治疗拇外翻(外展外翻)和拇囊炎的干预措施。

Interventions for treating hallux valgus (abductovalgus) and bunions.

作者信息

Ferrari J, Higgins J P T, Prior T D

机构信息

Department of Podiatry, University College London, 33 Fitzroy Square, London, UK, W1P 6AY.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(1):CD000964. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000964.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Hallux valgus is classified as an abnormal deviation of the great toe (hallux) towards the midline of the foot.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and evaluate the evidence from randomised trials of interventions used to correct hallux valgus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register (2003/1), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2003) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2003). No language restrictions were applied. Hand searching of specific foot journals was also undertaken. Date of the most recent search: 31st March 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of both conservative and surgical treatments of hallux valgus. Excluded were studies comparing areas of surgery not specific to the control of the deformity such as use of anaesthetics or tourniquet placement.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methodological quality of trials which met the inclusion criteria was independently assessed by two reviewers. Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. The trials were grouped according to the interventions being compared, but the dissimilarity in the comparisons prevented pooling of results.

MAIN RESULTS

The methodological quality of the 21 included trials was generally poor and trial sizes were small. Three trials involving 332 participants evaluated conservative treatments versus no treatment. There was no evidence of a difference in outcomes between treatment and no treatment. One good quality trial involving 140 participants compared surgery to conservative treatment. Evidence was shown of an improvement in all outcomes in patients receiving chevron osteotomy compared with those receiving orthoses. The same trial also compared surgery to no treatment in 140 participants. Evidence was shown of an improvement in all outcomes in patients receiving chevron osteotomy compared with those receiving no treatment. Two trials involving 133 people with hallux valgus compared Keller's arthroplasty with other surgical techniques. In general, there was no advantage or disadvantage using Keller's over the other techniques. When the distal osteotomy was compared to Keller's arthroplasty, the osteotomy showed evidence of improving the intermetatarsal angle and preserving joint range of motion. The arthroplasty was found to have less of an impact on walking ability compared to the arthrodesis. Six trials involving 309 participants compared chevron (and chevron-type) osteotomy with other techniques. The chevron osteotomy offered no advantages in these trials. For some outcomes, other techniques gave better results. Two of these trials (94 participants) compared a type of proximal osteotomy to a proximal chevron osteotomy and found no evidence of a difference in outcomes between techniques. Three trials involving 157 participants compared outcomes between original operations and surgeon's adaptations. There was no advantage found for any of the adaptations. Three trials involving 71 people with hallux valgus compared new methods of fixation to traditional methods. There was no evidence that the new methods of fixation were detrimental to the outcome of the patients. Four trials involving 162 participants evaluated methods of post-operative rehabilitation. The use of continuous passive motion appeared to give an improved range of motion and earlier recovery following surgery. Early weightbearing or the use of a crepe bandage were not found to be detrimental to final outcome.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Only a few studies had considered conservative treatments. The evidence from these suggested that orthoses and night splints did not appear to be any more beneficial in improving outcomes than no treatment. Surgery (chevron osteotomy) was shown to be beneficial compared to orthoses or no treatment, but when compared to other osteotomies, no technique was shown to be superior to any other. Only one trial had compared an osteotomy to an arthroplasty. There was limited evidence to suggest that the osteotomy gat the osteotomy gave the better outcomes. It was notable that the numbers of participants in some trials remaining dissatisfied at follow-up were consistently high (25 to 33%), even when the hallux valgus angle and pain had improved. A few of the more recent trials used assessment scores that combine several aspects of the patients outcomes. These scoring systems are useful to the clinician when comparing techniques but are of dubious relevance to the patient if they do not address their main concern and such scoring systems are frequently unvalidated. Only one study simply asked the patient if they were better than before the treatment. Final outcomes were most frequently measured at one year, with a few trials maintaining follow-up for 3 years. Such time-scales are minimal given that the patients will be on their feet for at least another 20-30 years after treatment. Future research should include patient-focused outcomes, standardised assessment criteria and longer surveillance periods, more usefully in the region of 5-10 years.

摘要

背景

拇外翻被归类为大脚趾(拇趾)向足部中线的异常偏斜。

目的

识别并评估用于矫正拇外翻的干预措施的随机试验证据。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane肌肉骨骼损伤组试验注册库(2003/1)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(2003年第1期Cochrane图书馆)、MEDLINE(1966年1月至2003年3月)和EMBASE(1980年至2003年1月)。未设语言限制。还对手册特定的足部期刊进行了手工检索。最近一次检索日期:2003年3月31日。

入选标准

拇外翻保守治疗和手术治疗的随机或半随机试验。排除了比较非特定于畸形控制的手术区域的研究,如麻醉剂的使用或止血带的放置。

数据收集与分析

两名评价员独立评估符合纳入标准的试验的方法学质量。由两名评价员进行数据提取。试验根据所比较的干预措施进行分组,但比较的差异妨碍了结果的合并。

主要结果

纳入的21项试验的方法学质量总体较差,试验规模较小。三项涉及332名参与者的试验评估了保守治疗与不治疗的效果。没有证据表明治疗组与未治疗组在结果上存在差异。一项涉及140名参与者的高质量试验比较了手术治疗与保守治疗。结果显示,与接受矫形器治疗的患者相比,接受人字形截骨术的患者在所有结果方面均有改善。同一试验还比较了140名参与者的手术治疗与不治疗的效果。结果显示,与未接受治疗的患者相比,接受人字形截骨术的患者在所有结果方面均有改善。两项涉及133名拇外翻患者的试验比较了凯勒关节成形术与其他手术技术。总体而言,使用凯勒手术与其他技术相比没有优势或劣势。当将远端截骨术与凯勒关节成形术进行比较时,截骨术显示出改善跖间角和保留关节活动范围的证据。与关节融合术相比,关节成形术对步行能力的影响较小。六项涉及309名参与者的试验比较了人字形(及人字形类型)截骨术与其他技术。在这些试验中,人字形截骨术没有优势。对于某些结果,其他技术效果更好。其中两项试验(94名参与者)比较了一种近端截骨术与近端人字形截骨术,未发现两种技术在结果上存在差异的证据。三项涉及157名参与者的试验比较了原始手术与外科医生改良手术的结果。未发现任何改良手术具有优势。三项涉及71名拇外翻患者的试验比较了新的固定方法与传统方法。没有证据表明新的固定方法对患者的结果有害。四项涉及162名参与者的试验评估了术后康复方法。使用持续被动运动似乎能改善术后活动范围并促进早期恢复。未发现早期负重或使用弹力绷带对最终结果有害。

评价员结论

只有少数研究考虑了保守治疗。这些研究的证据表明,矫形器和夜间夹板在改善结果方面似乎并不比不治疗更有益。与矫形器或不治疗相比,手术(人字形截骨术)显示出有益效果,但与其他截骨术相比,没有一种技术被证明优于其他技术。只有一项试验比较了截骨术与关节成形术。有限的证据表明截骨术能取得更好的结果。值得注意的是,即使拇外翻角度和疼痛有所改善,一些试验中随访时仍不满意的参与者人数一直很高(25%至33%)。一些较新的试验使用了综合患者结果多个方面的评估分数。这些评分系统在临床医生比较技术时很有用,但如果它们没有解决患者的主要担忧,对患者来说相关性存疑,而且此类评分系统经常未经验证。只有一项研究只是询问患者是否比治疗前感觉更好。最终结果最常在一年时测量,少数试验的随访时间长达3年。考虑到患者在治疗后至少还会站立20 - 30年,这样的时间尺度是不够的。未来的研究应包括以患者为中心的结果、标准化的评估标准以及更长的监测期,更理想的是在5 - 10年的范围内。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索