[Effectiveness of minimally invasive treatment of hallux valgus with small incision external articular osteotomy].

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of small incision external articular minimally invasive osteotomy and traditional Chevron osteotomy in the treatment of hallux valgus.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 58 patients (58 feet) with hallux valgus who were admitted between April 2019 and June 2022 and met the selection criteria. Among them, 28 cases were treated with small incision external articular minimally invasive osteotomy (minimally invasive group), and 30 cases were treated with traditional Chevron osteotomy (traditional group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as age, gender, disease duration, Mann classification, and preoperative inter metatarsal angle (IMA), hallux valgus angle (HVA), distal metatarsal articular angle (DMAA), forefoot width, tibial sesamoid position (TSP) score, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) forefoot score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, psychological score (SF-12 MCS score) and physiological score (SF-12 PCS score) of short-form 12 health survey scale, and range of motion (ROM) of metatarsophalangeal joint between the two groups ( >0.05). The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, weight-bearing walking time, fracture healing time, and incidence of complications were recorded and compared between the two groups; as well as the changes of imaging indexes at last follow-up, and the clinical function score and ROM of metatarsophalangeal joint before operation, at 6 weeks after operation, and at last follow-up.

Results: All patients were followed up 11-31 months, with an average of 22 months. The incision length and intraoperative blood loss in the minimally invasive group were significantly less than those in the traditional group ( <0.05), and the intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency and operation time in the minimally invasive group were significantly more than those in the traditional group ( <0.05); but no significant difference was found in weight-bearing walking time and fracture healing time between the two groups ( >0.05). There was 1 case of skin injury in the minimally invasive group and 3 cases of poor incision healing in the traditional group; all patients had good healing at the osteotomy site, and no complication such as infection, nerve injury, or metatarsal head necrosis occurred. At last follow-up, the imaging indexes of the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( <0.05). The changes of DMAA and TSP score in the minimally invasive group were significantly better than those in the traditional group ( <0.05), and there was no significant difference in the changes of IMA, HVA, and forefoot width between the two groups ( >0.05). The clinical scores and ROM of metatarsophalangeal joint significantly improved in the two groups at 6 weeks after operation and at last follow-up when compared with preoperative ones ( <0.05), and the indicators in the minimally invasive group were significantly better than those in the traditional group ( <0.05).

Conclusion: Compared with traditional Chevron osteotomy, small incision external articular minimally invasive osteotomy can effectively improve HVA, IMA, and forefoot width, correct foot deformities, and has less trauma. It can better correct the first metatarsal pronation deformity and restore the anatomical position of the sesamoid bone, resulting in better effectiveness.