Revision Surgery After Failed Index Synthetic Cartilage Implant Resurfacing for Hallux Rigidus: Single-Surgeon 5-Year Experience.

Foot & ankle specialist Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-02 DOI:10.1177/19386400221147773
Aman Chopra, Amanda N Fletcher, Naji S Madi, Selene G Parekh
{"title":"Revision Surgery After Failed Index Synthetic Cartilage Implant Resurfacing for Hallux Rigidus: Single-Surgeon 5-Year Experience.","authors":"Aman Chopra, Amanda N Fletcher, Naji S Madi, Selene G Parekh","doi":"10.1177/19386400221147773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) arthrodesis is regarded as the gold standard treatment option for end-stage hallux rigidus (HR), synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) resurfacing has gained popularity. This study aimed to identify the SCI resurfacing failure rate for a single surgeon, while also comparing clinical outcomes of patients who underwent SCI replacement or MTPJ arthrodesis after failed index SCI resurfacing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Health records were queried from 2016 to 2021 for patients with HR who were treated with SCI resurfacing by a single surgeon. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and hallux valgus angles were compared. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients who underwent revision with SCI replacement or MTPJ arthrodesis. SCI replacement included the use of bone graft, bone putty, or a custom 3D printed baseplate to prevent implant subsidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 219 SCI resurfacing procedures were performed by a single surgeon, including 23 revisions. When analyzing index procedures, an 8.2% revision rate was determined. The revision cohort (n = 23) consisted of 19 female patients and presented with a mean body mass index of 29.5 ± 5 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, mean age of 52.8 ± 11 years, mean follow-up duration of 22.3 (range, 3-54) months, and mean time to a revision surgery of 12.1 ± 12 (range, 1-50) months. Specifically, 12 procedures resulted in an SCI replacement, while 11 procedures resulted in arthrodesis. While all patients experienced significant improvement in their VAS pain scores (<i>P</i> < .001), the arthrodesis cohort experienced a greater improvement than the SCI revision cohort (<i>P</i> = .04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When analyzing SCI revision procedures, MTPJ arthrodesis reduced pain more significantly than SCI replacement.</p><p><strong>Levels of evidence: </strong>Level IV: Retrospective case series.</p>","PeriodicalId":73046,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle specialist","volume":" ","pages":"365-374"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle specialist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400221147773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) arthrodesis is regarded as the gold standard treatment option for end-stage hallux rigidus (HR), synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) resurfacing has gained popularity. This study aimed to identify the SCI resurfacing failure rate for a single surgeon, while also comparing clinical outcomes of patients who underwent SCI replacement or MTPJ arthrodesis after failed index SCI resurfacing.

Methods: Health records were queried from 2016 to 2021 for patients with HR who were treated with SCI resurfacing by a single surgeon. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and hallux valgus angles were compared. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients who underwent revision with SCI replacement or MTPJ arthrodesis. SCI replacement included the use of bone graft, bone putty, or a custom 3D printed baseplate to prevent implant subsidence.

Results: A total of 219 SCI resurfacing procedures were performed by a single surgeon, including 23 revisions. When analyzing index procedures, an 8.2% revision rate was determined. The revision cohort (n = 23) consisted of 19 female patients and presented with a mean body mass index of 29.5 ± 5 kg/m2, mean age of 52.8 ± 11 years, mean follow-up duration of 22.3 (range, 3-54) months, and mean time to a revision surgery of 12.1 ± 12 (range, 1-50) months. Specifically, 12 procedures resulted in an SCI replacement, while 11 procedures resulted in arthrodesis. While all patients experienced significant improvement in their VAS pain scores (P < .001), the arthrodesis cohort experienced a greater improvement than the SCI revision cohort (P = .04).

Conclusion: When analyzing SCI revision procedures, MTPJ arthrodesis reduced pain more significantly than SCI replacement.

Levels of evidence: Level IV: Retrospective case series.

人工合成软骨复位治疗脚后跟外翻失败后的翻修手术:单一外科医生的五年经验。
背景:虽然跖趾关节(MTPJ)关节置换术被认为是治疗终末期僵直性跖趾关节炎(HR)的金标准治疗方案,但合成软骨植入物(SCI)再植术却越来越受欢迎。本研究旨在确定单一外科医生的SCI再植失败率,同时比较指数SCI再植失败后接受SCI置换术或MTPJ关节固定术的患者的临床疗效。方法:查询了2016年至2021年由单一外科医生进行SCI再植治疗的HR患者的健康记录。比较了术前和术后的活动范围、视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分和拇指外翻角度。对接受SCI置换术或MTPJ关节固定术翻修的患者进行了亚组分析。SCI置换包括使用骨移植、骨腻子或定制的3D打印基板来防止植入物下沉:一位外科医生共完成了219例SCI置换手术,其中包括23例翻修手术。在分析指数手术时,确定翻修率为 8.2%。翻修队列(n = 23)包括19名女性患者,平均体重指数为29.5 ± 5 kg/m2,平均年龄为52.8 ± 11岁,平均随访时间为22.3个月(范围为3-54个月),平均翻修手术时间为12.1 ± 12个月(范围为1-50个月)。具体来说,12例手术进行了SCI置换,11例手术进行了关节置换。虽然所有患者的VAS疼痛评分都有明显改善(P < .001),但关节置换术组患者的改善程度大于SCI翻修组患者(P = .04):结论:在分析SCI翻修手术时,MTPJ关节置换术比SCI置换术更能显著减轻疼痛:IV级:回顾性病例系列
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信