Cargando…

Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle

CATEGORY: Other; Ankle; Hindfoot; Lesser Toes; Midfoot/Forefoot INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is growing in the field of foot and ankle surgery, and the MIS burr is an emerging tool. While commonly used to perform osteotomies, the burr can also be utilized for arthrodesis jo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhao, John Z., Kaiser, Philip, Farina, Evan, DeGruccio, Christina M., Miller, Christopher P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9703175/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2473011421S01020
_version_ 1784839806882152448
author Zhao, John Z.
Kaiser, Philip
Farina, Evan
DeGruccio, Christina M.
Miller, Christopher P.
author_facet Zhao, John Z.
Kaiser, Philip
Farina, Evan
DeGruccio, Christina M.
Miller, Christopher P.
author_sort Zhao, John Z.
collection PubMed
description CATEGORY: Other; Ankle; Hindfoot; Lesser Toes; Midfoot/Forefoot INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is growing in the field of foot and ankle surgery, and the MIS burr is an emerging tool. While commonly used to perform osteotomies, the burr can also be utilized for arthrodesis joint preparation that traditionally would be performed through open incisions. To date, there is no study comparing the quality of joint preparation between using a fluoroscopy-guided MIS technique compared to traditional open techniques. The goal of this cadaveric study is to compare the percentage of joint surfaces prepared between MIS and open techniques, for the most common joints that are fused in foot and ankle surgery. METHODS: Open joint preparation was performed under direct visualization with open incisions. MIS joint preparation was performed percutaneously using fluoroscopic guidance alone, without arthroscopy. After joint preparation, cadaveric samples were disarticulated, and joint surfaces were analyzed for percentage of cartilaginous surface removed. The percentage of joint surface prepared was compared between the open and MIS techniques. RESULTS: Ten cadaveric samples were used for the MIS technique, and five samples for the open technique. Percentage of joint surface prepared was not statistically different for 15/17 joint surfaces. The MIS technique demonstrated statistically significant (p=0.048) better preparation than open in the talar head and the cuboid at the CC joint. Qualitative inspection of these two joints suggested the open technique frequently missed the most plantar surface of the talar head and the medial side of the CC joint, whereas the MIS technique performed better in these areas. CONCLUSION: The MIS technique provides similar percentages of surface area prepared compared to traditional open techniques. In certain joints with greater depth, the MIS technique may provide better joint preparation. This study suggests that MIS joint preparation is a reasonable, and possibly advantageous, alternative to open preparation in arthrodesis surgery when performed by experienced MIS surgeons.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9703175
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97031752022-11-29 Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle Zhao, John Z. Kaiser, Philip Farina, Evan DeGruccio, Christina M. Miller, Christopher P. Foot Ankle Orthop Article CATEGORY: Other; Ankle; Hindfoot; Lesser Toes; Midfoot/Forefoot INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is growing in the field of foot and ankle surgery, and the MIS burr is an emerging tool. While commonly used to perform osteotomies, the burr can also be utilized for arthrodesis joint preparation that traditionally would be performed through open incisions. To date, there is no study comparing the quality of joint preparation between using a fluoroscopy-guided MIS technique compared to traditional open techniques. The goal of this cadaveric study is to compare the percentage of joint surfaces prepared between MIS and open techniques, for the most common joints that are fused in foot and ankle surgery. METHODS: Open joint preparation was performed under direct visualization with open incisions. MIS joint preparation was performed percutaneously using fluoroscopic guidance alone, without arthroscopy. After joint preparation, cadaveric samples were disarticulated, and joint surfaces were analyzed for percentage of cartilaginous surface removed. The percentage of joint surface prepared was compared between the open and MIS techniques. RESULTS: Ten cadaveric samples were used for the MIS technique, and five samples for the open technique. Percentage of joint surface prepared was not statistically different for 15/17 joint surfaces. The MIS technique demonstrated statistically significant (p=0.048) better preparation than open in the talar head and the cuboid at the CC joint. Qualitative inspection of these two joints suggested the open technique frequently missed the most plantar surface of the talar head and the medial side of the CC joint, whereas the MIS technique performed better in these areas. CONCLUSION: The MIS technique provides similar percentages of surface area prepared compared to traditional open techniques. In certain joints with greater depth, the MIS technique may provide better joint preparation. This study suggests that MIS joint preparation is a reasonable, and possibly advantageous, alternative to open preparation in arthrodesis surgery when performed by experienced MIS surgeons. SAGE Publications 2022-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9703175/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2473011421S01020 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Zhao, John Z.
Kaiser, Philip
Farina, Evan
DeGruccio, Christina M.
Miller, Christopher P.
Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_full Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_fullStr Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_full_unstemmed Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_short Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_sort quality of mis vs open joint preparations of the foot and ankle
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9703175/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2473011421S01020
work_keys_str_mv AT zhaojohnz qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle
AT kaiserphilip qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle
AT farinaevan qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle
AT degrucciochristinam qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle
AT millerchristopherp qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle