Cohort Comparison of Radiographic Correction and Complications Between Minimal Invasive and Open Lapidus Procedures for Hallux Valgus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Lapidus procedure corrects hallux valgus first ray deformity. First tarsometatarsal (TMT) fusion in patients with hallux valgus deformity using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a new technique, but comparative outcomes between MIS and open techniques have not been reported. This study compares the early radiographic results and complications of the MIS with the open procedure in a single-surgeon practice. Methods: 47 MIS patients were compared with 44 open patients. Radiographic measures compared preoperatively and postoperatively were the intermetatarsal angle (IMA), hallux valgus angle (HVA), foot width (FW), distal metatarsal articular angle (DMAA), sesamoid station (SS), metatarsus adductus angle (MAA), first metatarsal to second metatarsal length, and elevation of the first metatarsal. Early complications were recorded, as well as repeat surgeries. Results: The mean follow-up was 82 (range, 31-182) months for the open group and 29 (range, 14-47) months for the MIS group. In both techniques, postoperative measures (IMA, HVA, DMAA, FW, and sesamoid station) were significantly improved from preoperative measures. When comparing postoperative measures between both groups, the IMA was significantly lower in the open group (4.8 ± 3.6 degrees vs 6.4 ± 3.2 degrees, P < .05). Differential between pre- and postoperative measures for both techniques were compared, and the open group was associated with more correction than the MIS group for IMA (12.4 ± 5.3 degrees vs 9.4 ± 4.4 degrees, P = .004) and HVA (25.5 ± 8.3 degrees vs 20 ± 9.9 degrees, P = .005). Wound complication and nonunion rates trended higher in the open group (4 vs 0) ( P = .051). Conclusion: Both techniques resulted in good to excellent correction. However, the open technique was associated with lower postoperative IMA values and more correction power for IMA and HVA, than the MIS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".