Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle

Category: Other; Ankle; Hindfoot; Lesser Toes; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is growing in the field of foot and ankle surgery, and the MIS burr is an emerging tool. While commonly used to perform osteotomies, the burr can also be utilized for arthrodesis jo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: John Z. Zhao MD, Philip Kaiser MD, Evan Farina MD, Christina M. DeGruccio BA, Christopher P. Miller MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2022-11-01
Series:Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011421S01020
_version_ 1811191144606859264
author John Z. Zhao MD
Philip Kaiser MD
Evan Farina MD
Christina M. DeGruccio BA
Christopher P. Miller MD
author_facet John Z. Zhao MD
Philip Kaiser MD
Evan Farina MD
Christina M. DeGruccio BA
Christopher P. Miller MD
author_sort John Z. Zhao MD
collection DOAJ
description Category: Other; Ankle; Hindfoot; Lesser Toes; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is growing in the field of foot and ankle surgery, and the MIS burr is an emerging tool. While commonly used to perform osteotomies, the burr can also be utilized for arthrodesis joint preparation that traditionally would be performed through open incisions. To date, there is no study comparing the quality of joint preparation between using a fluoroscopy-guided MIS technique compared to traditional open techniques. The goal of this cadaveric study is to compare the percentage of joint surfaces prepared between MIS and open techniques, for the most common joints that are fused in foot and ankle surgery. Methods: Open joint preparation was performed under direct visualization with open incisions. MIS joint preparation was performed percutaneously using fluoroscopic guidance alone, without arthroscopy. After joint preparation, cadaveric samples were disarticulated, and joint surfaces were analyzed for percentage of cartilaginous surface removed. The percentage of joint surface prepared was compared between the open and MIS techniques. Results: Ten cadaveric samples were used for the MIS technique, and five samples for the open technique. Percentage of joint surface prepared was not statistically different for 15/17 joint surfaces. The MIS technique demonstrated statistically significant (p=0.048) better preparation than open in the talar head and the cuboid at the CC joint. Qualitative inspection of these two joints suggested the open technique frequently missed the most plantar surface of the talar head and the medial side of the CC joint, whereas the MIS technique performed better in these areas. Conclusion: The MIS technique provides similar percentages of surface area prepared compared to traditional open techniques. In certain joints with greater depth, the MIS technique may provide better joint preparation. This study suggests that MIS joint preparation is a reasonable, and possibly advantageous, alternative to open preparation in arthrodesis surgery when performed by experienced MIS surgeons.
first_indexed 2024-04-11T15:01:49Z
format Article
id doaj.art-8893db585e124be59f42c507a12f23f6
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2473-0114
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-11T15:01:49Z
publishDate 2022-11-01
publisher SAGE Publishing
record_format Article
series Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
spelling doaj.art-8893db585e124be59f42c507a12f23f62022-12-22T04:16:56ZengSAGE PublishingFoot & Ankle Orthopaedics2473-01142022-11-01710.1177/2473011421S01020Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and AnkleJohn Z. Zhao MDPhilip Kaiser MDEvan Farina MDChristina M. DeGruccio BAChristopher P. Miller MDCategory: Other; Ankle; Hindfoot; Lesser Toes; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is growing in the field of foot and ankle surgery, and the MIS burr is an emerging tool. While commonly used to perform osteotomies, the burr can also be utilized for arthrodesis joint preparation that traditionally would be performed through open incisions. To date, there is no study comparing the quality of joint preparation between using a fluoroscopy-guided MIS technique compared to traditional open techniques. The goal of this cadaveric study is to compare the percentage of joint surfaces prepared between MIS and open techniques, for the most common joints that are fused in foot and ankle surgery. Methods: Open joint preparation was performed under direct visualization with open incisions. MIS joint preparation was performed percutaneously using fluoroscopic guidance alone, without arthroscopy. After joint preparation, cadaveric samples were disarticulated, and joint surfaces were analyzed for percentage of cartilaginous surface removed. The percentage of joint surface prepared was compared between the open and MIS techniques. Results: Ten cadaveric samples were used for the MIS technique, and five samples for the open technique. Percentage of joint surface prepared was not statistically different for 15/17 joint surfaces. The MIS technique demonstrated statistically significant (p=0.048) better preparation than open in the talar head and the cuboid at the CC joint. Qualitative inspection of these two joints suggested the open technique frequently missed the most plantar surface of the talar head and the medial side of the CC joint, whereas the MIS technique performed better in these areas. Conclusion: The MIS technique provides similar percentages of surface area prepared compared to traditional open techniques. In certain joints with greater depth, the MIS technique may provide better joint preparation. This study suggests that MIS joint preparation is a reasonable, and possibly advantageous, alternative to open preparation in arthrodesis surgery when performed by experienced MIS surgeons.https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011421S01020
spellingShingle John Z. Zhao MD
Philip Kaiser MD
Evan Farina MD
Christina M. DeGruccio BA
Christopher P. Miller MD
Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
title Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_full Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_fullStr Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_full_unstemmed Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_short Quality of MIS vs Open Joint Preparations of the Foot and Ankle
title_sort quality of mis vs open joint preparations of the foot and ankle
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011421S01020
work_keys_str_mv AT johnzzhaomd qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle
AT philipkaisermd qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle
AT evanfarinamd qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle
AT christinamdegruccioba qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle
AT christopherpmillermd qualityofmisvsopenjointpreparationsofthefootandankle