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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |