4.2 Article

Resection or preservation of the metatarsal heads in rheumatoid forefoot surgery? A randomised clinical trial

Journal

FOOT AND ANKLE SURGERY
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 37-46

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2017.07.1126

Keywords

Rheumatoid arthritis; Forefoot; Metatarsal head; Surgery; Preservation; Resection

Categories

Funding

  1. Belgian Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (BVOT)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Despite impressive results of the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis, still certain patients suffer from rheumatoid forefoot problems. Surgical treatment of these forefoot deformities can be an option. In literature no high-quality studies on this topic can be found. The goal of present study is to compare the results of a metatarsal head (MTH) resecting technique with a MTH preserving technique in the operative treatment of severe rheumatoid forefoot deformity. Methods: Patients suffering from well-defined rheumatoid forefoot deformity were prospectively enrolled in three institutions. This non-blinded study had a randomised clinical design and eligible patients were randomly assigned to undergo either resection of preservation of the MTH. The primary outcome measure consisted of the AOFAS score. Secondary outcome measures were: the FFI, the VAS for pain and the SF-36. Results: Twenty-three patients (10 in MTH preservation group) were included and analysed. After one year follow-up no significant differences in AOFAS score and additional outcome factors were found. A total of 10 complications in 23 patients were reported. Conclusions: This randomised clinical study did not show significant clinical difference between a MTH resecting and a preserving procedure in patients suffering from rheumatoid forefoot deformity. Both procedures resulted in considerable improvement of pain and activity scores. (c) 2017 European Foot and Ankle Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available