A prospective 24 months follow-up of a three component press-fit prosthesis for hallux rigidus.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the results following total first metatarsophalangeal (FMTP) joint replacement arthroplasty using a modular three component press fit prosthesis at two year follow up. METHODS: All patient data was collected in a prospective way in four study centres. Both preoperative and postoperative evaluation consisted of an assessment using the AOFAS-HMI score, visual analogue scale for pain, evaluation of the range of motion and patient satisfaction scores. Postoperative X-rays were reviewed for loosening and radiolucency up to two years. RESULTS: Fifty-five feet were available for analysis at 24 months. Two implants were removed during the study. Six more feet had additional surgery due to stiffness or malalignment. Postoperative AOFAS-HMI scores improved significantly by 32.4 points at two year follow-up (p<0.001). The visual analogue scale for pain improved significantly from 6.8 (std 1,6) preoperatively to 1.6 (std 1,9) postoperatively (p<0.0001). Mean dorsiflexion improved from 12.6 (std 10,1) degrees preoperatively to 31.2 (std 16,8) degrees postoperatively. Eighty-seven percent of patients were moderately to well satisfied with the end result. Eighteen prostheses showed radiolucency at 24 months. CONCLUSION: Implantation of a Metis® modular three component press fit prosthesis for the metatarsophalangeal joint in hallux rigidus shows significant improvement in AOFAS-HMI scores and a decrease in pain. Concerns remain with regard to early reoperation rate (14.5%) and long term survival of the implant. Future studies will have to address these aspects.

[Surgery on the wrong side: implication for the patient and the professional. Experience in a Major Ambulatory Surgery of the Foot Unit]. / Cirugía del lado erróneo: implicación del paciente y los profesionales. Experiencia en la Cirugía Mayor Ambulatoria de la Unidad del Pie.

Surgery of the wrong side is a very uncommon complication in orthopaedic surgery, but with serious consequences for the patient, the surgeon and the health institution, having to put all the necessary measures in place to prevent this occurring. We have conducted a prospective study on the introduction of a protocol to prevent surgery of the wrong side in 101 patients operated on for any foot disease in the Major Surgery Ambulatory Unit, performing three independent controls to verify the side: by the patient, by the nurse and by the anaesthetist. We review the information available of the side in the medical records and their correlation with the side operated on. Almost a quarter of the patients, 24.8%, were not informed that they had to make a mark on the foot to be operated on. No mark was made by 18.4% of the patients informed to do so, with no relationship between age, gender, education level, to live alone or previous foot operations. There was a lack of noting the side in the documentation, with this omission being more frequent in the Orthopaedic and Traumatology and Anaesthesiology medical records. Nine cases of inconsistency in the surgical side were detected, all in patients who had previous surgery in any foot. Marking of the side has been incorporated as routine practice in foot surgery, being beneficial for the safety of the patient, and should become normal practice in all surgical areas in the near future.