Salvage First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Fusion with a Three-Dimensional-Printed Implant for Osseous Defects: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to describe a case series of revision first metatarsophalangeal joint fusion with a three-dimensional (3-D)-printed implant for osseous deficits of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. Bone defects of the first ray are a common problem in foot and ankle surgery. Etiologies include nonunion, avascular necrosis, osteomyelitis, failed first metatarsophalangeal joint implant arthroplasty, and failed hemijoint resection arthroplasty. Treatment options include acute shortening, block allograft, block autograft, distraction osteogenesis, vascularized free fibula, Masquelet technique, and partial first-ray amputation. Three-dimensional printing provides an opportunity to improve outcomes, with less donor site morbidity and less extensive recovery time than an external fixation device. It has been used in other facets of foot and ankle surgery with encouraging results. METHODS: Three patients (four feet) underwent revision first metatarsophalangeal joint fusion with a 3-D-printed implant. Reasons for revision included avascular necrosis after distal metatarsal osteotomy in one patient and bone deficit after failed first metatarsophalangeal joint implant in two patients. RESULTS: All patients had a minimum follow up of 12 months. Two patients had painful hardware and had to undergo revision due to implant design. At most recent follow up all patients were pain free with improved pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: In revisional first metatarsophalangeal joint surgery with osseous deficits, the goal is to restore length and alignment, which improves function of the medial column. Custom 3-D-printed implants for first metatarsophalangeal joint revision can provide an opportunity for improved outcomes and healing.

A Surgical Approach to Location-specific Neuropathic Foot Ulceration.

The management of pedal ulcerations is often challenging because of a failure to correct underlying biomechanical deformities. Without correcting the biomechanical driving force creating the increased plantar pressures, it is unlikely for routine wound care to provide lasting solutions to pedal ulcerations. Patients with diabetes often experience glycosylation of their tendons, leading to contracture and pursuant deformity, creating imbalanced pressure distributions and eventual plantar ulceration. This article evaluates the efficacy of various lower extremity tendon transfers to balance the foot and redistribute plantar pressures to prevent or heal ulceration.

Evaluation of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score for detecting necrotizing soft tissue infections in patients with diabetes and lower extremity infection.

AIMS: The aim of this pilot study was to assess the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC), a scoring system for Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections, to diagnose Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections of the lower extremity in patients with diabetes. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients with lower extremity infections were prospectively enrolled. The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis was calculated and logistic regression was performed for each laboratory value. RESULTS: The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis was associated with Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection diagnosis in patients with diabetes (p = 0.01). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 100%, 69%, 16.6%, and 100% respectively. Elevated C-reactive protein (OR 1.01, p = 0.02, 95% CI [1.002-1.23]) and white blood cell count (OR 1.34, p < 0.01, 95% CI [1.1-1.7]) were associated with Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection. CONCLUSIONS: The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis was useful as a negative predictor of Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection while C- reactive protein and white blood cell count may have value as individual predictors. We recommend high clinical suspicion of Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections in diabetics as laboratory evaluation may be non-specific.