Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes in Primary and Revision Stage II, III, and IV Adult- Acquired Flatfoot Deformity Surgery

Category: Hindfoot; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Adult-Acquired Flatfoot Deformity (AAFD) is a progressive hindfoot and midfoot deformity that causes pain and disability. It presents as a plano-valgus deformity from the failure of static and dynamic medial osteoligamentous stabilizers. Sta...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rusheel Nayak BA, Milap Patel DO, Anish R. Kadakia MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2020-10-01
Series:Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011420S00063
id doaj-438b13a492894a559bde4bb2b206abf5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-438b13a492894a559bde4bb2b206abf52020-11-25T04:08:26ZengSAGE PublishingFoot & Ankle Orthopaedics2473-01142020-10-01510.1177/2473011420S00063Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes in Primary and Revision Stage II, III, and IV Adult- Acquired Flatfoot Deformity SurgeryRusheel Nayak BAMilap Patel DOAnish R. Kadakia MDCategory: Hindfoot; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Adult-Acquired Flatfoot Deformity (AAFD) is a progressive hindfoot and midfoot deformity that causes pain and disability. It presents as a plano-valgus deformity from the failure of static and dynamic medial osteoligamentous stabilizers. Stage II presents as a passively correctable, flexible deformity of the foot; stage III presents as a fixed or arthritic deformity of the foot; and stage IV presents with marked deformity of the foot caused by failure of the deltoid ligament and subsequent peritalar instability. Although operative treatment of AAFD is dependent on the stage, there is little data on patient- reported and radiographic outcomes stratified by primary versus revision stage II, III, and IV reconstruction surgery. Methods: Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference (PI) scores were prospectively obtained on 46 consecutive patients who underwent AAFD reconstruction between November 2013 and January 2019 with minimum 12-month follow-up (average 23 months). Twenty patients underwent stage II reconstruction, 5 of which were revision surgeries; 19 patients underwent stage III reconstruction, 8 of which were revision surgeries; and 7 patients underwent stage IV reconstruction, all of which were primary surgeries. Radiographic correction was measured pre- and post-operatively and correlated with PROMIS scores. Measurements included the talonavicular uncoverage angle, talonavicular uncoverage percent, AP talo-first metatarsal angle, Meary’s angle, medial cuneiform height, and medial cuneiform-fifth metatarsal height. Results: For the overall cohort, PROMIS PF increased significantly from 37.6+-5.7 to 42.4+-6.8 (p=0.0014). PROMIS PI improved significantly from 64.7+-6.3 to 54.6+-9.5 (p<0.0001). PROMIS scores were not statistically different between AAFD stages. Change in PROMIS PI was significantly greater in primary (-12.3) versus revision (-3.7) surgery (p=0.0157). Change in PROMIS PF was non- significantly greater in primary (+4.0) versus revision surgery (+2.3). All radiographic measurements improved significantly (p<0.05). In primary stage II AAFD, pre-operative PROMIS PI scores correlated with pre-operative medial cuneiform-fifth metatarsal height (r = -0.606, p = 0.0479). In addition, in primary stage II AAFD, post-operative PROMIS scores correlated with post-operative medial cuneiform height (PROMIS PF: r=0.7725, p=0.0020; PROMIS PI: r=-0.5692, p=0.0446). Conclusion: Patient-reported and radiographic outcomes improve significantly after AAFD reconstruction. There was no significant difference in PROMIS scores between AAFD stages. However, stage III patients had non-significantly lower improvements in PROMIS PF, likely due to loss of function after arthrodesis. Primary operations had better patient-reported outcomes compared to revision operations. In primary stage II AAFD, reconstructing the medial arch correlates significantly with improvement in pain and functionality. This survey of outcomes after primary and revision stage II, III, and IV reconstruction should help clinical decision making by providing data on expected surgical improvement.https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011420S00063
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Rusheel Nayak BA
Milap Patel DO
Anish R. Kadakia MD
spellingShingle Rusheel Nayak BA
Milap Patel DO
Anish R. Kadakia MD
Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes in Primary and Revision Stage II, III, and IV Adult- Acquired Flatfoot Deformity Surgery
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
author_facet Rusheel Nayak BA
Milap Patel DO
Anish R. Kadakia MD
author_sort Rusheel Nayak BA
title Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes in Primary and Revision Stage II, III, and IV Adult- Acquired Flatfoot Deformity Surgery
title_short Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes in Primary and Revision Stage II, III, and IV Adult- Acquired Flatfoot Deformity Surgery
title_full Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes in Primary and Revision Stage II, III, and IV Adult- Acquired Flatfoot Deformity Surgery
title_fullStr Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes in Primary and Revision Stage II, III, and IV Adult- Acquired Flatfoot Deformity Surgery
title_full_unstemmed Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes in Primary and Revision Stage II, III, and IV Adult- Acquired Flatfoot Deformity Surgery
title_sort patient-reported and radiographic outcomes in primary and revision stage ii, iii, and iv adult- acquired flatfoot deformity surgery
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
issn 2473-0114
publishDate 2020-10-01
description Category: Hindfoot; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Adult-Acquired Flatfoot Deformity (AAFD) is a progressive hindfoot and midfoot deformity that causes pain and disability. It presents as a plano-valgus deformity from the failure of static and dynamic medial osteoligamentous stabilizers. Stage II presents as a passively correctable, flexible deformity of the foot; stage III presents as a fixed or arthritic deformity of the foot; and stage IV presents with marked deformity of the foot caused by failure of the deltoid ligament and subsequent peritalar instability. Although operative treatment of AAFD is dependent on the stage, there is little data on patient- reported and radiographic outcomes stratified by primary versus revision stage II, III, and IV reconstruction surgery. Methods: Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference (PI) scores were prospectively obtained on 46 consecutive patients who underwent AAFD reconstruction between November 2013 and January 2019 with minimum 12-month follow-up (average 23 months). Twenty patients underwent stage II reconstruction, 5 of which were revision surgeries; 19 patients underwent stage III reconstruction, 8 of which were revision surgeries; and 7 patients underwent stage IV reconstruction, all of which were primary surgeries. Radiographic correction was measured pre- and post-operatively and correlated with PROMIS scores. Measurements included the talonavicular uncoverage angle, talonavicular uncoverage percent, AP talo-first metatarsal angle, Meary’s angle, medial cuneiform height, and medial cuneiform-fifth metatarsal height. Results: For the overall cohort, PROMIS PF increased significantly from 37.6+-5.7 to 42.4+-6.8 (p=0.0014). PROMIS PI improved significantly from 64.7+-6.3 to 54.6+-9.5 (p<0.0001). PROMIS scores were not statistically different between AAFD stages. Change in PROMIS PI was significantly greater in primary (-12.3) versus revision (-3.7) surgery (p=0.0157). Change in PROMIS PF was non- significantly greater in primary (+4.0) versus revision surgery (+2.3). All radiographic measurements improved significantly (p<0.05). In primary stage II AAFD, pre-operative PROMIS PI scores correlated with pre-operative medial cuneiform-fifth metatarsal height (r = -0.606, p = 0.0479). In addition, in primary stage II AAFD, post-operative PROMIS scores correlated with post-operative medial cuneiform height (PROMIS PF: r=0.7725, p=0.0020; PROMIS PI: r=-0.5692, p=0.0446). Conclusion: Patient-reported and radiographic outcomes improve significantly after AAFD reconstruction. There was no significant difference in PROMIS scores between AAFD stages. However, stage III patients had non-significantly lower improvements in PROMIS PF, likely due to loss of function after arthrodesis. Primary operations had better patient-reported outcomes compared to revision operations. In primary stage II AAFD, reconstructing the medial arch correlates significantly with improvement in pain and functionality. This survey of outcomes after primary and revision stage II, III, and IV reconstruction should help clinical decision making by providing data on expected surgical improvement.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011420S00063
work_keys_str_mv AT rusheelnayakba patientreportedandradiographicoutcomesinprimaryandrevisionstageiiiiiandivadultacquiredflatfootdeformitysurgery
AT milappateldo patientreportedandradiographicoutcomesinprimaryandrevisionstageiiiiiandivadultacquiredflatfootdeformitysurgery
AT anishrkadakiamd patientreportedandradiographicoutcomesinprimaryandrevisionstageiiiiiandivadultacquiredflatfootdeformitysurgery
_version_ 1724425880174854144