Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High complication rates following revision first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis: a retrospective analysis of 79 cases

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The most common indications for revision of first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) arthrodesis are symptomatic failures of prior arthrodesis, failed hallux valgus correction, and failed MTPJ arthroplasty implants. However, the outcomes of revision MTPJ arthrodesis have rarely been studied. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of revision MTPJ arthrodesis following different primary procedures.

Methods

A retrospective review of revision MTPJ arthrodesis cases between January 2015 and December 2019 was performed. The radiographic results, patient-reported outcomes, and rates of complications, subsequent revisions, and nonunions, were analyzed and compared preoperatively and postoperatively. A multivariate analysis was utilized to determine risk factors for complications and reoperations.

Results

This study yielded a total of 79 cases of revision MTPJ arthrodesis. The mean follow-up time was 365 days (SD ± 295). The overall complication rate was 40.5%, of which the overall nonunion rate was 19.0%. Seven cases (8.9%) required further revision surgery. The multivariate analysis revealed that Diabetes mellitus was associated with significantly higher overall complication rates (p = 0.016), and nonunion was associated with “in-situ” joint preparation techniques (p = 0.042). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) significantly improved postoperatively (p < 0.001); However, PROMIS-10 physical health and PROMIS-10 mental health did not change significantly during the study period.

Conclusion

Treatment of MTPJ surgery failures is a clinical challenge in orthopedic surgery. In our study, revision of first MTPJ surgery resulted in higher nonunion rates and overall complication rates compared to typical outcomes from primary MTPJ arthrodesis. Diabetes, Tobacco use, and “in-situ” joint preparation technique were found to be independent risk factors for complications and reoperations.

Level of evidence

III—Retrospective Cohort Study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bennett GL, Sabetta J (2009) First metatarsalphalangeal joint arthrodesis: evaluation of plate and screw fixation. Foot Ankle Int 30:752–757. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2009.0752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coughlin MJ (1990) Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. Orthop Rev 19:177–186

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Coughlin MJ, Grebing BR, Jones CP (2005) Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint for idiopathic hallux valgus: intermediate results. Foot Ankle Int 26:783–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070502601001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fuld RS, Kumparatana P, Kelley J et al (2019) Biomechanical comparison of low-profile contoured locking plate with single compression screw to fully threaded compression screws for first MTP fusion. Foot Ankle Int 40:836–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100719837524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Grimes JS, Coughlin MJ (2006) First metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis as a treatment for failed hallux valgus surgery. Foot Ankle Int 27:887–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602701104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hunt KJ, Ellington JK, Anderson RB et al (2011) Locked versus nonlocked plate fixation for hallux MTP arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 32:704–709. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2011.0704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marin GA (1968) Arthrodesis of the metatarsophalangeal joint of the big toe for hallux valgus and hallux rigidus. A new method. Int Surg 50:175–180

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mckeever DC (1952) Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint for hallux valgus, hallux rigidus, and metatarsus primus varus. JBJS 34:129–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brodsky JW, Ptaszek AJ, Morris SG (2000) Salvage first MTP arthrodesis utilizing ICBG: clinical evaluation and outcome. Foot Ankle Int 21:290–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070002100404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Garcia-Ortiz MT, Talavera-Gosalbez JJ, Moril-Peñalver L et al (2020) First metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis after failed distal chevron osteotomy for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100720968831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gaudin G, Coillard J-Y, Augoyard M et al (2018) Incidence and outcomes of revision surgery after first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis: Multicenter study of 158 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104:1221–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.08.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hope M, Savva N, Whitehouse S et al (2010) Is it necessary to re-fuse a non-union of a hallux metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis? Foot Ankle Int 31:662–669. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2010.0662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Myerson MS, Schon LC, McGuigan FX, Oznur A (2000) Result of arthrodesis of the hallux metatarsophalangeal joint using bone graft for restoration of length. Foot Ankle Int 21:297–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070002100405

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vienne P, Sukthankar A, Favre P et al (2006) Metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis after failed Keller-Brandes procedure. Foot Ankle Int 27:894–901. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602701105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Coughlin MJ, Mann RA (1987) Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint as salvage for the failed Keller procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69:68–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Machacek FJ, Easley ME, Gruber F et al (2004) Salvage of a failed Keller resection arthroplasty. JBJS 86:1131–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bhosale A, Munoruth A, Blundell C et al (2011) Complex primary arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint after bone loss. Foot Ankle Int 32:968–972. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2011.0968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gross CE, Hsu AR, Lin J et al (2013) Revision MTP arthrodesis for failed MTP arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Spec 6:471–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640013502725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Duan X, Kadakia AR (2012) Salvage of recurrence after failed surgical treatment of hallux valgus. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:477–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1447-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellington JK, Jones CP, Cohen BE et al (2010) Review of 107 hallux MTP joint arthrodesis using dome-shaped reamers and a stainless-steel dorsal plate. Foot Ankle Int 31:385–390. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2010.0385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Roukis TS (2011) Nonunion after arthrodesis of the first metatarsal-phalangeal joint: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg 50:710–713. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2011.06.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Berlet GC, Hyer CF, Glover JP (2008) A retrospective review of immediate weightbearing after first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Spec 1:24–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640007311920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Coughlin MJ, Shurnas PS (2004) Hallux Rigidus: surgical techniques (cheilectomy and arthrodesis). JBJS 86:119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mann RA, Oates JC (1980) Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. Foot Ankle 1:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110078000100305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mann RA, Thompson FM (1984) Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint for hallux valgus in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:687–692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wassink S, van den Oever M (2009) Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint using a single screw: retrospective analysis of 109 feet. J Foot Ankle Surg 48:653–661. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2009.05.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bennett GL, Kay DB, Sabatta J (2005) First metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis: an evaluation of hardware failure. Foot Ankle Int 26:593–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070502600803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Coughlin MJ (1990) Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint with mini-fragment plate fixation. Orthopedics 13:1037–1044

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goucher NR, Coughlin MJ (2006) Hallux metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis using dome-shaped reamers and dorsal plate fixation: a prospective study. Foot Ankle Int 27:869–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602701101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kumar S, Pradhan R, Rosenfeld PF (2010) First metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis using a dorsal plate and a compression screw. Foot Ankle Int 31:797–801. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2010.0797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mayer SA, Zelenski NA, DeOrio JK et al (2014) a comparison of nonlocking semitubular plates and precontoured locking plates for first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 35:438–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714520695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mahadevan D, Korim MT, Ghosh A et al (2015) First metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis—Do joint configuration and preparation technique matter? Foot Ankle Surg 21:103–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2014.10.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Anderson MR, Houck JR, Saltzman CL et al (2018) Validation and generalizability of preoperative PROMIS scores to predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int 39:763–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718765225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bernstein DN, Kelly M, Houck JR et al (2019) PROMIS pain interference is superior vs numeric pain rating scale for pain assessment in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int 40:139–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718803314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Eble SK, Hansen OB, Chrea B et al (2020) Clinical outcomes of the polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) hydrogel implant for hallux rigidus. Foot Ankle Int. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100720932526

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ho B, Houck JR, Flemister AS et al (2016) Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int 37:911–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716665113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hung M, Baumhauer JF, Licari FW et al (2019) Responsiveness of the PROMIS and FAAM instruments in foot and ankle orthopedic population. Foot Ankle Int 40:56–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718799758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Joo PY, Baumhauer JF, Waldman O et al (2021) Physical function and pain interference levels of hallux rigidus patients before and after synthetic cartilage implant vs arthrodesis surgery. Foot Ankle Int. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007211007843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Singh B, Draeger R, Gaizo DJD, Parekh SG (2008) Changes in length of the first ray with two different first MTP fusion techniques: a cadaveric study. Foot Ankle Int 29:722–725. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2008.0722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Sink EL, Leunig M, Zaltz I et al (2012) Reliability of a complication classification system for orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:2220–2226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2343-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Coughlin MJ, Grimes JS, Traughber PD, Jones CP (2006) Comparison of radiographs and CT scans in the prospective evaluation of the fusion of hindfoot arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 27:780–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602701004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A et al (2010) The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol 63:1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Coughlin MJ, Shurnas PS (2003) Hallux rigidus: grading and long-term results of operative treatment. JBJS 85:2072–2088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Doty J, Coughlin M, Hirose C, Kemp T (2013) Hallux metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis with a hybrid locking plate and a plantar neutralization screw: a prospective study. Foot Ankle Int 34:1535–1540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100713494779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hill NA, Wilson HJ, Chevres F, Sweterlitsch PR (1970) Triple arthrodesis in the young child. Clin Orthop Relat Res 70:187–190

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cerrato RA, Aiyer AA, Campbell J et al (2014) Reproducibility of computed tomography to evaluate ankle and hindfoot fusions. Foot Ankle Int 35:1176–1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714544521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wanivenhaus F, Espinosa N, Tscholl PM et al (2017) Quality of early union after first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis. J Foot Ankle Surg 56:50–53. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2016.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Myers TG, Lowery NJ, Frykberg RG, Wukich DK (2012) Ankle and hindfoot fusions: comparison of outcomes in patients with and without diabetes. Foot Ankle Int 33:20–28. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2012.0020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Korim MT, Allen PE (2015) Effect of pathology on union of first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 36:51–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714549046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Politi J, Hayes J, Njus G et al (2003) First metatarsal-phalangeal joint arthrodesis: a biomechanical assessment of stability. Foot Ankle Int 24:332–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070302400405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lunati MP, Manz WJ, Maidman SD et al (2020) Effect of age on complication rates and outcomes following first metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis for hallux rigidus. Foot Ankle Int 41:1347–1354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100720942140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Baumhauer JF, Singh D, Glazebrook M et al (2016) Prospective, randomized, multi-centered clinical trial assessing safety and efficacy of a synthetic cartilage implant versus first metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis in advanced hallux rigidus. Foot Ankle Int 37:457–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716635560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sutton RM, McDonald EL, Shakked RJ et al (2019) Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in visual analog scale (VAS) pain and foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) scores after hallux valgus surgery. Foot Ankle Int 40:687–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100719834539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Copay AG, Eyberg B, Chung AS et al (2018) Minimum clinically important difference: current trends in the orthopaedic literature, part II: lower extremity: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 6:e2. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pinsker E, Daniels TR (2011) AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS clinical rating systems. Foot Ankle Int 32:841–842. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2011.0841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Garras DN, Durinka JB, Bercik M et al (2013) Conversion arthrodesis for failed first metatarsophalangeal joint hemiarthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int 34:1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100713488093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hung M, Baumhauer JF, Latt LD et al (2013) Validation of PROMIS® physical function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:3466–3474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3097-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T et al (2012) A lower extremity physical function computerized adaptive testing instrument for orthopaedic patients. Foot Ankle Int 33:326–335. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2012.0326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kitaoka HB, Meeker JE, Phisitkul P et al (2018) AOFAS position statement regarding patient-reported outcome measures. Foot Ankle Int 39:1389–1393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718809066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nixon DC, Zhang C, Weinberg MW et al (2020) Relationship of press ganey satisfaction and PROMIS function and pain in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int 41:1206–1211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100720937013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Dan Prat, Brandon A. Haghverdian, Eric M. Pridgen, Wonyong Lee, Keith L. Wapner, Wen Chao & Daniel C. Farber

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Dan Prat

Authors
  1. Dan Prat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brandon A. Haghverdian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric M. Pridgen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wonyong Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Keith L. Wapner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wen Chao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Daniel C. Farber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Prat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors, their immediate family, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Informed consent

Informed consent was waived by the IRB.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prat, D., Haghverdian, B.A., Pridgen, E.M. et al. High complication rates following revision first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis: a retrospective analysis of 79 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 1799–1807 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04342-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04342-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation