Secondary Surgery Following Lapidus Bunionectomy.

While the Lapidus bunionectomy is a common procedure utilized to address hallux valgus, the incidence of secondary surgery is not well established. Our primary goal was to determine the incidence of revision surgery and hardware removal following the Lapidus bunionectomy in addition to the risk factors associated with each. A retrospective nested case-control study of adult patients who underwent a Lapidus bunionectomy for symptomatic hallux valgus over a nine-year period was performed. The incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of secondary surgery in the three years following the procedure along with the estimated independent associations and odds ratios between baseline demographic, clinical, and radiographic characteristics were calculated. Of the original cohort of 2,540 patients, 127 were identified (5.0%; CI: 4.1%, 5.8%) who underwent revision surgery and 165 (6.5%; CI: 5.5%, 7.5%) who underwent hardware removal following Lapidus bunionectomy. Initially, the hallux valgus angle, intermetatarsal angle, and tibial sesamoid position were risk factors for revision surgery. However, in adjusted analyses for revision surgery, using a screw for third point of fixation emerged as the only independent risk factor (odds ratio [OR]=3.01; CI: 1.59, 5.69). In adjusted analyses for hardware removal, female sex (OR=2.33; CI: 1.08, 5.00) and third point of fixation (OR=2.92; CI: 1.82, 4.69) emerged as independent risk factors. While the overall risks associated with Lapidus bunionectomy are low and the need for revision surgery are low, this study helps to identify specific risk factors for secondary surgery and hardware removal to help in evaluation and discussion with patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : 4.

The Effects of Endovascular Timing and In-line Flow on the Success of Pedal Amputations.

There has been a growing trend toward endovascular intervention to improve peripheral flow in patients with peripheral arterial disease. To date, there is no clear consensus regarding timing of lower-extremity amputations after revascularization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of timing between endovascular intervention and minor lower-extremity amputations and its influence on wound healing and limb loss within 1 year. A secondary purpose was to evaluate the impact of restoring in-line flow on healing rates. A total of 310 patients who underwent endovascular intervention and a minor lower-extremity amputation within 90 days were included in the study. Healing rates were defined as optimal, delayed, or failure. There was a statistically significant difference between patients with optimal healing to delayed healing and amputation ≥30 days after endovascular intervention (p = .037). We found no difference in healing rates in regard to amputation timing when examining patients who ultimately healed versus patients who failed to heal (p = .6717). Absence of in-line flow (p = .0177), male sex (p = .0090) and diabetes mellitus (p = .0076) were statistically significant factors for failing to heal. Presence of infection (p ≤ .0001) and wound dehiscence (p ≤ .001) were also associated with a failure to heal. End-stage renal disease trended toward significance for failing to heal (p = .065). Amputation-free survival at 1 year after endovascular intervention and pedal amputation was 76.8% (n = 238). Our findings suggest that in the absence of infection, performing minor lower-extremity amputations 15 to 60 days after endovascular intervention may allow for improved healing. Absence of in-line flow, male sex, diabetes mellitus, postoperative infection, and wound dehiscence are significant factors for failure.