BackgroundIncomplete sesamoid reduction is a potential risk factor for the recurrence of hallux valgus. The purpose of this study was to radiologically investigate changes in sesamoid position after chevron osteotomy and the open lateral soft tissue procedure.MethodsSixty-eight feet that underwent operative correction for hallux valgus deformity were reviewed consecutively. The hallux valgus angle (HVA), first to second intermetatarsal angle (IMA), tibial sesamoid position (TSP), distance of the fibular sesamoid (DFS), and translation of the metatarsal head (TMH) were evaluated preoperatively and at final follow-up.ResultsWhile most parameters were significantly decreased after surgery, no significant change in DFS (correction − 1.45 mm, p = 0.08) was noted. The difference between preoperative and postoperative TSP values (ΔTSP) has a moderately positive correlation with difference in TMH values (ΔTMH) (Rho 0.475, p = .000). Other parameters were similarly correlated.ConclusionsFirst, metatarsal bone realignment reduced the sesamoid, but its position, relative to the second metatarsal axis (DFS), was unchanged. The sesamoid is reduced by the lateral translation of the first metatarsal but not by medial sesamoid migration.

Realignment of the extensor tendon and direct repair of the superficial layer of the sagittal band to the extensor digitorum communis (EDC) tendon is recommended as a treatment option in patients with chronic MCP extensor tendon subluxation, as well as for acute MCP extensor tendon subluxation in patients that have failed or could not maintain conservative treatment approaches.

BackgroundCases of low-energy-induced distal radius fracture (DRF) are increasing. Sarcopenia is considered to be an independent risk factor for fragility fractures. We compared body appendicular lean muscle mass (ALM) and bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with DRF and a comparable control population. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between skeletal muscle mass and DRF.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with fragility DRF. The DRF group included 87 patients treated at our institute. The control group comprised data for 87 individuals in the general population from among 2,124 selected using nearest-neighbor propensity scoring, based on age, weight, height, and body mass index. All medical conditions and past history were also compared between the two groups.ResultsThe relative overall ALM, combining arm and leg lean body mass divided by height squared, was not significantly different (DRF group, 6.093 kg/m2; controls, 5.945 kg/m2). T-score, a parameter of BMD, was significantly different between groups (DRF, −2.42; controls, −2.05). The proportion of patients with osteoporosis was significantly different (DRF, 44 [50.6%] vs. control, 29 [33.3%], respectively).ConclusionsPatients with DRF did not have significantly lower average lean body mass. BMD was significantly lower in patients with DRF than in controls.