Comparative analysis between Reverdin-Isham Osteotomy (RIO) and minimally invasive intramedullary nail device (MIIND) in association with AKIN osteotomy for Hallux valgus correction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hallux valgus (HV) is a widespread condition that leads to discomfort in daily life. There are different surgical techniques for HV. This retrospective and comparative study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Reverdin-Isham osteotomy (RIO) and the Minimally Invasive Intramedullary Nail Device (MIIND) surgical techniques. METHODS: One hundred ninety-six patients with mild-to-severe HV were enrolled and divided into two groups: 98 patients with mild-moderate HV and 98 with moderate-severe HV, treated with the RIO and MIIND techniques, respectively. Radiographic and clinical evaluations were assessed preoperatively at 3, 12 and 60 months after surgery. Radiologically, the Hallux Valgus Angle (HVA), Intermetatarsal Angle (IMA), Distal Metatarsal Articular Angle (DMAA) and Tibial Sesamoid Position (TSP) were evaluated. Clinically, the AOFAS hallux metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal scale and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) for pain were assessed. A propensity score matching (PSM) model was implemented to compare the two techniques. RESULTS: In the RIO group, the mean HVA correction from preoperative value to 60 months of follow-up was 8.69° (p < 0.0001), the mean IMA correction was 2.42° (p < 0.0001), and the mean DMAA correction was 0.09°. In the MIIND group, the mean HVA correction was 24.92° (p < 0.0001), the mean IMA correction was 8.75° (p < 0.0001), and the mean DMAA correction was 6.28° (p < 0.0001). The mean AOFAS score improved over time, and NRS-11 decreased in both groups. After PSM model application, the variables that impacted the allocation to RIO or MIIND techniques were age, preoperative HVA values and HV severity. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the efficacy of RIO for mild-moderate HV and MIIND for moderate-severe HV. Radiographic and clinical outcomes improved in both groups, but older patients with higher HVA and severe HV should be treated with the MIIND technique to achieve satisfactory outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".