The use of polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel implants in the lesser metatarsal heads. Is it safely doable? A cadaveric study

Godoy‐Santos, Alexandre Leme; Cabe, Taylor N.; Roberts, Lauren; Harnroongroj, Thos; Deland, Jonathan T.; Drakos, Mark C.

doi:10.1016/j.fas.2018.12.009

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…de Cesar Netto and colleagues 6 recently reported that 80%, 60%, and 50% of the second, third, and fourth MT heads, respectively, from 10 cadaveric specimens could be safely reamed to accommodate an 8-mm synthetic cartilage implant with an intact cortical rim. The 5 cases in our study all safely accommodated the 8-mm implant and maintained an intact bone rim, with no complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary Experience With Polyvinyl Alcohol Hydrogel Implant for Pathology of the Second Metatarsal Head

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is no consensus regarding which surgical technique is most beneficial for pathology of the second metatarsophalangeal joint. We report the use of polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel synthetic cartilage implant hemiarthroplasty for pathology of the second metatarsal head that has failed nonoperative treatment and present 5 cases with a minimum 15 months of follow-up. Methods: The technique for synthetic cartilage hemiarthroplasty of the second metatarsal head is described. The postoperative protocol included weightbearing as tolerated for 2 weeks and moderate limitations in activities of daily living to respect wound healing, followed by physiotherapy for range of motion exercises. Charts for patients who underwent this procedure between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Outcome measures collected postoperatively included a pain visual analog scale, Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports and Activities of Daily Living (ADL) current level of function percentages. Results: At 15 to 38 months of follow-up, patients reported little to no pain and good range of motion, with no complications. Mean outcome measure scores were 89 for FAAM ADL, 75 for FAAM Sports, 44.4 for SF-36 PCS, and 52.1 for SF-36 MCS. Conclusion: This preliminary study of synthetic cartilage hemiarthroplasty for treatment of joint-destructive conditions of the second metatarsal head demonstrated good outcomes and no complications in 5 cases at a mean 25 months of follow-up. Large prospective cohort studies are needed to prove the efficacy and safety of this new surgical technique for the treatment of pathology of the second metatarsal head. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective case series.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary Experience With Polyvinyl Alcohol Hydrogel Implant for Pathology of the Second Metatarsal Head

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Forefootmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…de Cesar Netto et al 7 determined that 80%, 60%, and 50% of second, third, and fourth metatarsal heads, respectively, in 10 cadaveric specimens could be safely drilled to accommodate the 8-mm PVA hydrogel implant while preserving an intact bone rim. improvements in VAS for pain and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Hallux Metatarsophalangeal-Interphalangeal (Hallux-MTP-IP) scores at 2 years postoperatively (p < 0.001) 8 .…”

Section: Forefootmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s New in Foot and Ankle Surgery

Halai

Richards

Daniels

2021

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information. The work under consideration for publication.This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party --that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work.This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer.

show abstract