Cargando…
Arthroereisis in juvenile flexible flatfoot: Which device should we implant? A systematic review of literature published in the last 5 years
BACKGROUND: Flexible flatfoot (FFF) is a very common condition in children, characterized by the loss of the medial arch and by an increase in the support base with valgus of the hindfoot. Arthroereisis (AR) procedures are widely performed corrective surgeries and are classified as subtalar AR and c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8223720/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34189081 http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i6.433 |
_version_ | 1783711751267680256 |
---|---|
author | Vescio, Andrea Testa, Gianluca Amico, Mirko Lizzio, Claudio Sapienza, Marco Pavone, Piero Pavone, Vito |
author_facet | Vescio, Andrea Testa, Gianluca Amico, Mirko Lizzio, Claudio Sapienza, Marco Pavone, Piero Pavone, Vito |
author_sort | Vescio, Andrea |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Flexible flatfoot (FFF) is a very common condition in children, characterized by the loss of the medial arch and by an increase in the support base with valgus of the hindfoot. Arthroereisis (AR) procedures are widely performed corrective surgeries and are classified as subtalar AR and calcaneo-stop (CS). AIM: We investigated the literature published in the last 5 years with the aim of providing an update on the evidence related to AR treatment in FFF patients. We report the principal findings of subtalar AR and CS procedures concerning clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates in the general population, young athletes, and obese people according to material device. METHODS: Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, a systematic review of studies published in the past 5 years and included the PubMed and Science Direct databases was performed on May 6, 2020. The research string used was (pediatric OR children OR Juvenile NOT adult) AND (flexible NOT rigid) AND (flat foot OR pes planus) AND (calcaneo-Stop OR arthroereisis OR subtalar extra-articular screw OR SESA OR subtalar arthroereisis OR endosinotarsal). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Dutch checklist form for prognosis. RESULTS: A total of 47 articles were found. Ultimately, after reading the full text and checking reference lists, we selected 17 articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 1864 FFFs were identified. Eight studies concerned the subtalar AR (47.1%) and nine concerning CS (52.9%). The average age of patients at start of treatment was 11.8 years, the average follow-up of the studies was 71.9 mo (range 29.1-130). Globally, complications occurred in 153 of the 1864 FFF treated, with a rate of 8.2%. CONCLUSION: Both AR procedures are valid surgical techniques for treating FFF. Surgeon experience, implant cost, and cosmetic correction are the most common considerations included in the orthopedic device decision-making process. In obese patients, the subtalar AR is not recommended. In adolescents who need to improve sports performance, the CS screw had better results compared with other implants. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8223720 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Baishideng Publishing Group Inc |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82237202021-06-28 Arthroereisis in juvenile flexible flatfoot: Which device should we implant? A systematic review of literature published in the last 5 years Vescio, Andrea Testa, Gianluca Amico, Mirko Lizzio, Claudio Sapienza, Marco Pavone, Piero Pavone, Vito World J Orthop Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND: Flexible flatfoot (FFF) is a very common condition in children, characterized by the loss of the medial arch and by an increase in the support base with valgus of the hindfoot. Arthroereisis (AR) procedures are widely performed corrective surgeries and are classified as subtalar AR and calcaneo-stop (CS). AIM: We investigated the literature published in the last 5 years with the aim of providing an update on the evidence related to AR treatment in FFF patients. We report the principal findings of subtalar AR and CS procedures concerning clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates in the general population, young athletes, and obese people according to material device. METHODS: Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, a systematic review of studies published in the past 5 years and included the PubMed and Science Direct databases was performed on May 6, 2020. The research string used was (pediatric OR children OR Juvenile NOT adult) AND (flexible NOT rigid) AND (flat foot OR pes planus) AND (calcaneo-Stop OR arthroereisis OR subtalar extra-articular screw OR SESA OR subtalar arthroereisis OR endosinotarsal). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Dutch checklist form for prognosis. RESULTS: A total of 47 articles were found. Ultimately, after reading the full text and checking reference lists, we selected 17 articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 1864 FFFs were identified. Eight studies concerned the subtalar AR (47.1%) and nine concerning CS (52.9%). The average age of patients at start of treatment was 11.8 years, the average follow-up of the studies was 71.9 mo (range 29.1-130). Globally, complications occurred in 153 of the 1864 FFF treated, with a rate of 8.2%. CONCLUSION: Both AR procedures are valid surgical techniques for treating FFF. Surgeon experience, implant cost, and cosmetic correction are the most common considerations included in the orthopedic device decision-making process. In obese patients, the subtalar AR is not recommended. In adolescents who need to improve sports performance, the CS screw had better results compared with other implants. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2021-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8223720/ /pubmed/34189081 http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i6.433 Text en ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Reviews Vescio, Andrea Testa, Gianluca Amico, Mirko Lizzio, Claudio Sapienza, Marco Pavone, Piero Pavone, Vito Arthroereisis in juvenile flexible flatfoot: Which device should we implant? A systematic review of literature published in the last 5 years |
title | Arthroereisis in juvenile flexible flatfoot: Which device should we implant? A systematic review of literature published in the last 5 years |
title_full | Arthroereisis in juvenile flexible flatfoot: Which device should we implant? A systematic review of literature published in the last 5 years |
title_fullStr | Arthroereisis in juvenile flexible flatfoot: Which device should we implant? A systematic review of literature published in the last 5 years |
title_full_unstemmed | Arthroereisis in juvenile flexible flatfoot: Which device should we implant? A systematic review of literature published in the last 5 years |
title_short | Arthroereisis in juvenile flexible flatfoot: Which device should we implant? A systematic review of literature published in the last 5 years |
title_sort | arthroereisis in juvenile flexible flatfoot: which device should we implant? a systematic review of literature published in the last 5 years |
topic | Systematic Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8223720/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34189081 http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i6.433 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vescioandrea arthroereisisinjuvenileflexibleflatfootwhichdeviceshouldweimplantasystematicreviewofliteraturepublishedinthelast5years AT testagianluca arthroereisisinjuvenileflexibleflatfootwhichdeviceshouldweimplantasystematicreviewofliteraturepublishedinthelast5years AT amicomirko arthroereisisinjuvenileflexibleflatfootwhichdeviceshouldweimplantasystematicreviewofliteraturepublishedinthelast5years AT lizzioclaudio arthroereisisinjuvenileflexibleflatfootwhichdeviceshouldweimplantasystematicreviewofliteraturepublishedinthelast5years AT sapienzamarco arthroereisisinjuvenileflexibleflatfootwhichdeviceshouldweimplantasystematicreviewofliteraturepublishedinthelast5years AT pavonepiero arthroereisisinjuvenileflexibleflatfootwhichdeviceshouldweimplantasystematicreviewofliteraturepublishedinthelast5years AT pavonevito arthroereisisinjuvenileflexibleflatfootwhichdeviceshouldweimplantasystematicreviewofliteraturepublishedinthelast5years |