University Hospital for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Georgstrasse 12, 26121, Oldenburg, Germany.
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, LMU Munich, Ziemssenstraße 5, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024 Nov;144(11):4725-4736. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05521-0. Epub 2024 Sep 9.
More than 100 surgical techniques are described for hallux valgus (HV) correction, but the most appropriate technique remains debatable. The aim of this study was to develop and conduct a "living systematic review" for the outcome of surgically treated HV.
The "living systematic review" was conducted per the PRISMA-P and PICOS guidelines and is the basis for the German AWMF S2e guideline "Hallux valgus" (033-018). Four common databases and the grey-literature were searched. Eligible were studies on adult patients comparing either two different primary surgical interventions or the same primary surgical intervention for different hallux valgus severities. The main outcome parameters were the osseous correction potential and the patient rated outcome.
Out of 3022 studies, 46 studies (100 arms) were included. The meta-analysis included 31 studies (53 arms). The IMA (1933 procedures) improved on average by 7.3°, without significant group differences. The HVA (1883 procedures) improved on average by 18.9°, with significantly better results for third generation MIS (21.2°). The AOFAS (1338 procedures) improved on average by 33.8 points without significant group differences. The meta-regression revealed constant AOFAS scores over time. 69%/39% of the correction potential for the IMA/HVA could be explained by the preoperative values and 82% of the AOFAS improvement by the preoperative AOFAS scores.
Open and minimally invasive techniques are powerful tools to correct hallux valgus deformity. Third generation MIS procedures revealed a possible superiority for the correction of the HVA. The AOFAS improvement appeared to be constant over time.
Level I; living systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective comparative studies (level II) and randomized controlled trials (level I).
拇外翻(HV)矫正术有 100 多种手术技术,但最合适的技术仍存在争议。本研究旨在对手术治疗 HV 的结果进行开发和开展“动态系统评价”。
根据 PRISMA-P 和 PICOS 指南进行“动态系统评价”,这是德国 AWMF S2e 指南“拇外翻”(033-018)的基础。检索了四个常用数据库和灰色文献。纳入的研究对象为成年患者,比较两种不同的原发性手术干预或同一种原发性手术干预不同 HV 严重程度的研究。主要的结局参数是骨矫正潜力和患者的评定结果。
从 3022 篇研究中,纳入了 46 项研究(100 个研究组)。荟萃分析包括 31 项研究(53 个研究组)。IMA(1933 例)平均改善 7.3°,无显著组间差异。HVA(1883 例)平均改善 18.9°,第三代 MIS 的结果明显更好(21.2°)。AOFAS(1338 例)平均改善 33.8 分,无显著组间差异。Meta 回归显示 AOFAS 评分随时间的变化常数。IMA/HVA 的矫正潜力的 69%/39%可以用术前值来解释,AOFAS 改善的 82%可以用术前 AOFAS 评分来解释。
开放和微创技术是矫正拇外翻畸形的有力工具。第三代 MIS 手术可能具有更好的 HVA 矫正效果。AOFAS 改善似乎随时间保持不变。
1 级;前瞻性比较研究(2 级)和随机对照试验(1 级)的动态系统评价和荟萃分析。