Yonsei Med J.  2015 Mar;56(2):466-473. 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.2.466.

Sex-Related Differences in Outcomes after Hallux Valgus Surgery

• Choi GW
• Kim HJ
• Kim TW
• Lee JW
• Park SB
• Kim JK

• KMID: 2070026
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2015.56.2.466

Abstract

PURPOSE
With differences between the sexes in foot bone anatomy and ligamentous laxity, there is the possibility that the results of hallux valgus surgery may also differ between the sexes. We aimed to compare the results of hallux valgus surgery between the sexes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The authors retrospectively reviewed 60 males (66 feet) and 70 females (82 feet) who underwent distal or proximal chevron osteotomy for the treatment of hallux valgus deformity between June 2005 and December 2011. We compared the clinical and radiologic outcomes between the sexes.
RESULTS
There were no statistically significant differences in demographics between the sexes. The mean American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society score, visual analogue scale for pain, and patient satisfaction at the last follow-up did not differ significantly between the sexes. The mean preoperative hallux valgus angle (HVA) and inter-metatarsal angle (IMA) were not significantly different between the sexes. At the last follow-up, the mean HVA was significantly greater in females (p=0.003) than in males; mean IMA was not significantly different between the sexes. The mean correction of HVA in males was significantly greater than that in females (p=0.014).
CONCLUSION
There were no significant differences between the sexes regarding clinical outcomes after distal and proximal chevron osteotomy. However, male patients achieved greater correction of HVA than female patients. There is a possibility that sexual dimorphism of the foot may affect postoperative HVA.

Keyword

Hallux valgus; distal chevron osteotomy; proximal chevron osteotomy; gender

MeSH Terms

Adult
Aged
Female
Hallux Valgus/physiopathology/radiography/*surgery
Humans
Male
Metatarsal Bones/physiopathology/radiography/*surgery
Middle Aged
Osteotomy/*methods
Pain
Pain Measurement
Patient Satisfaction
Postoperative Period
Retrospective Studies
Sex Factors
Treatment Outcome

Reference

1. Nguyen US, Hillstrom HJ, Li W, Dufour AB, Kiel DP, Procter-Gray E, et al. Factors associated with hallux valgus in a population-based study of older women and men: the MOBILIZE Boston Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010; 18:41–46.

2. Nix S, Smith M, Vicenzino B. Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010; 3:21.

3. Perera AM, Mason L, Stephens MM. The pathogenesis of hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93:1650–1661.

4. Nery C, Coughlin MJ, Baumfeld D, Ballerini FJ, Kobata S. Hallux valgus in males--part 1: demographics, etiology, and comparative radiology. Foot Ankle Int. 2013; 34:629–635.

5. Ferrari J, Hopkinson DA, Linney AD. Size and shape differences between male and female foot bones: is the female foot predisposed to hallux abducto valgus deformity? J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2004; 94:434–452.

6. Ferrari J, Malone-Lee J. The shape of the metatarsal head as a cause of hallux abductovalgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2002; 23:236–242.

7. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994; 15:349–353.

8. Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990; 13:227–236.

9. Smith RW, Reynolds JC, Stewart MJ. Hallux valgus assessment: report of research committee of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Foot Ankle. 1984; 5:92–103.

10. Schneider W, Csepan R, Knahr K. Reproducibility of the radiographic metatarsophalangeal angle in hallux surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-A:494–499.

11. Coughlin MJ, Freund E, Roger A. Mann Award. The reliability of angular measurements in hallux valgus deformities. Foot Ankle Int. 2001; 22:369–379.

12. Karasick D, Wapner KL. Hallux valgus deformity: preoperative radiologic assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990; 155:119–123.

13. Hardy RH, Clapham JC. Observations on hallux valgus; based on a controlled series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1951; 33-B:376–391.

14. Mann RA, Coughlin MJ. Hallux Valgus. In : Coughlin MJ, Mann RA, Saltzman CL, editors. Surgery of the Foot and Ankle. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier;2007. p. 183–362.

15. King DM, Toolan BC. Associated deformities and hypermobility in hallux valgus: an investigation with weightbearing radiographs. Foot Ankle Int. 2004; 25:251–255.

16. Bouaicha S, Ehrmann C, Moor BK, Maquieira GJ, Espinosa N. Radiographic analysis of metatarsus primus elevatus and hallux rigidus. Foot Ankle Int. 2010; 31:807–814.

17. Trnka HJ, Hofstaetter SG, Hofstaetter JG, Gruber F, Adams SB Jr, Easley ME. Intermediate-term results of the Ludloff osteotomy in one hundred and eleven feet. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90:531–539.

18. Okuda R, Kinoshita M, Yasuda T, Jotoku T, Kitano N, Shima H. The shape of the lateral edge of the first metatarsal head as a risk factor for recurrence of hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89:2163–2172.

19. Choi GW, Choi WJ, Yoon HS, Lee JW. Additional surgical factors affecting the recurrence of hallux valgus after Ludloff osteotomy. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B:803–808.

20. Wilkerson RD, Mason MA. Differences in men's and women's mean ankle ligamentous laxity. Iowa Orthop J. 2000; 20:46–48.

21. Coughlin MJ, Shurnas PS. Hallux valgus in men. Part II: first ray mobility after bunionectomy and factors associated with hallux valgus deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2003; 24:73–78.