Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
My e-poster won BEST in Category at the AOFAS 2011 Summer Meetin
Citation preview
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
Hammertoe Deformity Treatments:
A Retrospective Comparative Study
• Authors: Wenjay Sung, DPM, Lowell Weil, Jr., DPM, and Lowell Scott Weil, Sr., DPM.
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
Disclosures
My disclosure is in the Final AOFAS Program Book.
I have no potential conflicts with this presentation.
LSW is a consultant for Wright Medical Technologies and receives royalties from the Weil Hammertoe Implant.
LWJ is a consultant for Wright Medical Technologies
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
Purpose
To compare the long-term outcomes of second hammertoe deformities that underwent proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint correction using arthroplasty, arthrodesis or interpositional implant arthroplasty.
Retrospective Comparative Study EBM Level of evidence: III (Therapeutic)
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
PurposeBackground
Indications for surgical correction of hammertoe8
Pain Pressure over the dorsal
aspect of the PIP joint Deformity
There are many reports regarding the outcomes of PIP joint implant arthroplasty1-3, PIP arthrodesis4-6, and PIP arthroplasty7.
However there are no studies that compare the outcomes of all three with significant follow-up.
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients who underwent second PIP joint deformity correction between January 1998 to December 2008.
A total of 114 patients (136 cases) were included in the study with at least 12 months of follow-up.
Assessment Visual analog pain scale (VAS) Anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) radiographic
views were evaluated Second PIP joint angles was measured on sagittal and
transverse planes
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
Methods
Separated into three treatment groups Arthroplasty Arthrodesis Implant
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
MethodsTransverse
Pre-operative
Post-operative
Sagittal
Pre-operative
Post-operative
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
Statistical Analysis
All statistical analysis were performed with SPSS version 14.0 (SPSS Science Inc, Chicago, Ill).
We used a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Inferential statistics included paired two-tailed t tests for continuous variables.
The a priori α level was .05 for all statistical tests.
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
Results
Arthroplasty Average follow-
up of 45.3 months
39 patients/ 45 cases with an average age of 62.7
Seventeen (37.8%) cases elected revision surgery.
Implant Average follow-
up of 67.4 months
41 patients/ 48 cases with an average age of 67.4
Four (10.4%) cases elected revision surgery.
Arthrodesis Average follow-
up of 47.8 months
34 patients/ 43 cases with an average age of 55.5
Six (14.6%) cases elected revision surgery.
Demographics & Revisions
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
VAS Mean Pre-operative VAS (SD)
Mean Post-operative VAS (SD)
Paired T-test P value
Arthroplasty (N=45) 7.1 (2.1) 1.0 (1.2) <0.01Arthrodesis (N=43) 8.0 (2.0) 1.9 (1.6) <0.01
Implant (N=48) 8.2 (1.8) 1.3 (1.4) <0.01ANOVA Not enough variance Not enough variance
Transverse Mean Pre-operative AP (SD)
Mean Post-operative AP (SD)
Paired T-test P value
Arthroplasty (N=45) 8.2 (7.9) 11.4 (7.7) <0.05Arthrodesis (N=43) 7.2 (7.8) 5.4 (8.0) 0.59
Implant (N=48) 7.8 (7.9) 2.9 (5.5) <0.01ANOVA Not enough variance Significant Variance
Sagittal Mean Pre-operative LAT (SD)
Mean Post-operative LAT (SD)
Paired T-test P value
Arthroplasty (N=45) 46.9 (17.8) 31.5 (11.7) <0.01Arthrodesis (N=43) 46.4 (17.1) 24.7 (14.1) <0.01
Implant (N=48) 49.1 (14.3) 24.2 (5.7) <0.01ANOVA Not enough variance Not enough variance
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
Discussion
Our study demonstrates that all three techniques Significantly improves pain Significantly corrects in the sagittal plane (LAT).
However, only the implant group significantly corrected the deformity in the transverse plane (AP). Moreover, surgical revisions were lowest in this group.
There are many studies that demonstrate good results of different techniques1-7, however, this study is the first to compare the results of three popular hammertoe treatments with long-term follow-up.
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
DiscussionStrength
Comparative study
Statistical analysis
Follow-up
Weakness
Observer bias
Variability in patient selection.
Underpowered to determine variance
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
Conclusions
In conclusion, our study confirms that all three techniques provide adequate pain relief and sagittal plane correction.
However, interpositional implant arthroplasty provides significant correction in the transverse plane with less chance for revision surgery.
Twitter: @jaysung#foot2011
References
1. Sollitto RJ et al. A preliminary report on the status of implants for the lesser toes. J Foot Surg. 1985 Nov-Dec: 24 (6): 435-6
2. Sgarlato TE. Digital implant arthroplasty. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1996 Apr;13(2):255-62.
3. Mednick DL et al. Comparison of total hinged and total nonhinged implants for the lesser digits. J Foot Surg. 1985 May-Jun;24(3):215-8.
4. Edwards WH et al. Interphalangeal joint arthrodesis of the lesser toes. Foot Ankle Clin. 2002 Mar;7(1):43-8.
5. Ohm OW et al. Digital arthrodesis: an alternate method for correction of hammer toe deformity. J Foot Surg 1990 May-Jun;29(3):207-11.
6. Co AY et al. Radiographic analysis of transverse plane digital alignment after surgical repair of the second metatarsophalangeal joint. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2006 Nov-Dec;45(6):380-99.
7. Rice JR. Digital arthroplasty by power surgery with minimal incision. J Am Podiatry Assoc. 1977 Nov;67(11):811-4.
8. Coughlin MJ. Lesser toe abnormalities. Instr Course Lect. 2003;52:421-44.
