Prospective, Randomized, Multi-centered Clinical Trial Assessing Safety and Efficacy of a Synthetic Cartilage Implant Versus First Metatarsophalangeal Arthrodesis in Advanced Hallux Rigidus
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although a variety of great toe implants have been tried in an attempt to maintain toe motion, the majority have failed with loosening, malalignment/dislocation, implant fragmentation and bone loss. In these cases, salvage to arthrodesis is more complicated and results in shortening of the ray or requires structural bone graft to reestablish length. This prospective study compared the efficacy and safety of this small (8/10 mm) hydrogel implant to the gold standard of a great toe arthrodesis for advanced-stage hallux rigidus. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized non-inferiority study, patients from 12 centers in Canada and the United Kingdom were randomized (2:1) to a synthetic cartilage implant or first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint arthrodesis. VAS pain scale, validated outcome measures (Foot and Ankle Ability Measure [FAAM] sport scale), great toe active dorsiflexion motion, secondary procedures, radiographic assessment, and safety parameters were evaluated. Analysis was performed using intent-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT (mITT) methodology. The primary endpoint for the study consisted of a single composite endpoint using the 3 primary study outcomes (pain, function, and safety). The individual subject's outcome was considered a success if all of the following criteria were met: (1) improvement (decrease) from baseline in VAS pain of ≥30% at 12 months; (2) maintenance of function from baseline in FAAM sports subscore at 12 months; and (3) absence of major safety events at 2 years. The proportion of successes in each group was determined and 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups was calculated. Noninferiority of the implant to arthrodesis was considered statistically significant if the 1-sided 95% lower confidence interval was greater than the equivalence limit (<15%). A total of 236 patients were initially enrolled; 17 patients withdrew prior to randomization, 17 patients withdrew after randomization, and 22 were nonrandomized training patients, leaving 152 implant and 50 arthrodesis patients. Standard demographics and baseline outcomes were similar for both groups. RESULTS: VAS pain scores decreased significantly in both the implant and arthrodesis groups from baseline at 12 and 24 months. Similarly, the FAAM sports and activity of daily living subscores improved significantly at 12 and 24 months in both groups. First MTP active dorsiflexion motion improvement was 6.2 degrees (27.3%) after implant placement and was maintained at 24 months. Subsequent secondary surgeries occurred in 17 (11.2%) implant patients (17 procedures) and 6 (12.0%) arthrodesis patients (7 procedures). Fourteen (9.2%) implants were removed and converted to arthrodesis, and 6 (12.0%) arthrodesis patients (7 procedures [14%]) had isolated screws or plate and screw removal. There were no cases of implant fragmentation, wear, or bone loss. When analyzing the ITT and mITT population for the primary composite outcome of VAS pain, function (FAAM sports), and safety, there was statistical equivalence between the implant and arthrodesis groups. CONCLUSION: A prospective, randomized (2:1), controlled, noninferiority clinical trial was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of a small synthetic cartilage bone implant to first MTP arthrodesis in patients with advanced-stage hallux rigidus. This study showed equivalent pain relief and functional outcomes. The synthetic implant was an excellent alternative to arthrodesis in patients who wished to maintain first MTP motion. The percentage of secondary surgical procedures was similar between groups. Less than 10% of the implant group required revision to arthrodesis at 2 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, prospective randomized study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».