Journal of foot and ankle research · 2024
Biomechanical comparison of reverse offset-L osteotomy and chevron osteotomy in cadaveric hallux valgus surgery.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Cingoz Tunca, Ziroglu Nezih, Bozdag Ergun, Yamak Fatih, Yozgatli Tahir Koray, Bayramoglu Alp, Kocaoglu Baris, Esemenli Behic Tanil
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Chevron osteotomy offers near-excellent clinical results and adequate stability at lower shift percentages, among the techniques used to correct hallux valgus deformity. This cadaveric study aimed to compare the Chevron osteotomy with the reverse offset-L osteotomy, which may provide a greater surface area and a more stable geometry to withstand higher cantilever forces at higher shift percentages.
METHODS: Metatarsal bones obtained from 20 human cadavers with similar bone quality were divided into two groups: Chevron osteotomy was applied to the 1st group and reverse offset-L osteotomy was applied to the 2nd group. The load-to-failure, displacement in the y-axis, and total displacement values of both groups were compared statistically. Furthermore, bone densities were compared between the groups with computed tomography imaging.
RESULTS: When outliers in both groups were excluded, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of reverse offset-L (143 ± 42 vs. 204 ± 51.2 N, p = 0.02) in terms of failure load. The groups were similar in terms of displacement on the y-axis and total displacement values. Bone densities were similar.
CONCLUSION: The reverse offset-L osteotomy has been shown to withstand greater loads before failure compared to the standard Chevron osteotomy. This significant difference in load-to-failure may enable reverse offset-L to provide reliable stability in osteotomies performed in advanced HV cases requiring higher shifts.
METHODS: Metatarsal bones obtained from 20 human cadavers with similar bone quality were divided into two groups: Chevron osteotomy was applied to the 1st group and reverse offset-L osteotomy was applied to the 2nd group. The load-to-failure, displacement in the y-axis, and total displacement values of both groups were compared statistically. Furthermore, bone densities were compared between the groups with computed tomography imaging.
RESULTS: When outliers in both groups were excluded, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of reverse offset-L (143 ± 42 vs. 204 ± 51.2 N, p = 0.02) in terms of failure load. The groups were similar in terms of displacement on the y-axis and total displacement values. Bone densities were similar.
CONCLUSION: The reverse offset-L osteotomy has been shown to withstand greater loads before failure compared to the standard Chevron osteotomy. This significant difference in load-to-failure may enable reverse offset-L to provide reliable stability in osteotomies performed in advanced HV cases requiring higher shifts.