Effectiveness of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Arthrodesis Versus Arthroplasty for Rheumatoid Forefoot Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.

To compare the clinical outcomes of resection arthroplasty of metatarsals 2-5 with either first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis or arthroplasty for rheumatoid forefoot deformity treatment. Comparative studies on the clinical effects of resection arthroplasty of metatarsals 2-5 with either first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis or arthroplasty for the treatment of rheumatoid forefoot deformity were systematically reviewed and a meta-analysis conducted. A total of 337 patients (459 feet) with rheumatoid forefoot deformity from 6 comparative studies were included, with the mean follow-up times ranging from 25 to 80 months in the arthrodesis group and 35 to 102 months in the arthroplasty group. Postoperative pain, satisfaction, hallux valgus angle, the 1 -2 intermetatarsal angle, adverse events mainly including non-union and the reoperation rate, and pedobarographic data were reported. In the pooled analysis, there were no significant pain score differences between 1 metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis and arthroplasty groups (SMD = 0.04, p = .734; I = 43.7%, p = .149), but the hallux valgus angle and the 1 -2 intermetatarsal angle showed significant differences between these 2 groups (For hallux valgus angle, SMD = -0.439, p = .002; I = 96.6%, p = .000; for 1 -2 intermetatarsal angle, SMD = -0.569, p = .000; I = 98.2%, p = .000). The rate of non-union varied from 0% to 26% in the arthrodesis group. The reoperation rate varied from 3% to 9.6% in the arthrodesis group and from 4% to 11.6% in the arthroplasty group. A comparison of the procedures showed that first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis with resection arthroplasty of the lesser rays produced similar postoperative pain relief and better maintenance of the hallux valgus angle and the 1 -2 intermetatarsal angle for rheumatoid forefoot deformity. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity and relatively low quality of the reviewed articles.