RESUMO
PURPOSE: To determine if the postoperative alignment of the hallux influences the final clinical outcome of hallux metatarsophalangeal joint (first MTPJ) arthrodesis. METHODS: A total of 71 consecutive cases (hallux rigidus) were studied in stages 3 and 4. They were operated through arthrodesis between 2008 and 2014. The follow-up mean was 7.3 years. The AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) test was performed preintervention and per annum. In radiology, both the hallux valgus angle and the dorsiflexion angle of the first MTPJ were studied. Furthermore, clinical outcomes were evaluated according to the type of implant used. RESULTS: Preoperative AOFAS score was 27.5, rising to 91.3 after the intervention ( P < .01). The improvement test average was 63.6. There were 17 local complications (23%), 7 of them were considered to be major complications (9%), 6 of which needed reoperation (8.5%). The dorsiflexion angle postoperative mean was 21.7°. The hallux valgus angle postoperative mean was 10.9°. No correlations between both angles, and improved AOFAS score or complications ( P > .4 and P > .5, respectively), were found. Patients who had a dorsiflexion angle higher than 20° had greater improvement in the AOFAS score compared with those who had angles lower than 20° (64.5 vs 59.6 points). Nevertheless, this result was not statistically significant ( P = .059). No differences in AOFAS score improvement regarding arthrodesis plate ( P > .1) were found. CONCLUSION: First MTPJ arthrodesis is a good alternative for patients in advanced hallux rigidus stages when conservative treatment fails. We could not confirm if a better postoperative alignment may influence in clinical outcomes. However, better results are obtained with dorsiflexion angle greater than 20° than with those with less than 20°. Likewise, any differences between the 2 arthrodesis plates have been able to confirm. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level III: Retrospective cohort study.
RESUMO
Las fracturas por fragilidad o secundarias a la osteoporosis se pueden considerar como un importante problema de Salud Pública por las consecuencias en términos de mortalidad y morbilidad que generan. Y las previsiones para el futuro, teniendo en cuenta el progresivo envejecimiento de la población y el aumento de la esperanza de vida, no son nada optimistas. Suponen y supondrán un importante consumo de recursos. Una de las estrategias que ha demostrado eficacia para su prevención, es el tratamiento farmacológico. Pero este tratamiento puede afectar de una manera u otra al proceso de consolidación, uno de los objetivos primarios fundamentales en su manejo. En este trabajo de revisión queremos establecer, en base a la evidencia actual, cómo afectan todos y cada uno de los fármacos indicados para el tratamiento de la osteoporosis al proceso de consolidación de las fracturas por fragilidad, una cuestión que genera dudas e incertidumbres en el traumatólogo, cuya responsabilidad y papel en el escenario de la prevención, es fundamental
Osteoporotic fragility fractures can be seen as a major public health problem because their consequences in terms of mortality and morbidity. Taking into account the progressive ageing of the population and the increase in life expectancy, the expectative in the next future are not optimistic. They are and will be an important focus of health resources consumption. One of the strategies that have proven be effective for fracture prevention, is the antiosteoporotic pharmacological treatment. This type of treatments can affect bone healing process in one way or another. In this review, based on the current scientific evidence, we want to establish how each one of the drugs prescribed for the osteoporosis treatment affects the bone healing process of fragility fractures, an issue that generates doubts and uncertainties in the orthopaedic surgeon, whom responsibility and role in fracture prevention is essential
