Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024
Correction potential and outcome of various surgical procedures for hallux valgus surgery: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ettinger S, Spindler F T, Savli M, D.A.F. Scientific Committee, Baumbach Sebastian F
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: 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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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 OF EVIDENCE: Level I; living systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective comparative studies (level II) and randomized controlled trials (level I).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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 OF EVIDENCE: Level I; living systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective comparative studies (level II) and randomized controlled trials (level I).