RESUMO
Hallux valgus deformity (HVD) involves subluxation of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. While HVD is primarily considered a forefoot condition, midfoot instability may play a significant role in its development and severity. However, very few studies have placed a heavy emphasis on studying this phenomenon. Therefore, this review had a particular focus on understanding midfoot instability based on weightbearing imaging assessments of the TMT joint. This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and searched five databases for studies on midfoot instability in HVD patients. The severity of HVD was defined by hallux valgus angle (HVA) and distal metatarsal articular angle (DMAA). Data was extracted, and articles were graded using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). Of 547 initially retrieved articles, 23 met the inclusion criteria. Patients with HVD showed higher HVA and DMAA on weightbearing radiographs (WBRG) and weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) compared to healthy individuals. Midfoot instability was assessed through intermetatarsal angle (IMA) and tarsometatarsal angle (TMT angle). Patients with HVD exhibited greater IMA and TMT angles on both WBRG and WBCT. This review highlights the importance of weightbearing imaging assessments for midfoot instability in HVD. IMA and TMT angles can differentiate between healthy individuals and HVD patients, emphasizing the significance of midfoot assessment in understanding HVD pathology. These findings validate the limited evidence thus far in the literature pertaining to consistent midfoot instability in HVD patients and are able to provide ample reasoning for physicians to place a larger emphasis on midfoot imaging when assessing HVD in its entirety.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication following orthopedic shoulder surgery; however, research is limited involving the break-even cost-effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the cost of aspirin and enoxaparin would break even for VTE prevention in patients following shoulder surgery. METHODS: A drug retail database was used to obtain the lowest price for a course of aspirin (81 mg) and enoxaparin (40 mg) to perform a break-even cost analysis. Our institutional purchasing records were then searched to estimate the cost of treating a symptomatic VTE. The TriNetX national database was queried to establish a rate of VTE after shoulder surgery. A break-even cost analysis was performed by determining the absolute risk reduction (ARR). This value was used to calculate the number of patients who are treated to prevent a single VTE while breaking even on cost. Sensitivity analyses were performed for drugs that did not break even at the database-derived VTE rates. RESULTS: Full medication courses of aspirin and enoxaparin were found to cost $1.18 and $125.37, respectively. The cost of treating a symptomatic VTE was determined to be $9407.00. Data from the TriNetX database showed rates of symptomatic VTE following shoulder arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of 1.60%, 1.50%, and 0.68%, respectively. Aspirin broke even on cost for all procedures if the initial rate decreased by an ARR of 0.01% (number needed to treat, 7972). Similarly, enoxaparin broke even for shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty if the initial rate of VTE decreased by an ARR of 1.33% (number needed to treat, 75). Enoxaparin did not break even at the initial VTE rate for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; however, sensitivity analysis found enoxaparin would break even if the drug could be obtained at a cost of ≤$60.00. Enoxaparin broke even if the cost of treating a symptomatic VTE was ≥$20,000.00. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of a 3-week course of twice-daily aspirin or once-daily enoxaparin breaks even for VTE prophylaxis following shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty if these drugs reduce the VTE rate by a calculated ARR. Given the lower rate of VTE observed for patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, only the 3-week course of aspirin broke even under these conditions. Once-daily enoxaparin did not break even at current market rate. Further research is needed to help determine optimal VTE prophylaxis after shoulder surgery.
RESUMO
Background. First metatarsophalangeal (MTP) arthrodesis is the "gold standard" treatment for hallux rigidus. Recently, there has been increased interest in new synthetic cartilage implants to preserve joint motion while eradicating pain. With current health care economics, the cost of a treatment is gaining particular importance. This study set out to perform a cost comparison between MTP arthrodesis and synthetic hydrogel implant to determine which treatment modality is more cost-effective based on direct aggregate costs. Study design. Economic and decision analysis. Methods. Studies in the available literature were analyzed to estimate hardware removal rates for MTP fusion and failure rates for a synthetic hydrogel implant and MTP fusion. Costs were determined by examining direct costs at a single institution for implants and data reported in the literature for operating room time. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation were performed to examine cost and measurement uncertainty. Results. Assuming a 4.76% MTP arthrodesis revision rate and 7.06% hardware removal rate, the total direct cost of MTP joint arthrodesis was $3632. Using a 9.2% failure rate with subsequent conversion to MTP arthrodesis, the total cost of synthetic hydrogel implant was $4565. Sensitivity analysis revealed that MTP fusion was more cost-effective even if the failure rate increased to 15% and synthetic hydrogel implant failure rate was 0%. The synthetic cartilage implant cost would have to be reduced 28% or approximately 200% the cost of MTP fusion implants to be comparable to MTP arthrodesis. Conclusion. Hallux rigidus treatment with a synthetic hydrogel implant resulted in a higher direct aggregate cost than MTP arthrodesis.Level of Evidence: Level II: Cost analysis.
