Cheilectomy of the big toe is offered in the early stages of arthritis affecting the big toe MTPJ, with the understanding that if it fails then a more definitive surgical treatment (e.g. MTPJ fusion or replacement) may be required. When considering treatment options, patients want to know how long will a cheilectomy procedure last. There is limited evidence available about the long term results after cheliectomy, particularly with regards to time to revision surgery. Our aim was to establish the long-term results of cheilectomy with regards to revision surgery and patient-satisfaction over a period of 10 years. A retrospective review of big toe MTPJ cheilectomies was performed at our institute from 2002 to 2012. The patients were identified using a combination of medical coding system, clinical records, operative log, and radiographs. A systemic review of chielectomy by Roukis (2010) was identified as the clinical standard and revision surgery after cheilectomy, average time to revision and patient satisfaction was assessed. 204 cheilectomies were identified in 192 patients over a period of 10 years. Majority had grade 2 OA (n = 106, 54 %) with grade 3 (n= 65, 33 %) and grade 1 (n= 24, 12 %). The mean follow-up was 4 yrs. (range 6 m to 9 yrs. and 8 m). The overall revision rate to any surgery was 4.4% (n=9), and revision to MTPJ arthrodesis was 3.4% (n =7). The average time to revision was 1 yr. 4 m. 101 patients (55%) were contactable over the phone, and majority (82 %) of them were satisfied with the clinical outcome. This study shows slightly better overall revision rate (4.4% vs. 8.8%), with revision to arthrodesis being similar (3.4% vs. 3.25%) as compared to the clinical standard. It also suggests that cheilectomy of the big toe can last for a minimum of up to 4 years in 95 % of cases. The 5 % of cases that may require revision surgery are likely to present within the first 2 years. This information is very useful to a patient who wants to know “how long will my cheilectomy last?” whilst making an informed choice
The incidence of wound complications after a hip or a knee replacement is well established, but there is no such data about foot/ankle surgery. Without this data it is difficult to compare performance between different care-providers. It is also difficult to benchmark services that could potentially be provided by a wide range of care providers (chiropodists, podiatrists, podiatric surgeons, general orthopaedic surgeons with a small foot/ankle practice, etc). Our aim was to establish the incidence of wound complications after foot/ankle surgery and provide a baseline for future comparison. Our study was done in two parts. First part was to conduct an opinion-survey of BOFAS members with a substantial foot/ankle practice, on wound complications from foot/ankle surgery in their own practice. Second part was to conduct a prospective study on the incidence of wound complications from our own foot/ankle practice. The study was registered as an audit and did not require ethical approval. All wound complications (skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, superficial and deep infections) were recorded prospectively. Record of such data was obtained by an independent observer, and from multiple sources, to avoid under-reporting. 60 % of the responders to our survey had a predominant foot/ankle practice (exclusive or at least 75 % of their practice was foot/ankle surgery) and were included for further analysis of their responses. A large majority of these responders (64%) reported a rate of 2–5 % for superficial infection, and a significant majority (86 %) reported a deep infection rate of less than 2 %. Results from our own practice showed an incidence of superficial infection of 2.8 % and deep infection of 1.5 %. With increasing focus on clinical outcome measures as an indicator of quality, it is imperative to publish data on wound complications/ infection after foot/ankle surgery, and in the absence of such data, our two-armed study (survey-opinion and prospective audit) provides a useful benchmark for future comparisons.
To determine whether the Q-angle, measured in a defined and reproducible manner, correlates with the TT-TG distance in patients with patellar instability. The Q-angle represents the angle between the vector of action of the quadriceps and patellar tendon. The normal angle is 14+/−3° in males and 17+/−3° in females. An increased Q-angle is associated with an increased risk of patellar instability, although there is disagreement on its reliability and validity. It can be affected by the anatomical points used to record the measurement, the position of the limb and whether the quadriceps are relaxed or contracted. TT-TG is ascertained by axial CT scanning, with a value exceeding 20mm associated with patellar instability. Q-angles were measured in patients presenting to the patella clinic who had previously undergone Lyon protocol CT scanning for patellar instability. Patients were positioned supine with both feet in neutral rotation taped to a specially designed wooden board (the same position used for CT scanning). The anatomical landmarks were the anterior superior iliac spine, the centre of the patella and the centre of the tibial tuberosity. Both knees were measured with the quadriceps relaxed (relaxed Q-angle) and contracted (contracted Q-angle). Thirty-four knees were measured, 24 pathological and 10 non-pathological. Pearson moment correlation demonstrated a significant correlation between relaxed Q-angle and TT-TG in all knees (R=-0.377; p=0.028). In pathological knees, contracted Q-angle also demonstrated a significant correlation with TT-TG but to a lesser extent than relaxed Q-angle (R=-0.428; p=0.037, R=-0.578; p=0.003 respectively). Linear regression analysis demonstrated relaxed Q-angle as a significant predictor of TT-TG distance in pathological knees. Contracted Q-angle was not significant.Statement of purpose
Methods and results
