Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Biomechanical effects of Evans versus Hintermann osteotomy for treating adult acquired flatfoot deformity: a patient-specific finite element investigation.
Xu, Can; Liu, Hua; Li, Mingqing; Li, Hui; Pan, Chun'ang.
Affiliation
  • Xu C; Department of Orthopedics, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China.
  • Liu H; Department of Orthopedics, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China.
  • Li M; Department of Orthopedics, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China. 405997@csu.edu.cn.
  • Li H; Beijing Engineering and Technology Research Center for Medical Endoplants, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
  • Pan C; Beijing Engineering and Technology Research Center for Medical Endoplants, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
J Orthop Surg Res ; 19(1): 107, 2024 Feb 01.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38303071
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Evans and Hintermann lateral column lengthening (LCL) procedures are both widely used to correct adult acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD), and have both shown good clinical results. The aim of this study was to compare these two procedures in terms of corrective ability and biomechanics influence on the Chopart and subtalar joints through finite element (FE) analysis.

METHODS:

Twelve patient-specific FE models were established and validated. The Hintermann osteotomy was performed between the medial and posterior facets of the subtalar joint; while, the Evans osteotomy was performed on the anterior neck of the calcaneus around 10 mm from the calcaneocuboid joint surface. In each procedure, a triangular wedge of varying size was inserted at the lateral edge. The two procedures were then compared based on the measured strains of superomedial calcaneonavicular ligaments and planter facia, the talus-first metatarsal angle, and the contact characteristics of talonavicular, calcaneocuboid and subtalar joints.

RESULTS:

The Hintermann procedure achieved a greater correction of the talus-first metatarsal angle than Evans when using grafts of the same size, indicating that Hintermann had stronger corrective ability. However, its distributions of von-Mises stress in the subtalar, talonavicular and calcaneocuboid joints were less homogeneous than those of Evans. In addition, the strains of superomedial calcaneonavicular ligaments and planter facia of Hintermann were also greater than those of Evans, but both generally within the safe range (less than 6%).

CONCLUSION:

This FE analysis study indicates that both Evans and Hintermann procedures have good corrective ability for AAFD. Compared to Evans, Hintermann procedure can provide a stronger corrective effect while causing greater disturbance to the biomechanics of Chopart joints, which may be an important mechanism of arthritis. Nevertheless, it yields a better protection to the subtalar joint than Evans osteotomy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Both Evans and Hintermann LCL surgeries have a considerable impact on adjacent joints and ligament tissues. Such effects alongside the overcorrection problem should be cautiously considered when choosing the specific surgical method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, case-control study.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Calcaneus / Flatfoot Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Adult / Humans Language: En Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Year: 2024 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Calcaneus / Flatfoot Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Adult / Humans Language: En Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Year: 2024 Document type: Article