RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of distal neurotomy (DN) versus proximal neurotomy (PN) for the surgical management of painful neuromas in amputees and non-amputees, whether used in passive or active treatment. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent surgery for painful traumatic neuromas between 2019 and 2022. DN with neuroma excision was performed at the level of the injury or amputation. PN was performed using a separate proximal approach without neuroma excision. Outcomes included a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores, as well as patients' subjective assessments. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients were included: 17 amputees and 16 non-amputees. They totalized 43 neuromas treated by DN in 21 cases and PN in 22 cases. At the median follow-up time of 13 months, there were significant decreases in all NRS and PROMIS scores in the whole series. The decrease in limb pain scores was not significantly different between groups, except for the decrease in pain interference and patient satisfaction which were higher in the DN group. Sub-group analyses found the same significant differences in amputees. Targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) was associated with a higher decrease in PROMIS scores. CONCLUSION: DN seemed to give better results in amputees but there were confusing factors related to associated lesions. In other situations, the non-inferiority of PN was demonstrated. PN could be of interest for treating neuromas of superficial sensory nerves, for avoiding direct revision of a well-fitted stump and in conjunction with TMR.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: First metatarsophalangeal (MTP1) joint arthrodesis, described as a safe and effective procedure, has complications that may require surgical revision. These complications are rarely studied. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and outcomes of revision surgery after MT1 arthrodesis. HYPOTHESIS: The incidence of surgical revision after MTP1 arthrodesis is not insignificant; however, the outcomes are satisfactory. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study between January 2014 and December 2015, 190 forefoot revisions in patients who had previously undergone MTP1 arthrodesis were included by 8 surgeons. There were no exclusion criteria and all patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. Over the same period, 958 primary MTP1 arthrodesis procedures were performed. RESULTS: The mean time to revision was 4.6±10.9 years. At a mean follow-up of 20.5±7.4 months, 158 cases were available for analysis in 135 women and 20 men who had a mean age of 67.1±10.5 years. These revision procedures were carried out because of discomfort related to the hardware at the arthrodesis site (n=86, 54%), nonunion (n=22, 14%), malunion (n=13, 8%) metatarsalgia or claw toe (n=18, 11%) and first interphalangeal (IP1) joint disorders (n=13, 8%). The mean postoperative scores were 75±13.9 for the AOFAS and 65±19.6 for the SF36 total. In the nonunion cases, removal of the hardware led to better outcomes than repeating the arthrodesis procedure. Osteotomy in the malunion cases healed successfully. In the cases of IP1 osteoarthritis, secondary arthrodesis or arthroplasty led to good outcomes. DISCUSSION: Relative to published results of primary MTP1 arthrodesis, the outcomes in our series of revision MTP1 arthrodesis surgery cases are practically equivalent, thus considered acceptable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Retrospective study.