Cargando…

Does the IOFix implant improve union rates?

BACKGROUND: First metatarso-phalangeal joint fusion is the current gold standard for severe hallux rigidus. Data regarding the union rate and the re-operation rate when IOFix (an Intra-osseous fixation device, Extremity medical, New Jersey, USA) is used for hallux rigidus fusion is limited but promi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Segal, David, Ohana, Nissim, Nyska, Meir, Palmanovich, Ezequiel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33023542
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03689-1
_version_ 1783591067819442176
author Segal, David
Ohana, Nissim
Nyska, Meir
Palmanovich, Ezequiel
author_facet Segal, David
Ohana, Nissim
Nyska, Meir
Palmanovich, Ezequiel
author_sort Segal, David
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: First metatarso-phalangeal joint fusion is the current gold standard for severe hallux rigidus. Data regarding the union rate and the re-operation rate when IOFix (an Intra-osseous fixation device, Extremity medical, New Jersey, USA) is used for hallux rigidus fusion is limited but promising. The aim of this study was to review our outcomes with the IOFix implant. METHODS: We have conducted a retrospective chart review, following the approval of the hospital IRB committee. Exclusion criteria included bilateral operations on the same patient, multiple surgeries, charcot foot or other structural foot abnormalities (except hallux valgus), rheumatoid arthritis and a recent foot trauma. We collected demographic data, physical examination documentation, functional score evaluations (AOFAS), and Plain radiographic studies. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included in the study. The mean age was 60.36 ± 9.12 (range 36 to 77) years, 18 (60%) female patients and 12 (40%) male. Fourteen (53.33%) were left side pathologies. The average follow up period was 36.2 ± 12.31 (range 12 to 54) months. Union was obtained in 28 (93.33%) patients, of whom none had requested a hardware removal due to a prominent hardware during a minimum of 2 year follow up period. The mean postoperative AOFAS score was 80.5 ± 10.87 (range 35 to 90). A more stringent inclusion criteria and fusion definitions would have led to an exclusion of two more patients and a dropout of two patients from the “fused” group, which would have led to a fusion rate of 85.71%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of hallux rigidus patients that were operated with an IOFix device. The rates of fusion and hardware removal in MTPJ1 arthrodesis performed with an IOFix implant were found to be similar at most when compared to previously described rates that were obtained with other cheaper and more simple fixation devices. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7539506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75395062020-10-08 Does the IOFix implant improve union rates? Segal, David Ohana, Nissim Nyska, Meir Palmanovich, Ezequiel BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: First metatarso-phalangeal joint fusion is the current gold standard for severe hallux rigidus. Data regarding the union rate and the re-operation rate when IOFix (an Intra-osseous fixation device, Extremity medical, New Jersey, USA) is used for hallux rigidus fusion is limited but promising. The aim of this study was to review our outcomes with the IOFix implant. METHODS: We have conducted a retrospective chart review, following the approval of the hospital IRB committee. Exclusion criteria included bilateral operations on the same patient, multiple surgeries, charcot foot or other structural foot abnormalities (except hallux valgus), rheumatoid arthritis and a recent foot trauma. We collected demographic data, physical examination documentation, functional score evaluations (AOFAS), and Plain radiographic studies. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included in the study. The mean age was 60.36 ± 9.12 (range 36 to 77) years, 18 (60%) female patients and 12 (40%) male. Fourteen (53.33%) were left side pathologies. The average follow up period was 36.2 ± 12.31 (range 12 to 54) months. Union was obtained in 28 (93.33%) patients, of whom none had requested a hardware removal due to a prominent hardware during a minimum of 2 year follow up period. The mean postoperative AOFAS score was 80.5 ± 10.87 (range 35 to 90). A more stringent inclusion criteria and fusion definitions would have led to an exclusion of two more patients and a dropout of two patients from the “fused” group, which would have led to a fusion rate of 85.71%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of hallux rigidus patients that were operated with an IOFix device. The rates of fusion and hardware removal in MTPJ1 arthrodesis performed with an IOFix implant were found to be similar at most when compared to previously described rates that were obtained with other cheaper and more simple fixation devices. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 BioMed Central 2020-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7539506/ /pubmed/33023542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03689-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Segal, David
Ohana, Nissim
Nyska, Meir
Palmanovich, Ezequiel
Does the IOFix implant improve union rates?
title Does the IOFix implant improve union rates?
title_full Does the IOFix implant improve union rates?
title_fullStr Does the IOFix implant improve union rates?
title_full_unstemmed Does the IOFix implant improve union rates?
title_short Does the IOFix implant improve union rates?
title_sort does the iofix implant improve union rates?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33023542
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03689-1
work_keys_str_mv AT segaldavid doestheiofiximplantimproveunionrates
AT ohananissim doestheiofiximplantimproveunionrates
AT nyskameir doestheiofiximplantimproveunionrates
AT palmanovichezequiel doestheiofiximplantimproveunionrates