We have located links that may give you full text access.
MICA Procedure vs Open Chevron Osteotomy for Hallux Valgus Correction: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Foot & ankle orthopaedics. 2024 January
BACKGROUND: Currently, more than 150 surgical techniques have been described for the treatment of hallux valgus. The abundance of techniques indicates that there is no technique that has been designated as a gold standard. In recent years, a particular interest in the use of minimally invasive techniques has grown. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare clinical, radiologic, and postoperative outcomes between the MICA technique and open chevron technique over a 1-year follow-up period.
METHODS: Between January 2016 and August 2020, data were prospectively collected from consecutive patients preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months following minimally invasive chevron and Akin (MICA) or open chevron osteotomies. Radiographic outcomes were measured using weightbearing radiographs preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Clinical outcomes were measured using the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS), Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), VAS (visual analog scale), Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and Euro-QoL-5D (EQ5D) questionnaires.
RESULTS: Of the 68 patients, 42 patients (62%) underwent a MICA surgery and 26 patients (38%) underwent open chevron osteotomy. Both groups showed significant improvement in HVA, IMA, and DMAA at the 1-year follow-up. Our findings show that both clinical and radiologic outcomes of the MICA technique are comparable to the conventional open technique. No significant differences were found in clinical outcomes (VAS, AOFAS, MOXFQ, FFI, and FAOS), complication rate, and operative times.
CONCLUSION: These results show that MICA is a safe alternative for chevron osteotomy. The clinical and radiologic outcomes of these 2 techniques by 12 months are comparable.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective cohort study.
METHODS: Between January 2016 and August 2020, data were prospectively collected from consecutive patients preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months following minimally invasive chevron and Akin (MICA) or open chevron osteotomies. Radiographic outcomes were measured using weightbearing radiographs preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Clinical outcomes were measured using the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS), Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), VAS (visual analog scale), Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and Euro-QoL-5D (EQ5D) questionnaires.
RESULTS: Of the 68 patients, 42 patients (62%) underwent a MICA surgery and 26 patients (38%) underwent open chevron osteotomy. Both groups showed significant improvement in HVA, IMA, and DMAA at the 1-year follow-up. Our findings show that both clinical and radiologic outcomes of the MICA technique are comparable to the conventional open technique. No significant differences were found in clinical outcomes (VAS, AOFAS, MOXFQ, FFI, and FAOS), complication rate, and operative times.
CONCLUSION: These results show that MICA is a safe alternative for chevron osteotomy. The clinical and radiologic outcomes of these 2 techniques by 12 months are comparable.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective cohort study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app