LO SCALPELLO-OTODI Educational

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 187–190 | Cite as

Le complicanze della chirurgia mini-invasiva dell’avampiede

  • M. Breccia
  • S. Ferranti
  • B. Rossi
  • A. Farneti
  • L. Pennacchi
  • M. Berloco
  • L. Pasotti
  • P. Mattei
  • G. Picuti
  • S. Musiello
  • C. Farneti
Aggiornamenti
  • 61 Downloads

Complications of minimally invasive forefoot surgery

Abstract

There is increasing interest in and use of minimally invasive foot surgery (MIFS), as it involves short operating time, quicker recovery, reduced hospital stays, better cosmetic results and fewer complications compared to open surgery. However, limited evidence is available in relation to complications associated with MIS for forefoot deformity correction. Available publications lack of homogeneity in terms of case series, patient selection and clinical indicators, mostly being retrospective observational studies with insufficient randomised control trials. The aim of this study was to report the complications following MIFS. In this evaluation, as the Author conceived it as a feasible tool of current clinical practice, complications can be broadly divided into three categories: (1) those related to the learning curve; (2) typical postoperative clinical conditions, such as oedema and haematoma; and (3) true complications. MIFS procedures are safely performed in a range of clinical settings, on varying degrees of digital deformity, resulting in an overall low complication rate compared to conventional open surgery. Long-term safety and efficacy of these techniques need further scientific validations as well as future treatment algorithms to guide clinical decision making.

Notes

Conflitto di interesse

Gli autori M. Breccia, S. Ferranti e B. Rossi dichiarano di non avere alcun conflitto di interesse.

Consenso informato e conformità agli standard etici

Tutte le procedure descritte nello studio e che hanno coinvolto esseri umani sono state attuate in conformità alle norme etiche stabilite dalla dichiarazione di Helsinki del 1975 e successive modifiche. Il consenso informato è stato ottenuto da tutti i pazienti inclusi nello studio.

Human and Animal Rights

L’articolo non contiene alcuno studio eseguito su esseri umani e su animali da parte degli autori.

Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Gilheany M, Baarini O, Samaras D (2015) Minimally invasive surgery for pedal digital deformity: an audit of complications using national benchmark indicators. J Foot Ankle Res 8:17 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mathavan G, Gaskell L, Pillai A et al. (2015) Minimal invasive hallux valgus surgery: myth or magic. A systematic review. Orthop Rheumatol Open Access J 1(1):555551 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maffulli N, Longo UG, Marinozzi A, Denaro V (2011) Hallux valgus: effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive surgery. A systematic review. Br Med Bull 97:149–167 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giannini S, Cavallo M, Faldini C et al. (2013) The SERI distal metatarsal osteotomy and Scarf osteotomy provide similar correction of hallux valgus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(7):2305–2311 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scala A, Vendettuoli D (2013) Modified minimal incision subcapital osteotomy for hallux valgus correction. Foot Ankle Spec 6(1):65–72 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maffulli N, Longo UG, Oliva F et al. (2009) Bosch osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for hallux valgus correction. Orthop Clin N Am 40(4):515–524 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Button G, Pinney S (2004) A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int 25(8):521–525 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parker J, Nester CJ, Long AF, Barrie J (2003) The problem with measuring patient perceptions of outcome with existing outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 24(1):56–60 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morley D, Jenkinson C, Doll H et al. (2013) The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ): development and validation of a summary index score. Bone Jt Res 2(4):66–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cazeau C (2009) Chirurgie mini-invasive et percutanee du pied. Sauramps Medical, Paris Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Prado M, Ripoll PL, Golanó P (2009) Minimally invasive foot surgery. Masson, Barcelona Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Darcel V (2008) Prise en charge des métatarsalgies statiques par ostéotomie distale percutanée: suivi prospectif de 241 pieds. Thèse de Médecine N° 3081, Université Victor Ségalen Bordeaux 2 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mouton A (2008) Chirurgie percutanée de l’hallux valgus. Résultats d’une étude prospective de 88 interventions. Thèse de Médecine N° 3080, Université Victor Ségalen Bordeaux 2 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bauer T, De Lavigne C, Biau D et al., for the GRECMIP (2009) Percutaneous hallux valgus surgery: a prospective multi center study of 189 cases. Orthop Clin N Am 40(4):505–514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bauer T, Biau D, Lortat-Jacob A, Hardy PH (2009) Traitement percutané de l’hallux valgus par ostéotomie de Reverdin-Isham: résultats à 2 ans d’une série monocentrique prospective continue de 104 cas. Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laffenétre O, Cermolacce C, Coillard JY et al. (2005) Mini invasive surgery of hallux valgus. In: Valtin B, Leemrijse T (eds) Cahiers d’enseignement de la SOFCOT: chirurgie de l’avant-pied. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 96–104 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Kane C, Kilmartin T (2005) Review of proximal interphalangeal joint excisional arthroplasty for the correction of second hammertoe deformity in 100 cases. Foot Ankle Int 4:320–325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Butterworth P, Gilheany M, Tinley P (2007) Postoperative infection rates in foot and ankle surgery: a clinical audit of Australian podiatric surgeons, January to December 2007. Aust Health Rev 2:180–185. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wukich DK, Lowery NJ, McMillen RL, Frykberg RG (2010) Postoperative infection rates in foot and ankle surgery: a comparison of patients with and without Diabetes Mellitus. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2:287–295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ellington JK, Anderson RB, Davis WH et al. (2010) Radiographic analysis of proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis with an intramedullary fusion device for lesser toe deformities. Foot Ankle Int 31:372–376 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Di Giorgio L, Touloupakis G, Simone S et al. (2013) The endolog system for moderate to severe hallux valgus. J Orthop Surg 21(1):47–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iannò B, Familiari F, De Gori M et al. (2013) Midterm results and complications after minimally invasive distal metatarsal osteotomy for treatment of hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 34(7):969–977 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana Ortopedici Traumatologi Ospedalieri d’Italia 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Breccia
    • 1
  • S. Ferranti
    • 1
  • B. Rossi
    • 2
  • A. Farneti
    • 1
  • L. Pennacchi
    • 1
  • M. Berloco
    • 1
  • L. Pasotti
    • 1
  • P. Mattei
    • 1
  • G. Picuti
    • 1
  • S. Musiello
    • 1
  • C. Farneti
    • 1
  1. 1.UOC Ortopedia e TraumatologiaNuovo Ospedale San Giovanni BattistaFolignoItalia
  2. 2.UOC Ortopedia e TraumatologiaOspedale Gubbio-Gualdo TadinoBrancaItalia

Personalised recommendations