2015
DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2014.12.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Long-Term Follow-Up of the Cheilectomy for Degenerative Joint Disease of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…4 Easley et al 6 reported in their series that 90% of the patients were satisfied with increased range, and there was a 40-point improvement in American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score following cheilectomy at mean follow-up of 63 months. Of the 58 patients in the series of Nicolosi et al, 12 51 (87.9%) experienced no limitations in their daily activities at an average follow-up of 7.1 years, with 2 patients (3.3%) subsequently requiring an arthrodesis. Roukis 14 performed a systematic review of isolated cheilectomy of the first MTP joint and concluded that the overall rate for revision surgery was 8.8%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…4 Easley et al 6 reported in their series that 90% of the patients were satisfied with increased range, and there was a 40-point improvement in American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score following cheilectomy at mean follow-up of 63 months. Of the 58 patients in the series of Nicolosi et al, 12 51 (87.9%) experienced no limitations in their daily activities at an average follow-up of 7.1 years, with 2 patients (3.3%) subsequently requiring an arthrodesis. Roukis 14 performed a systematic review of isolated cheilectomy of the first MTP joint and concluded that the overall rate for revision surgery was 8.8%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Our results were similar to published series of open cheilectomy, and MIDC seems to be a safe alternative to open surgery. 4,6,9,12 The aim of our study was not to prove whether MIDC was superior, inferior, or equivocal to open cheilectomy. Only a well-designed, large randomized controlled trial could conclusively show this.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, Bussewitz et al[18] reported an overall success rate of 98.5% in 197 cases with a mean follow-up of 3.2 years. Nicolosi et al[20] evaluated the long-term efficacy of aggressive cheilectomy by analyzing patient satisfaction using American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale in 58 patients with mean follow-up period of 7 years. The average improvement in pain relief was 87.71%, and 94.83% of all patients stated that they would undergo the same procedure again.…”
Section: Cheilectomymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of this study concur with those of several studies in the literature that document from 0% to 8.8% of cases of open cheilectomy requiring 1MTPJ arthrodesis. 7,13,17,19 In comparison, 12.8% (17/133) of the MIS cheilectomy group needed further surgery. The second surgery was for intrinsic 1MTPJ pain and stiffness in 7.5% (10/133) of cases, with 9 proceeding to 1MTPJ arthrodesis and 1 case proceeding to interposition arthroplasty with a hydrogel implant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…6 Studies have repeatedly demonstrated good efficacy and few complications for cheilectomy. 3,10,17,20 The advantages of an open approach are that it allows direct visualization of the joint surfaces, can address chondral defects, and allows for an extensive soft tissue release. The perceived disadvantages are a larger soft tissue insult and the need to protect the wound from early mobilization until it is healed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%