Abstract
Introduction
Bunions are prominent and often inflamed metatarsal heads and overlying bursae, usually associated with hallux valgus, where the great toe moves towards the second toe. Hallux valgus is found in at least 2% of children aged 9 to 10 years, and almost half of adults, with greater prevalence in women.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of conservative treatments, surgery, and postoperative care for bunions? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 21 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: arthrodesis (Lapidus procedure); bone fixation (absorbable pin fixation, percutaneous Kirschner-wire fixation, screw fixation plus early mobilisation [early weight-bearing], standard fixation, suture fixation plus immobilisation [delayed weight-bearing]); chevron osteotomy plus adductor tenotomy; distal metatarsal osteotomy; early weight-bearing; Keller’s arthroplasty; Keller–Lelievre arthroplasty; night splints; orthoses (including antipronatory orthoses in children); phalangeal (Akin) osteotomy plus distal chevron osteotomy; proximal osteotomy, and slipper casts.
Key Points
Bunions are prominent and often inflamed metatarsal heads and overlying bursae, usually associated with hallux valgus, causing pain and problems with walking and wearing normal shoes.
Hallux valgus (where the great toe moves towards the second toe) is found in at least 2% of children aged 9 to 10 years and almost half of adults, with greater prevalence in women.
We don't know what role footwear plays in the development of hallux valgus or bunions.
We don't know whether night splints or orthoses (in adults or children) prevent deterioration of hallux valgus.
Distal chevron osteotomy may be more effective than orthoses or no treatment at reducing pain and improving function. However, there is insufficient evidence comparing its effectiveness with other surgical techniques.
We don't know whether other surgical procedures such as arthrodesis, Keller's arthroplasty, phalangeal osteotomy, proximal osteotomy, or bone fixation methods are beneficial in improving outcomes.
We don't know whether early weight-bearing or slipper casts are effective in improving recovery and outcomes postoperatively.
About this condition
Definition
Hallux valgus is a deformity of the great toe, whereby the hallux (great toe) moves towards the second toe, overlying it in severe cases. This abduction (movement away from the midline of the body) is usually accompanied by some rotation of the toe so that the nail is facing the midline of the body (valgus rotation). With the deformity, the metatarsal head becomes more prominent, and the metatarsal is said to be in an adducted position as it moves towards the midline of the body. Radiological criteria for hallux valgus vary, but a commonly accepted criterion is to measure the angle formed between the metatarsal and the abducted hallux. This is called the metatarsophalangeal joint angle or hallux abductus angle, and it is considered abnormal when it is greater than 14.5°. Bunion is the lay term used to describe a prominent and often inflamed metatarsal head and overlying bursa. Symptoms include pain, limitation in walking, and problems with wearing normal shoes.
Incidence/ Prevalence
The prevalence of hallux valgus varies in different populations. In a recent study of 6000 UK school children aged 9 to 10 years, 2.5% had clinical evidence of hallux valgus, and 2% met both clinical and radiological criteria for hallux valgus. An earlier study found hallux valgus in 48% of adults. Differences in prevalence may result from different methods of measurement, varying age groups, or different diagnostic criteria (e.g., metatarsal joint angle more than 10° or 15°).
Aetiology/ Risk factors
Nearly all population studies have found that hallux valgus is more common in women. Footwear may contribute to the deformity, but studies comparing people who wear shoes with those who do not have found contradictory results. Hypermobility of the first ray and excessive foot pronation are associated with hallux valgus.
Prognosis
Prognosis seems uncertain. While progression of deformity and symptoms is rapid in some people, others remain asymptomatic. One study found that hallux valgus is often unilateral initially, but usually progresses to bilateral deformity.
Aims of intervention
To reduce symptoms and deformity, with minimum adverse effects.
Outcomes
Pain; improvement in joint angle (hallux abductus/metatarsophalangeal joint angle; intermetatarsal joint angle); functional assessment; range of movement or motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (the total range of both dorsiflexion and plantar flexion); general satisfaction, including satisfaction with appearance (cosmetic); need for special footwear (requirement for specialist or extra-width footwear); mobility (proportion of people with mobility problems); healing (including time to healing); transfer lesions; time taken to return to normal activities; and adverse effects of treatment (including incidence of complications such as infection, re-operation, non-union, avascular necrosis).
Methods
Clinical Evidence search and appraisal May 2008.The following databases were used to identify studies for this systematic review: Medline 1966 to May 2008, Embase 1980 to May 2008, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials 2008, Issue 2. Additional searches were carried out using this website: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) — for Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). We also searched for retractions of studies included in the review. Abstracts of the studies retrieved from the initial search were assessed by an information specialist. Selected studies were then sent to the contributor for additional assessment, using predetermined criteria to identify relevant studies. Study design criteria for inclusion in this review were: published systematic reviews of RCTs and RCTs in any language and containing more than 20 individuals of whom more than 80% were followed up. There was no minimum length of follow-up required to include studies. We included all studies described as "open", "open label", or not blinded. In addition, we use a regular surveillance protocol to capture harms alerts from organisations such as the FDA and the MHRA, which are added to the reviews as required. Furthermore, an electronic search using a strategy developed by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group was undertaken to October 2003 and a hand search of podiatry journals to January 2006. To aid readability of the numerical data in our reviews, we round many percentages to the nearest whole number. Readers should be aware of this when relating percentages to summary statistics such as RRs and ORs. We have performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions included in this review (see table). The categorisation of the quality of the evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) reflects the quality of evidence available for our chosen outcomes in our defined populations of interest. These categorisations are not necessarily a reflection of the overall methodological quality of any individual study, because the Clinical Evidence population and outcome of choice may represent only a small subset of the total outcomes reported, and population included, in any individual trial. For further details of how we perform the GRADE evaluation and the scoring system we use, please see our website (www.clinicalevidence.com).
Table.
GRADE Evaluation of interventions for Bunions.
| Important outcomes | , Functional assessment, General satisfaction, Healing, Improvement in joint angle, Mobility, Need for special footwear, Pain, Range of movement, Time to return to normal activities, Transfer lesions | ||||||||
| Studies (Participants) | Outcome | Comparison | Type of evidence | Quality | Consistency | Directness | Effect size | GRADE | Comment |
| What are the effects of conservative treatments for bunions? | |||||||||
| 1 (209) | Pain | Orthoses versus no treatment in adults | 4 | –1 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for different results at different endpoints |
| 1 (209) | Functional assessment | Orthoses versus no treatment in adults | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (209) | General satisfaction | Orthoses versus no treatment in adults | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for unclear outcome |
| 1 (209) | Time to return to normal activities | Orthoses versus no treatment in adults | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for unclear outcome |
| 1 (122) | Improvement in joint angle | Antipronatory orthoses versus no treatment in children | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for high loss to follow-up |
| What are the effects of surgery for bunions? | |||||||||
| 1 (87) | Pain | Arthrodesis versus distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (87) | Improvement in joint angle | Arthrodesis versus distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (87) | Functional assessment | Arthrodesis versus distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (28) | Pain | Standard fixation versus absorbable pin fixation | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and for weak methods. Directness point deducted for small number of events |
| 1 (28) | Improvement in joint angle | Standard fixation versus absorbable pin fixation | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and for weak methods |
| 1 (28) | Range of movement | Standard fixation versus absorbable pin fixation | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and for weak methods |
| 1 (28) | General satisfaction | Standard fixation versus absorbable pin fixation | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and for weak methods. Directness point deducted for small number of events |
| 1 (28) | Mobility | Standard fixation versus absorbable pin fixation | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and for weak methods. Directness point deducted for small number of events |
| 1 (30) | Improvement in joint angle | Screw fixation plus early mobilisation versus vicryl suture fixation plus immobilisation | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for sparse data |
| 1 (30) | Time to return to normal activities | Screw fixation plus early mobilisation versus vicryl suture fixation plus immobilisation | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for use of subjective outcome |
| 1 (22) | Pain | Percutaneous Kirschner-wire fixation compared with internal screw fixation | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for no direct comparison between groups |
| 1 (22) | Functional assessment | Percutaneous Kirschner-wire fixation compared with internal screw fixation | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for sparse data |
| 1 (22) | Improvement in joint angle | Percutaneous Kirschner-wire fixation compared with internal screw fixation | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for no direct comparison between groups |
| 1 (22) | Range of movement | Percutaneous Kirschner-wire fixation compared with internal screw fixation | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for no direct comparison between groups |
| 1 (209) | Pain | Distal chevron osteotomy versus no treatment | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (209) | Functional assessment | Distal chevron osteotomy versus no treatment | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (209) | General satisfaction | Distal chevron osteotomy versus no treatment | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for unclear outcome |
| 1 (209) | Time to return to normal activities | Distal chevron osteotomy versus no treatment | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for subjective outcome |
| 1 (209) | Pain | Distal chevron osteotomy versus orthoses | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (209) | Functional assessment | Distal chevron osteotomy versus orthoses | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (209) | General satisfaction | Distal chevron osteotomy versus orthoses | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for unclear outcome |
| 1 (209) | Time to return to normal activities | Distal chevron osteotomy versus orthoses | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for subjective outcome |
| 3 (241) | Improvement in joint angle | Distal chevron osteotomy versus other types of distal osteotomy | 4 | –1 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results |
| 2 (196) | Functional assessment | Distal chevron osteotomy versus other types of distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for no statistical comparison between groups in 1 RCT |
| 1 (51) | Need for special footwear | Distal chevron osteotomy versus other types of distal osteotomy | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for limited number of comparisons |
| 1 (96) | Range of movement | Distal chevron osteotomy versus other types of distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for no statistical comparison between groups |
| 1 (96) | General satisfaction | Distal chevron osteotomy versus other types of distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for no statistical comparison between groups |
| 1 (51) | Mobility | Distal chevron osteotomy versus other types of distal osteotomy | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for unclear subjective outcome |
| 1 (96) | Transfer lesions | Distal chevron osteotomy versus other types of distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for no statistical comparison between groups |
| 1 (84) | Pain | Distal chevron osteotomy plus adductor tenotomy compared with distal chevron osteotomy alone | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and short (unspecified) follow-up |
| 1 (84) | Improvement in joint angle | Distal chevron osteotomy plus adductor tenotomy compared with distal chevron osteotomy alone | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and short (unspecified) follow-up |
| 1 (84) | Range of movement | Distal chevron osteotomy plus adductor tenotomy compared with distal chevron osteotomy alone | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and short (unspecified) follow-up |
| 1 (84) | General satisfaction | Distal chevron osteotomy plus adductor tenotomy compared with distal chevron osteotomy alone | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and short (unspecified) follow-up |
| 1 (84) | Need for special footwear | Distal chevron osteotomy plus adductor tenotomy compared with distal chevron osteotomy alone | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and short (unspecified) follow-up |
| 1 (84) | Mobility | Distal chevron osteotomy plus adductor tenotomy compared with distal chevron osteotomy alone | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and short (unspecified) follow-up |
| 1 (33) | Pain | Keller's arthroplasty versus distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and weak methods |
| 1 (33) | Improvement in joint angle | Keller's arthroplasty versus distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and weak methods |
| 1 (33) | Range of movement | Keller's arthroplasty versus distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and weak methods |
| 1 (33) | General satisfaction | Keller's arthroplasty versus distal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and weak methods |
| 1 (100) | Pain | Keller's arthroplasty versus arthrodesis | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and weak methods |
| 1 (100) | General satisfaction | Keller's arthroplasty versus arthrodesis | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and weak methods |
| 1 (100) | Mobility | Keller's arthroplasty versus arthrodesis | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and weak methods |
| 1 (35) | Pain | Keller's arthroplasty plus joint distraction versus Keller’s arthroplasty alone | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, unclear subjective assessment of outcomes, incomplete reporting of results, and weak methods |
| 1 (35) | Improvement in joint angle | Keller's arthroplasty plus joint distraction versus Keller’s arthroplasty alone | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting of results, and weak methods |
| 1 (35) | Range of movement | Keller's arthroplasty plus joint distraction versus Keller’s arthroplasty alone | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, unclear assessment of outcomes, incomplete reporting of results, and weak methods |
| 1 (35) | Pain | Keller–Lelievre arthroplasty versus modified procedure | 4 | –3 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, incomplete reporting of results, and unclear outcome measurement. Directness point deducted for no statistical analysis between groups |
| 1 (35) | Improvement in joint angle | Keller–Lelievre arthroplasty versus modified procedure | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (35) | Need for special footwear | Keller–Lelievre arthroplasty versus modified procedure | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, unclear outcome measurement, and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (23) | Improvement in joint angle | Phalangeal osteotomy plus distal chevron osteotomy versus phalangeal osteotomy plus distal soft-tissue reconstruction | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, unclear randomisation, and for possibly being a subset of data from a larger RCT |
| 1 (23) | Range of movement | Phalangeal osteotomy plus distal chevron osteotomy versus phalangeal osteotomy plus distal soft-tissue reconstruction | 4 | –3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, unclear randomisation, and for possibly being a subset of data from a larger RCT |
| 1 (66) | Improvement in joint angle | Proximal chevron osteotomy versus other types of proximal osteotomy | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for no longer-term follow-up |
| 1 (66) | Functional assessment | Proximal chevron osteotomy versus other types of proximal osteotomy | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for no longer-term follow-up |
| 1 (66) | Healing | Proximal chevron osteotomy versus other types of proximal osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for no longer-term follow-up |
| 1 (66) | Transfer lesions | Proximal chevron osteotomy versus other types of proximal osteotomy | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for no longer-term follow-up |
| 1 (68) | Pain | Proximal osteotomy versus distal chevron osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (68) | Improvement in joint angle | Proximal osteotomy versus distal chevron osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (68) | General satisfaction | Proximal osteotomy versus distal chevron osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (68) | Need for special footwear | Proximal osteotomy versus distal chevron osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (68) | Mobility | Proximal osteotomy versus distal chevron osteotomy | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| What are the effects of postoperative care for bunions? | |||||||||
| 1 (56) | Healing | Early weight-bearing compared with late weight-bearing | 4 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for small number of events |
| 2 (106) | Pain | Slipper cast versus crepe bandage | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for short follow-up |
| 1 (54) | Improvement in joint angle | Slipper cast versus crepe bandage | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for short follow-up |
| 1 (54) | General satisfaction | Slipper cast versus crepe bandage | 4 | –2 | 0 | –1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for sparse data, unclear outcome, and incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for short follow-up |
| 2 (106) | Time to return to normal activities | Slipper cast versus crepe bandage | 4 | –2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
We initially allocate 4 points to evidence from RCTs, and 2 points to evidence from observational studies. To attain the final GRADE score for a given comparison, points are deducted or added from this initial score based on preset criteria relating to the categories of quality, directness, consistency, and effect size. Quality: based on issues affecting methodological rigour (e.g., incomplete reporting of results, quasi-randomisation, sparse data [<200 people in the analysis]). Consistency: based on similarity of results across studies. Directness: based on generalisability of population or outcomes. Effect size: based on magnitude of effect as measured by statistics such as relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio.
Glossary
- Arthrodesis
Surgical removal of the joint between adjoining bones, performed by fusing the bone ends together. No movement can then occur at the joint.
- Cock-up deformity
Inability to place pulp of the great toe on the ground with the foot bearing weight.
- First ray
The first metatarsal and medial cuneiform function as a single unit called the first ray.
- Hohmann osteotomy
A form of distal metatarsal osteotomy involving the removal of a wedge-shaped piece of bone from the metatarsal, and fixation of the bone ends with a Kirschner wire.
- Keller's arthroplasty
A procedure involving removal of the medial side of the metatarsal head and straight resection of the base of the proximal phalanx.
- Keller–Lelievre arthroplasty
An arthroplasty of the first metatarsophalangeal joint involving a more curved resection of the base of the proximal phalanx than occurs with the Keller's arthroplasty.
- Kirschner wire
A thin but rigid wire that is used to fix bone fragments. It is passed through drilled channels in the bone. (Sometimes called a K-wire.)
- Lapidus procedure
An arthrodesis at the first tarsometatarsal joint whereby the base of the first metatarsal is fused with the medial cuneiform. A soft tissue procedure is carried out at the first metatarsophalangeal joint as part of the procedure.
- Lindgren osteotomy
A modified Wilson's osteotomy involving a transverse cut in the distal metatarsal shaft, with the distal fragment being realigned laterally and slightly plantarly.
- Low-quality evidence
Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
- Mitchell's osteotomy
A form of distal metatarsal osteotomy whereby an incomplete osteotomy is performed perpendicular to the long axis of the bone. The distal portion is moved laterally and fixed in position. This results in shortening of the bone.
- Moderate-quality evidence
Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
- Scarf osteotomy
A form of osteotomy in which a long Z-shaped cut is made in the metatarsal, with the bone fragments being fixed with screws after realignment.
- Transfer lesions
Areas of corns or callus that develop when the weight-bearing forces are transferred from one area of the foot to another.
- Very low-quality evidence
Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.
- Wilson's osteotomy
A form of osteotomy in which a double oblique cut is made in the distal portion of the metatarsal shaft and the metatarsal head is slid into a corrected position.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication is intended for medical professionals. Categories presented in Clinical Evidence indicate a judgement about the strength of the evidence available to our contributors prior to publication and the relevant importance of benefit and harms. We rely on our contributors to confirm the accuracy of the information presented and to adhere to describe accepted practices. Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this and regular advances in medical research we strongly recommend that readers' independently verify specified treatments and drugs including manufacturers' guidance. Also, the categories do not indicate whether a particular treatment is generally appropriate or whether it is suitable for a particular individual. Ultimately it is the readers' responsibility to make their own professional judgements, so to appropriately advise and treat their patients.To the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ Publishing Group Limited and its editors are not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, products liability or otherwise) whether they be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the application of the information in this publication.
References
- 1.Dykyj D. Pathological anatomy of hallux abducto valgus. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1989;6:1–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kilmartin TE, Barrington RL, Wallace WA. A controlled prospective trial of a foot orthosis for juvenile hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994;76-B:210–214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Morris JB, Brash LF, Hird MD. Chiropodial survey of geriatric and psychiatric hospital in-patients – Angus District. Health Bull (Edinb) 1978; 36:241–250. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Laporta G, Melillo T, Olinsky D. X-ray evaluation of hallux abducto valgus deformity. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1974;64:544–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ferrari J, Higgins JPT, Prior TD. Interventions for treating hallux valgus (abductovalgus) and bunions. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Search date 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Torkki M, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, et al. Surgery vs orthosis vs watchful waiting for hallux valgus. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;285:2474–2480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kilmartin TE, Wallace WA, Hill TW. First metatarsal position in juvenile hallux abductovalgus – a significant clinical measurement? Br J Podiatr Med 1991;3:43–45. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Faber FW, Mulder PG, Verhaar JA. Role of first ray hypermobility in the outcome of the Hohmann and the Lapidus procedure: a prospective, randomized trial involving one hundred and one feet. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:486–495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Prior TD, Grace DL, MacLean JB, et al. Correction of hallux abductovalgus by Mitchell's osteotomy: comparing standard fixation methods with absorbable polydioxanone pins. Foot 1997;7:121–125. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Calder JDF, Hollingdale JP, Pearse MF. Screw versus suture fixation of Mitchell's osteotomy. A prospective randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81-B:621–624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.D'Angelo F, Giudici M, Rossi M, et al. Austin osteotomy: Comparison between two fixation methods. Chirurgia del Piede 2006;30:105–110. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Klosok IK, Pring DJ, Jessop JH, et al. Chevron or Wilson metatarsal osteotomy for hallux valgus. A prospective randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75-B:825–829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Saro C, Andren B, Wildemyr Z, et al. Outcome after distal metatarsal osteotomy for hallux valgus: a prospective randomized controlled trial of two methods. Foot Ankle Int 2007;28:778–787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Deenik AR, Pilot P, Brandt SE, et al. Scarf versus chevron osteotomy in hallux valgus: a randomized controlled trial in 96 patients. Foot Ankle Int 2007;28:537–541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Resch S, Stenstrom A, Reynisson K, et al. Chevron osteotomy for hallux valgus not improved by additional adductor tenotomy. A prospective, randomised study of 84 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1994;65:541–544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Turnbull T, Grange W. A comparison of Keller's arthroplasty and distal metatarsal osteotomy in the treatment of adult hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1986;68-B:132–137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.O'Doherty PD, Lowrie IG, Magnussen PA, et al. The management of the painful first metatarsophalangeal joint in the older patient. Arthrodesis or Keller's arthroplasty? J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72-B:839–842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sherman KP, Douglas DL, Benson MK. Keller's arthroplasty: is distraction useful? A prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984;66-B:765–769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Capasso G, Testa V, Maffulli N, et al. Molded arthroplasty and transfer of extensor hallucis brevis tendon: a modification of the Keller-Lelievre operation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;308:43–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Basile A, Battaglia A, Campi A. Comparison of chevron–Akin osteotomy and distal soft tissue reconstruction–Akin osteotomy for correction of mild hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Surg 2000;6:155–163. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Easley ME, Kiebzak GM, Davis WH, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of proximal crescentic and proximal chevron osteotomies for correction of hallux valgus deformity. Foot Ankle Int 1996;17:307–316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Resch S, Stenstrom A, Jonsson K, et al. Results after chevron osteotomy and proximal osteotomy for hallux valgus: a prospective, randomised study. Foot 1993;3:99–104. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Lampe HI, Fontijne P, van Linge B. Weight bearing after arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. A randomized study of 61 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1991;62:544–545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Meek RMD, Anderson EG. Plaster slipper versus crepe bandage after Wilson's osteotomy for hallux valgus. Foot 1999;9:138–141. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Meek RMD, Anderson EG. Plaster slipper versus crepe bandage after first metatarsophalangeal joint fusion. Foot Ankle Surg 1998;4:213–217. [Google Scholar]