Hallux valgus (HV) presents as a common forefoot deformity that causes problems with pain, mobility, footwear, and quality of life. The most common open correction used in the UK is the Scarf and Akin osteotomy, which has good clinical and radiological outcomes and high levels of patient satisfaction when used to treat a varying degrees of deformity. However, there are concerns regarding recurrence rates and long-term outcomes. Minimally invasive or percutaneous surgery (MIS) has gained popularity, offering the potential for similar clinical and radiological outcomes with reduced postoperative pain and smaller scars. Despite this, MIS techniques vary widely, hindering comparison and standardization. This review evaluates the evidence for both open Scarf and Akin osteotomy and newer-generation MIS techniques. Fourth-generation MIS emphasizes multiplanar rotational deformity correction through stable fixation. While MIS techniques show promise, their evidence mainly comprises single-surgeon case series. Comparative studies between open and MIS techniques suggest similar clinical and radiological outcomes, although MIS may offer advantages in scar length and less early postoperative pain. MIS may afford superior correction in severe deformity and lower recurrence rates due to correcting the bony deformity rather than soft-tissue correction. Recurrence remains a challenge in HV surgery, necessitating long-term follow-up and standardized outcome measures for assessment. Any comparison between the techniques requires comparative studies. Surgeons must weigh the advantages and risks of both open and MIS approaches in collaboration with patients to determine the most suitable treatment. Cite this article:
Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice. Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive. Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged. The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.
