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:
The survivorship of contemporary resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip using metal-on-metal bearings is better than that of first generation designs, but short-term failures still occur. The most common reasons for failure are fracture of the femoral neck, loosening of the component, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, reaction to metal debris and malpositioning of the component. In 2008 the Australian National Joint Registry reported an inverse relationship between the size of the head component and the risk of revision in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Hips with a femoral component size of ≤ 44 mm have a fivefold increased risk of revision than those with femoral components of ≥ 55 mm irrespective of gender. We have reviewed the literature to explore this observation and to identify possible reasons including the design of the implant, loading of the femoral neck, the orientation of the component, the production of wear debris and the effects of metal ions, penetration of cement and vascularity of the femoral head. Our conclusion is that although multifactorial, the most important contributors to failure in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip are likely to be the design and geometry of the component and the orientation of the acetabular component.
