Cargando…

The modified Lapidus fusion: a systematic review of biomechanical studies

PURPOSE: The biomechanical characteristics of different techniques to perform the modified Lapidus procedure are controversial, discussing the issue of stability, rigidity, and compression forces from a biomechanical point of view. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the available o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Riegger, Martin, Habib, Nermine, Testa, Enrique Adrian, Müller, Jochen, Guidi, Marco, Candrian, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bioscientifica Ltd 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10155126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37097047
http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/EOR-22-0069
_version_ 1785036266422665216
author Riegger, Martin
Habib, Nermine
Testa, Enrique Adrian
Müller, Jochen
Guidi, Marco
Candrian, Christian
author_facet Riegger, Martin
Habib, Nermine
Testa, Enrique Adrian
Müller, Jochen
Guidi, Marco
Candrian, Christian
author_sort Riegger, Martin
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The biomechanical characteristics of different techniques to perform the modified Lapidus procedure are controversial, discussing the issue of stability, rigidity, and compression forces from a biomechanical point of view. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the available options to identify whether there is a procedure providing superior biomechanical results. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed by screening PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases until September 2021. There was a wide heterogeneity of the available data in the different studies. Load to failure, stiffness, and compression forces were summarized and evaluated. RESULTS: Seventeen biomechanical studies were retrieved – ten cadaveric and seven polyurethane foam (artificial bone) studies. Fixation methods ranged from the classic crossed screw approach (n = 5) to plates (dorsomedial and plantar) with or without compression screws (n = 11). Newer implants such as intramedullary stabilization screws (n = 1) and memory alloy staples (n = 2) were investigated. CONCLUSION: The two crossed screws construct is still a biomechanical option; however, according to this systematic review, there is strong evidence that a plate–screw construct provides superior stability especially in combination with a compression screw. There is also evidence about plate position and low evidence about compression screw position. Plantar plates seem to be advantageous from a biomechanical point of view, whereas compression screws could be better when positioned outside the plate. Overall, this review suggests the biomechanical advantages of using a combination of locking plates with a compression screw.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10155126
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Bioscientifica Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101551262023-05-04 The modified Lapidus fusion: a systematic review of biomechanical studies Riegger, Martin Habib, Nermine Testa, Enrique Adrian Müller, Jochen Guidi, Marco Candrian, Christian EFORT Open Rev Foot & Ankle PURPOSE: The biomechanical characteristics of different techniques to perform the modified Lapidus procedure are controversial, discussing the issue of stability, rigidity, and compression forces from a biomechanical point of view. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the available options to identify whether there is a procedure providing superior biomechanical results. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed by screening PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases until September 2021. There was a wide heterogeneity of the available data in the different studies. Load to failure, stiffness, and compression forces were summarized and evaluated. RESULTS: Seventeen biomechanical studies were retrieved – ten cadaveric and seven polyurethane foam (artificial bone) studies. Fixation methods ranged from the classic crossed screw approach (n = 5) to plates (dorsomedial and plantar) with or without compression screws (n = 11). Newer implants such as intramedullary stabilization screws (n = 1) and memory alloy staples (n = 2) were investigated. CONCLUSION: The two crossed screws construct is still a biomechanical option; however, according to this systematic review, there is strong evidence that a plate–screw construct provides superior stability especially in combination with a compression screw. There is also evidence about plate position and low evidence about compression screw position. Plantar plates seem to be advantageous from a biomechanical point of view, whereas compression screws could be better when positioned outside the plate. Overall, this review suggests the biomechanical advantages of using a combination of locking plates with a compression screw. Bioscientifica Ltd 2023-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10155126/ /pubmed/37097047 http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/EOR-22-0069 Text en © the author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
spellingShingle Foot & Ankle
Riegger, Martin
Habib, Nermine
Testa, Enrique Adrian
Müller, Jochen
Guidi, Marco
Candrian, Christian
The modified Lapidus fusion: a systematic review of biomechanical studies
title The modified Lapidus fusion: a systematic review of biomechanical studies
title_full The modified Lapidus fusion: a systematic review of biomechanical studies
title_fullStr The modified Lapidus fusion: a systematic review of biomechanical studies
title_full_unstemmed The modified Lapidus fusion: a systematic review of biomechanical studies
title_short The modified Lapidus fusion: a systematic review of biomechanical studies
title_sort modified lapidus fusion: a systematic review of biomechanical studies
topic Foot & Ankle
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10155126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37097047
http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/EOR-22-0069
work_keys_str_mv AT rieggermartin themodifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT habibnermine themodifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT testaenriqueadrian themodifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT mullerjochen themodifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT guidimarco themodifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT candrianchristian themodifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT rieggermartin modifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT habibnermine modifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT testaenriqueadrian modifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT mullerjochen modifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT guidimarco modifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies
AT candrianchristian modifiedlapidusfusionasystematicreviewofbiomechanicalstudies