AAOS 2017: Open distal chevron vs percutaneous sub-capital osteotomy for hallux valgus

Study Type: Randomized Trial
OE Level of Evidence: N/A
Journal Level of Evidence: N/A
CONFERENCE ACE REPORTS
This ACE Report is a summary of a conference presentation or abstract. The information provided has limited the ability to provide an accurate assessment of the risk of bias or the overall quality. Please interpret the results with caution as trials may be in progress and select results may have been presented.
Synopsis
29 patients with bilateral, painful, mild-moderate hallux valgus were included in this trial to compare correction and satisfaction outcomes between open distal chevron osteotomy and percutaneous sub-capital osteotomy. Patients had their feet randomized to which foot would receive the minimally invasive procedure. The results of Please login to view the rest of this report. Please login to view the rest of this report.
Why was this study needed now?
Hallux valgus is a common foot deformity that, when symptomatic, can require surgical correction. There are a number of surgical procedures available to perform the correction of hallux valgus, but there is a paucity of high-quality trials evaluating their comparative efficacy.
What was the principal research question?
In patients with bilateral hallux valgus, were there differences in hallux valgus angle correction, intermetatarsal angle correction, and patient- and surgeon-satisfaction between open distal chevron osteotomy and percutaneous sub-capital osteotomy?
Population: 29 patients with bilateral, painful, mild to moderate hallux valgus. (all patients were female, Mean age = 31).
Intervention: Percutaneous sub-capital osteotomy: One foot of the patient was treated with a percutaneous sub-capital osteotomy procedure.
Comparison: Open distal chevron osteotomy: One foot of the patient was treated with an open distal chevron osteotomy procedure.
Outcomes: Outcomes included hallux valgus angle and intermetatarsal angle. Patient and surgeon satisfaction were also evaluated.
Methods: RCT
Time: Not reported
What were the important findings?
CONTENT IS LOCKED
What should I remember most?
How will this affect the care of my patients?
The authors responsible for this critical appraisal and ACE Report indicate no potential conflicts of interest relating to the content in the original publication.