MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4308257791 · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000002471

Does Minimally Invasive Surgery Provide Better Clinical or Radiographic Outcomes Than Open Surgery in the Treatment of Hallux Valgus Deformity? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4308257791 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Assil‐Ramin Alimy, Hans Polzer, Ana Ocokoljic, Robbie Ray, Thomas Lewis, Tim Rolvien, Hazibullah Waizy

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2022
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueFoot and Ankle Surgery
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineValgusMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialSurgerySystematic reviewFoot and ankle surgeryValgus deformityMEDLINEPopulationOrthopedic surgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hallux valgus is the most common foot deformity and affects 23% to 35% of the general population. More than 150 different techniques have been described for surgical correction. Recently, there has been increasing interest in the use of minimally invasive surgery to correct hallux valgus deformities. A variety of studies have been published with differing outcomes regarding minimally invasive surgery. However, most studies lack sufficient power and are small, making it difficult to draw adequate conclusions. A meta-analysis can therefore be helpful to evaluate and compare minimally invasive and open surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective controlled studies to answer the following question: Compared with open surgery, does minimally invasive surgery for hallux valgus result in (1) improved American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores and VAS scores for pain, (2) improved radiologic outcomes, (3) fewer complications, or (4) a shorter duration of surgery? METHODS: The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. A search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases on May 3, 2022. Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled or prospective controlled studies that compared minimally invasive surgery and open surgery to treat patients with hallux valgus. We defined minimally invasive surgery as surgery performed through the smallest incision required to perform the procedure accurately, with an incision length of approximately 2 cm at maximum. Open surgery, on the other hand, involves a larger incision and direct visualization of deeper structures. Seven studies (395 feet), consisting of six randomized controlled studies and one prospective comparative study, were included in the qualitative and quantitative data synthesis. There were no differences between the minimally invasive and open surgery groups regarding age, gender, or severity of hallux valgus deformity. Each included study was assessed for the risk of bias using the second version of the Cochrane tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials or by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for comparative studies. Most of the included studies had intermediate quality regarding the risk of bias. We excluded one study from our analysis because of its high risk of bias to avoid serious distortions in the meta-analysis. We performed a sensitivity analysis to confirm that our meta-analysis was robust by including only studies with a low risk of bias. The analyzed endpoints included the AOFAS score (range 0 to 100), where higher scores represent less pain and better function; the minimum clinically important difference on this scale was 29 points. In addition, the VAS score was analyzed, which is based on a pain rating scale (range 0 to 10), with higher scores representing greater pain. Radiologic outcomes included the hallux valgus angle, intermetatarsal angle, and distal metatarsal articular angle. Complications were qualitatively assessed and evaluated for differences. A random-effects model was used if substantial heterogeneity (I 2 > 50%) was found; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. RESULTS: We found no clinically important difference between minimally invasive and open surgery in terms of the AOFAS score (88 ± 7 versus 85 ± 8, respectively; mean difference 4 points [95% CI 1 to 6]; p < 0.01). There were no differences between the minimally invasive and open surgery groups in terms of VAS scores (0 ± 0 versus 0 ± 1, respectively; standardized mean difference 0 points [95% CI -1 to 0]; p = 0.08). There were no differences between the minimally invasive and open surgery groups in terms of the hallux valgus angle (12° ± 4° versus 12° ± 4°; mean difference 0 points [95% CI -2 to 2]; p = 0.76). Radiographic measurements of the intermetatarsal angle did not differ between the minimally invasive and open surgery groups (7° ± 2° versus 7° ± 2°; mean difference 0 points [95% CI -1 to 1]; p = 0.69). In addition, there were no differences between the minimally invasive and open surgery groups in terms of the distal metatarsal articular angle (7° ± 4° versus 8° ± 4°; mean difference -1 point [95% CI -4 to 2]; p = 0.28). The qualitative analysis revealed no difference in the frequency or severity of complications between the minimally invasive and the open surgery groups. The minimally invasive and open surgery groups did not differ in terms of the duration of surgery (28 ± 8 minutes versus 40 ± 10 minutes; mean difference -12 minutes [95% CI -25 to 1]; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found that hallux valgus treated with minimally invasive surgery did not result in improved clinical or radiologic outcomes compared with open surgery. Methodologic shortcomings of the source studies in this meta-analysis likely inflated the apparent benefits of minimally invasive surgery, such that in reality it may be inferior to the traditional approach. Given the associated learning curves-during which patients may be harmed by surgeons who are gaining familiarity with a new technique-we are unable to recommend the minimally invasive approach over traditional approaches, in light of the absence of any clinically important benefits identified in this meta-analysis. Future research should ensure studies are methodologically robust using validated clinical and radiologic parameters, as well as patient-reported outcome measures, to assess the long-term outcomes of minimally invasive surgery.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,060
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,567
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0600,020
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0250,017
Bibliométrie0,0020,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,482
Tête enseignante GPT0,518
Écart entre enseignants0,036 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations51
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchMême sujetFoot and Ankle SurgeryTravaux en français237 207