covid
Buscar en
Revista del Pie y Tobillo
Toda la web
Inicio Revista del Pie y Tobillo ¿Es el ángulo intermetatarsiano una herramienta radiológica eficaz para deter...
Journal Information
Vol. 26. Issue 1.
Pages 29-34 (May 2012)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 26. Issue 1.
Pages 29-34 (May 2012)
Open Access
¿Es el ángulo intermetatarsiano una herramienta radiológica eficaz para determinar el tipo de osteotomía más adecuada en el tratamiento del hallux valgus?
Is the radiological intermetatarsal angle an effective tool in determining the most adequate type of osteotomy in the treatment of the hallux valgus?
Visits
6035
P. Guirro Castellnou
Corresponding author
pguirro@parcdesalutmar.cat

Correspondencia: Hospital de l’Esperança, Av. Sant Josep de la Muntanya, 12. 08024 Barcelona
, S. Gil González, C. Lozano Álvarez, E. Alentorn Geli, G. Pidemunt Moli, L. Puig Verdie, S. de Zabala Ferrer, A. Ginés Cespedosa
Unidad de Pie y Tobillo. Parc de Salut Mar. Hospital de l’Esperança. Barcelona
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information

Existen múltiples parámetros radiológicos empleados como puntos de corte en los algoritmos de tratamiento del hallux valgus (HV). El ángulo intermetatarsiano (AIM) ha sido uno de los más u El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar si el AIM es una medida radiológica eficaz para determinar el tipo de osteotomía más adecuada en el tratamiento del HV. Todos los pacientes operados de HV mediante osteotomía de tipo Chevron entre 2007 y 2008 fueron citados a consulta, independientemente del AIM. Las variables de estudio fueron: AIM radiológico pre y postoperatorio, funcionalidad mediante la escala de la AOFAS, calidad de vida evaluada con el SF-36v2, dolor mediante la esc visual analógica, satisfacción del paciente y recidiva clínica. Los pacientes con AIM menor de 14° fueron comparados con los de más de 14°. No encontramos diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos en términos de función, satisfacción y calidad de vida. En conclusión, el AIM aislado sería una herramienta poco eficaz para determinar el tipo de osteotomía en el tratamiento del HV.

Palabras clave:
Hallux valgus
Chevron
Ángulo intermetatarsiano
Algoritmo de tratamiento

Multiple radiological parameters have been employed as cut-off points in treatment algorithms of the hallux valgus (HV). The intermetatarsal angle (IMA) is one of the most commonly used cut-off points in these algorithms. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the radiological IMA in determining the most adequate type of osteotomy for the treatment of HV. All patients operated through Chevron's osteotomy between 2007 and 2008 were appointed for a single follow-up visit. The outcomes of this study included: pre and postoperative radiological IMA, functionality using the AOFAS scale, quality of life evaluated through the SF-36v2 test, pain measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS), satisfaction assessed through a self-administered test, and clinical recurrence. Patients with IMA below 14° were compared to those patients with more than 14°. No statistically significant differences in terms of function, satisfaction and quality of life were found between both groups. In conclusion, the radiological IMA would not be an effective tool in determining the type of osteotomy in the treatment of the HV.

Key words:
Hallux valgus
Chevron
Intermetatarsal angle
Treatment algorithm
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
A.H.N. Robinson, J.P. Limbers.
Modern concepts in the treatment of hallux valgus.
J Bone Joint Surg Br, 87 (2005), pp. 1038-1045
[2.]
D.W. Austin, E.O. Leventen.
A new osteotomy for hallux valgus: a horizontally directed “V” displacement osteotomy of the metatarsal head for hallux valgus and primus varus.
Clin Orthop Relat Res, 157 (1981), pp. 25-30
[3.]
R.A. Mann, K.C. Donatto.
The chevron osteotomy: a clinical and radiographic analysis.
Foot ankle Int, 18 (1997), pp. 255-261
[4.]
R. Zettl, H.J. Trnka, M. Easley, M. Salzer, P. Ritschl.
Moderate to severe hallux valgus deformity: correction with proximal crescentic osteotomy and distal soft-tissue release.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 120 (2000), pp. 397-402
[5.]
R. Viladot Pericé, F. Álvarez Goenaga.
Propuesta de algoritmo en cirugía de hallux valgus.
Rev Ortp Traumatol, 46 (2002), pp. 487-489
[6.]
H.B. Kitaoka, I.J. Alexander, R.S. Adelaar, J.A. Nunley, M.S. Myerson, M. Sanders.
Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes.
Foot Ankle Int, 15 (1994), pp. 349-353
[7.]
H. Shima, R. Okuda, T. Yasuda, T. Jotoku, N. Kitano, M. Kinoshita.
Radiographic measurements in patients with hallux valgus before and after proximal crescentic osteotomy.
J Bone Joint Surg, 91-A (2009), pp. 1369-1376
[8.]
E.O. Leventen.
The Chevron procedure.
Orthopedics, 13 (1990), pp. 973-976
[9.]
J.A. Sanhudo.
Extending the indications for distal chevron osteotomy.
Foot Ankle Int, 21 (2000), pp. 522-523
[10.]
R. Coull, M.M. Stephens.
Operative decision making in hallux valgus.
Current Orthop, 16 (2002), pp. 180-186
[11.]
H.J. Trnka, A. Zembsch, M.E. Easley, M. Salzer, P. Ritschl, M.S. Myerson.
The chevron osteotomy for correction of hallux valgus. Comparison of findings after two and five years of followup.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 82-A (2000), pp. 1373-1378
[12.]
L.B. Bai, K.B. Lee, C.Y. Seo, E.K. Song, T.R. Yoon.
Distal Chevron osteotomy with distal soft tissue procedure for moderate to severe hallux valgus deformity.
Foot Ankle Int, 31 (2010), pp. 683-688
[13.]
A. Deenik, H. van Mameren, E. de Visser, M. de Waal Malefijt, F. Draijer, R. de Bie.
Equivalent correction in scarf and chevron osteotomy in moderate and severe hallux valgus: a randomized controlled trial.
Foot Ankle Int, 29 (2008), pp. 1209-1215
[14.]
A.R. Deenik, E. de Visser, J.W. Louwerens, M. de Waal Malefijt, F.F. Draijer, R.A. de Bie.
Hallux valgus angle as main predictor for correction of hallux valgus.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 9 (2008), pp. 70
[15.]
N.F. SooHoo, M. Shuler, L.L. Fleming.
Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36.
Foot Ankle Int, 24 (2003), pp. 50-55
Copyright © 2012. SEMCPT. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U.
Download PDF
Article options