes proximal metatarsal osteotomies (PMOs). Recent evidence suggests that the extension of indications for distal metatarsal osteotomies (DMOs) may result in comparable outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of proximal with that of distal metatarsal osteotomies for moderate to severe HV deformity.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL up to 25 July 2017. We included studies comparing the results of proximal and distal metatarsal osteotomies for moderate to severe HV deformity. The primary outcomes included the assessment of the first intermetatarsal angle (IMA) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scoring system. For the secondary outcomes, we considered the hallux valgus angle, sesamoid position, and participants’ satisfaction. We also reported and analyzed complications. We evaluated all outcomes in the short-term (≤ 1 year) and medium-term (> 1 and < 10 years). The quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively.

Results

Data from 696 cases were considered in this review. For the assessment of the first IMA, there was a slight advantage in favour of the PMO group in the medium term (SMD was − 0.38, 95% CIs − 0.65 to − 0.12, p < 0.05, I2 = 21%). For the rest outcomes, we did not detect any significant differences between the intervention groups.

Conclusions

For clinical and radiological outcomes, the quantitative synthesis demonstrated that there were no significant differences between PMO and DMO groups in the medium term. These findings were supported by data from non-randomized studies. For the reported complications, we did not detect any significant differences between the intervention groups.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
6.
go back to reference Coughlin MJ, Saltzman CL, Anderson RB. Mann’s surgery of the foot and ankle. 9th Edition. Coughlin MJ, Saltzman CL, Anderson RB. Mann’s surgery of the foot and ankle. 9th Edition.
7.
go back to reference Easley ME, Trnka HJ (2007) Current concepts review: hallux valgus part II: operative treatment. Foot Ankle Int 28(6):748–758CrossRefPubMed Easley ME, Trnka HJ (2007) Current concepts review: hallux valgus part II: operative treatment. Foot Ankle Int 28(6):748–758CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 151:W65eW94CrossRef Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 151:W65eW94CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Easley ME, Darwish HH, Schreyack DW, DeOrio JK, Trnka HJ (2012) Hallux valgus: proximal first metatarsal osteotomies. In: Saxena A (ed) International advances in foot and ankle surgery. Springer, London Easley ME, Darwish HH, Schreyack DW, DeOrio JK, Trnka HJ (2012) Hallux valgus: proximal first metatarsal osteotomies. In: Saxena A (ed) International advances in foot and ankle surgery. Springer, London
11.
go back to reference Lapidus PW (1960) The author’s bunion operation from 1931 to 1959. Clin Orthop 16:119–135PubMed Lapidus PW (1960) The author’s bunion operation from 1931 to 1959. Clin Orthop 16:119–135PubMed
12.
go back to reference Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M (1994) Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 15(7):349–353CrossRefPubMed Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M (1994) Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 15(7):349–353CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Sammarco GJ, Idusuyi OB (2001) Complications after surgery of the hallux. Clin Orthop Relat Res 391:59–71CrossRef Sammarco GJ, Idusuyi OB (2001) Complications after surgery of the hallux. Clin Orthop Relat Res 391:59–71CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Altman DG (2008) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterCrossRef Higgins JPT, Altman DG (2008) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan AW, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Kirkham J, Jüni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schünemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Higgins JP (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan AW, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Kirkham J, Jüni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schünemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Higgins JP (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmj.​i4919 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12CrossRefPubMed Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Egger M, Smith GD, Scheider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta analysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ 315:629e34 Egger M, Smith GD, Scheider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta analysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ 315:629e34
19.
go back to reference The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cc-ims.net/revman/download. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://​www.​cc-ims.​net/​revman/​download.​
20.
go back to reference Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (2008) Chapter 9: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (2008) Chapter 9: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
21.
go back to reference Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA (2008) Chapter 13: including non-randomized studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA (2008) Chapter 13: including non-randomized studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
22.
go back to reference Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
go back to reference Jahss MH, Troy AI, Kummer F (1985) Roentgenographic and mathematical analysis of first metatarsal osteotomies for metatarsus primus varus: a comparative study. Foot Ankle 5(6):280–321CrossRefPubMed Jahss MH, Troy AI, Kummer F (1985) Roentgenographic and mathematical analysis of first metatarsal osteotomies for metatarsus primus varus: a comparative study. Foot Ankle 5(6):280–321CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Williams L, Wilson S, Kuwada GT (1995) A comprehensive retrospective analysis of complications and radiographic findings following bunionectomy procedures for first ray deformities. Lower Extremity 2(1):11–28 Williams L, Wilson S, Kuwada GT (1995) A comprehensive retrospective analysis of complications and radiographic findings following bunionectomy procedures for first ray deformities. Lower Extremity 2(1):11–28
25.
go back to reference Bar-David T, Trepal MJ (1991) A retrospective analysis of distal Chevron and Basilar osteotomies of the first metatarsal for correction of intermetatarsal angles in the range of 13 to 16 degrees. J Foot Surg 30(5):450–456PubMed Bar-David T, Trepal MJ (1991) A retrospective analysis of distal Chevron and Basilar osteotomies of the first metatarsal for correction of intermetatarsal angles in the range of 13 to 16 degrees. J Foot Surg 30(5):450–456PubMed
26.
go back to reference Bostan B, Güneş T, Erdem M, Aşcı M, Şen C, Erdogan H (2008) Comparison of modified Lindgren-Turan operation and proximal crescentic osteotomy combined with distal soft tissue procedure in the treatment of hallux valgus. Joint Dis Rel Surg 19(2):61–65 Bostan B, Güneş T, Erdem M, Aşcı M, Şen C, Erdogan H (2008) Comparison of modified Lindgren-Turan operation and proximal crescentic osteotomy combined with distal soft tissue procedure in the treatment of hallux valgus. Joint Dis Rel Surg 19(2):61–65
27.
go back to reference Chiang CC, Lin CF, Tzeng YH, Huang CK, Chen WM, Liu CL (2012) Distal linear osteotomy compared to oblique diaphyseal osteotomy in moderate to severe hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 33(6):479–486CrossRefPubMed Chiang CC, Lin CF, Tzeng YH, Huang CK, Chen WM, Liu CL (2012) Distal linear osteotomy compared to oblique diaphyseal osteotomy in moderate to severe hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 33(6):479–486CrossRefPubMed
30.
33.
go back to reference Resch S, Stenström A (1993) Results after chevron osteotomy and proximal osteotomy for hallux valgus: a prospective, randomized study. Foot 3(3):99–104CrossRef Resch S, Stenström A (1993) Results after chevron osteotomy and proximal osteotomy for hallux valgus: a prospective, randomized study. Foot 3(3):99–104CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Cassinelli SJ, Herman R, Harris TG (2016) Distal metatarsal osteotomy for moderate to severe hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 37(10):1137–1145CrossRefPubMed Cassinelli SJ, Herman R, Harris TG (2016) Distal metatarsal osteotomy for moderate to severe hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 37(10):1137–1145CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Proximal versus distal metatarsal osteotomies for moderate to severe hallux valgus deformity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes
Authors
Konstantinos Tsikopoulos
Periklis Papaioannou
Dimitrios Kitridis
Dimitris Mavridis
Dimitrios Georgiannos
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3782-5

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

International Orthopaedics 8/2018 Go to the issue