Treatment of Hallux Rigidus: Comparison of Hemiarthroplasty with Cartiva Implant, Allograft Interpositional Arthroplasty, and Arthrodesis
Background: A modern technique for the treatment of hallux rigidus (HR) is first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) hemiarthroplasty with the use of a Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant. Current scientific literature reporting early outcomes of the procedure is sparse and mixed, indicating the need for furt...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/24730114251324184 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: A modern technique for the treatment of hallux rigidus (HR) is first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) hemiarthroplasty with the use of a Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant. Current scientific literature reporting early outcomes of the procedure is sparse and mixed, indicating the need for further analysis. The objective of this study was to compare improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) scores with first MTP hemiarthroplasty with Cartiva implant (HI), allograft interposition arthroplasty (IA), and arthrodesis (A) in patients who failed conservative management or cheilectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 99 patients was performed. There were 49 patients in the HI group, 25 patients in the IA group, and 25 patients in the A group. A follow-up survey was administered from which updated VAS and updated American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society scores were obtained. Results: Mean VAS scores improved by 2.73 (SD ± 2.80) points in the HI group, 4.16 (SD ± 2.01) points in the IA group, and 4.36 (SD ± 3.67) points in the A group ( P = .035). Mean AOFAS scores improved by 14.90 (SD ± 17.31) points in the HI group, 27.80 (SD ± 15.22) points in the IA group, and 27.88 (SD ± 25.34) points in the A group ( P = .005). There were 3 (6.1%) revision surgeries in the HI group, 2 (8.0%) revision surgeries in the A group, and no revision surgeries in the IA group ( P = .59). Within the HI group, all 3 revisions were due to pain associated with the implant and were revised to MTP arthrodesis. The A group had 1 revision due to broken hardware and 1 revision due to infection. In both cases, the patients were treated with hardware removal. Conclusion: Pain and function may be slightly more improved with interpositional arthroplasty and arthrodesis for the treatment of HR, when compared to hemiarthroplasty with the Cartiva implant. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic studies; case-control study. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2473-0114 |