Chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for hallux valgus angle and intermetatarsal angle correction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and complication rates between chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for correcting hallux valgus. Two i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research Vol. 19; no. 1; pp. 566 - 8
Main Authors Peng, Yu-Ning, Peng, Yu-Hsiang, Chen, Carl P. C.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BioMed Central Ltd 14.09.2024
BMC
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1749-799X
1749-799X
DOI10.1186/s13018-024-05007-0

Cover

Loading…
Abstract This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and complication rates between chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for correcting hallux valgus. Two investigators independently searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2007 to 2018 on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Next, chevron and scarf osteotomies were compared for their postoperative outcomes using HVA, IMA, and AOFAS scores and their complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3). Six RCTs-comprising 507 feet, of which 261 and 246 underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies, respectively-were included. The meta-analysis revealed that chevron osteotomy led to significantly smaller postoperative HVAs than scarf osteotomy (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.94, 95% CI = - 2.65 to - 1.29, P < .00001). However, the differences in postoperative IMA (WMD = - 0.44, 95% CI = - 1.10 to 0.22, P = .19), postoperative AOFAS scores (WMD = 0.75; 95% CI = - 5.32 to 6.82; P = .81), and complication rates (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.65-2.27, P = .53) between feet that underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies were nonsignificant. Compared with scarf osteotomy, chevron osteotomy had significantly more favorable postoperative outcomes in terms of HVA correction, but not in terms of IMA, AOFAS scores, or complication rates. Level I, systemic review and meta-analysis.
AbstractList This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and complication rates between chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for correcting hallux valgus. Two investigators independently searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2007 to 2018 on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Next, chevron and scarf osteotomies were compared for their postoperative outcomes using HVA, IMA, and AOFAS scores and their complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3). Six RCTs-comprising 507 feet, of which 261 and 246 underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies, respectively-were included. The meta-analysis revealed that chevron osteotomy led to significantly smaller postoperative HVAs than scarf osteotomy (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.94, 95% CI = - 2.65 to - 1.29, P < .00001). However, the differences in postoperative IMA (WMD = - 0.44, 95% CI = - 1.10 to 0.22, P = .19), postoperative AOFAS scores (WMD = 0.75; 95% CI = - 5.32 to 6.82; P = .81), and complication rates (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.65-2.27, P = .53) between feet that underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies were nonsignificant. Compared with scarf osteotomy, chevron osteotomy had significantly more favorable postoperative outcomes in terms of HVA correction, but not in terms of IMA, AOFAS scores, or complication rates. Level I, systemic review and meta-analysis.
Abstract Background This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and complication rates between chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for correcting hallux valgus. Methods Two investigators independently searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2007 to 2018 on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Next, chevron and scarf osteotomies were compared for their postoperative outcomes using HVA, IMA, and AOFAS scores and their complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3). Results Six RCTs—comprising 507 feet, of which 261 and 246 underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies, respectively—were included. The meta-analysis revealed that chevron osteotomy led to significantly smaller postoperative HVAs than scarf osteotomy (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.94, 95% CI = − 2.65 to − 1.29, P < .00001). However, the differences in postoperative IMA (WMD = − 0.44, 95% CI = − 1.10 to 0.22, P = .19), postoperative AOFAS scores (WMD = 0.75; 95% CI = − 5.32 to 6.82; P = .81), and complication rates (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.65–2.27, P = .53) between feet that underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies were nonsignificant. Conclusions Compared with scarf osteotomy, chevron osteotomy had significantly more favorable postoperative outcomes in terms of HVA correction, but not in terms of IMA, AOFAS scores, or complication rates. Level of evidence Level I, systemic review and meta-analysis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and complication rates between chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for correcting hallux valgus.BACKGROUNDThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and complication rates between chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for correcting hallux valgus.Two investigators independently searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2007 to 2018 on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Next, chevron and scarf osteotomies were compared for their postoperative outcomes using HVA, IMA, and AOFAS scores and their complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3).METHODSTwo investigators independently searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2007 to 2018 on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Next, chevron and scarf osteotomies were compared for their postoperative outcomes using HVA, IMA, and AOFAS scores and their complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3).Six RCTs-comprising 507 feet, of which 261 and 246 underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies, respectively-were included. The meta-analysis revealed that chevron osteotomy led to significantly smaller postoperative HVAs than scarf osteotomy (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.94, 95% CI = - 2.65 to - 1.29, P < .00001). However, the differences in postoperative IMA (WMD = - 0.44, 95% CI = - 1.10 to 0.22, P = .19), postoperative AOFAS scores (WMD = 0.75; 95% CI = - 5.32 to 6.82; P = .81), and complication rates (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.65-2.27, P = .53) between feet that underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies were nonsignificant.RESULTSSix RCTs-comprising 507 feet, of which 261 and 246 underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies, respectively-were included. The meta-analysis revealed that chevron osteotomy led to significantly smaller postoperative HVAs than scarf osteotomy (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.94, 95% CI = - 2.65 to - 1.29, P < .00001). However, the differences in postoperative IMA (WMD = - 0.44, 95% CI = - 1.10 to 0.22, P = .19), postoperative AOFAS scores (WMD = 0.75; 95% CI = - 5.32 to 6.82; P = .81), and complication rates (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.65-2.27, P = .53) between feet that underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies were nonsignificant.Compared with scarf osteotomy, chevron osteotomy had significantly more favorable postoperative outcomes in terms of HVA correction, but not in terms of IMA, AOFAS scores, or complication rates.CONCLUSIONSCompared with scarf osteotomy, chevron osteotomy had significantly more favorable postoperative outcomes in terms of HVA correction, but not in terms of IMA, AOFAS scores, or complication rates.Level I, systemic review and meta-analysis.LEVEL OF EVIDENCELevel I, systemic review and meta-analysis.
Background This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and complication rates between chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for correcting hallux valgus. Methods Two investigators independently searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2007 to 2018 on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Next, chevron and scarf osteotomies were compared for their postoperative outcomes using HVA, IMA, and AOFAS scores and their complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3). Results Six RCTs--comprising 507 feet, of which 261 and 246 underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies, respectively--were included. The meta-analysis revealed that chevron osteotomy led to significantly smaller postoperative HVAs than scarf osteotomy (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.94, 95% CI = - 2.65 to - 1.29, P < .00001). However, the differences in postoperative IMA (WMD = - 0.44, 95% CI = - 1.10 to 0.22, P = .19), postoperative AOFAS scores (WMD = 0.75; 95% CI = - 5.32 to 6.82; P = .81), and complication rates (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.65-2.27, P = .53) between feet that underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies were nonsignificant. Conclusions Compared with scarf osteotomy, chevron osteotomy had significantly more favorable postoperative outcomes in terms of HVA correction, but not in terms of IMA, AOFAS scores, or complication rates. Level of evidence Level I, systemic review and meta-analysis. Keywords: Hallux valgus, Chevron osteotomy, Scarf osteotomy, Hallux valgus angle, Intermetatarsal angle, Complication
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and complication rates between chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for correcting hallux valgus. Two investigators independently searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2007 to 2018 on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Next, chevron and scarf osteotomies were compared for their postoperative outcomes using HVA, IMA, and AOFAS scores and their complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3). Six RCTs--comprising 507 feet, of which 261 and 246 underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies, respectively--were included. The meta-analysis revealed that chevron osteotomy led to significantly smaller postoperative HVAs than scarf osteotomy (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.94, 95% CI = - 2.65 to - 1.29, P < .00001). However, the differences in postoperative IMA (WMD = - 0.44, 95% CI = - 1.10 to 0.22, P = .19), postoperative AOFAS scores (WMD = 0.75; 95% CI = - 5.32 to 6.82; P = .81), and complication rates (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.65-2.27, P = .53) between feet that underwent chevron and scarf osteotomies were nonsignificant. Compared with scarf osteotomy, chevron osteotomy had significantly more favorable postoperative outcomes in terms of HVA correction, but not in terms of IMA, AOFAS scores, or complication rates.
ArticleNumber 566
Audience Academic
Author Peng, Yu-Ning
Chen, Carl P. C.
Peng, Yu-Hsiang
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Yu-Ning
  surname: Peng
  fullname: Peng, Yu-Ning
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Yu-Hsiang
  surname: Peng
  fullname: Peng, Yu-Hsiang
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Carl P. C.
  surname: Chen
  fullname: Chen, Carl P. C.
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39272201$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNp9kk1vFSEUhiemxn7oH3BhJnHjZioMMMO4a26sNmniRhN35AwcbmmYoQL36vUf-S_L_bCpxhgWnBye9w1w3tPqaA4zVtVLSs4pld3bRBmhsiEtb4ggpG_Ik-qE9nxo-mH4evSoPq5OU7olhRKSP6uO2dD2bUvoSfVrcYPrGOY6pIwhh2lTw2zqpCHaRz0bYn0D3q9-1Gvwy1Uq1NLjjnVzxjhhhgwxgT-c6BAj6uzC_K6GOm2K1QTZ6Tri2uH3nXIramAGv0ku1cHWsXTD5H6iKfo5x-B9KXN04NPz6qktG7447GfVl8v3nxcfm-tPH64WF9eN5pLkRiMIawlHNNBxagSaXgMfRhhHPVote0MYGai2AgRnkmKHnLZcc0s7pJadVVd7XxPgVt1FN0HcqABO7RohLhXE8hCPSvBectuxcQDDBVBASri1zPCu7XA0xevN3usuhm8rTFlNLmn0HmYMq6RY4QWTgrGCvt6jSyjObrYhR9BbXF1IIruOtaIt1Pk_qLIMTq58GVpX-n8IXh1usBonNA_v-Z2AArR7QMeQUkT7gFCitjFT-5ipEjO1i5kiRST_EmlX5u-2MwPn_ye9Bz6M2vQ
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1186_s13018_025_05569_7
Cites_doi 10.1053/j.jfas.2012.02.016
10.1177/1071100716639574
10.1016/j.fas.2015.11.004
10.1016/j.fas.2018.02.017
10.2106/00004623-200010000-00002
10.1177/1071100717704941
10.1016/j.foot.2016.09.002
10.1053/j.jfas.2017.06.027
10.1302/0301-620X.86B7.15108
10.3113/FAI.2007.0537
10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
10.1016/j.fas.2018.09.003
10.1186/1757-1146-3-21
10.1097/00003086-200110000-00008
10.1002/9780470712184
10.1016/j.fas.2015.05.012
10.3113/FAI.2008.1209
10.1016/j.fcl.2012.06.007
10.1007/s11999-010-1510-6
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2024. The Author(s).
COPYRIGHT 2024 BioMed Central Ltd.
Copyright_xml – notice: 2024. The Author(s).
– notice: COPYRIGHT 2024 BioMed Central Ltd.
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
DOA
DOI 10.1186/s13018-024-05007-0
DatabaseName CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE

MEDLINE - Academic


Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
EISSN 1749-799X
EndPage 8
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_54784f63b9ad45a1ae104ff3d4626ebd
A808663252
39272201
10_1186_s13018_024_05007_0
Genre Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
GroupedDBID ---
0R~
29L
2WC
53G
5GY
5VS
7X7
88E
8FI
8FJ
AAFWJ
AAJSJ
AASML
AAWTL
AAYXX
ABDBF
ABUWG
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACPRK
ACUHS
ADBBV
ADRAZ
ADUKV
AENEX
AFKRA
AFPKN
AHBYD
AHMBA
AHYZX
ALIPV
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMKLP
AMTXH
AOIJS
BAPOH
BAWUL
BCNDV
BENPR
BFQNJ
BMC
BPHCQ
BVXVI
C6C
CCPQU
CITATION
CS3
DIK
E3Z
EBD
EBLON
EBS
EMOBN
ESX
F5P
FYUFA
GROUPED_DOAJ
GX1
HMCUK
HYE
IAO
IHR
INH
INR
IPT
ITC
KQ8
M1P
M48
M~E
O5R
O5S
OK1
OVT
P2P
PGMZT
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PQQKQ
PROAC
PSQYO
RBZ
RNS
ROL
RPM
RSV
SMD
SOJ
SV3
TUS
UKHRP
WOQ
WOW
~8M
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
PJZUB
PPXIY
PMFND
7X8
PUEGO
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-cea5ff04eeda641d5ed7ca49babbcbfc87d03091cf5a54381e6e4124c4f16e1f3
IEDL.DBID M48
ISSN 1749-799X
IngestDate Wed Aug 27 01:06:39 EDT 2025
Mon Jul 21 11:37:50 EDT 2025
Tue Jun 17 22:04:27 EDT 2025
Tue Jun 10 21:01:58 EDT 2025
Mon Jul 21 06:08:50 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 02:17:51 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 22:58:32 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Keywords Complication
Hallux valgus
Chevron osteotomy
Hallux valgus angle
Intermetatarsal angle
Scarf osteotomy
Language English
License 2024. The Author(s).
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c480t-cea5ff04eeda641d5ed7ca49babbcbfc87d03091cf5a54381e6e4124c4f16e1f3
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
OpenAccessLink https://doaj.org/article/54784f63b9ad45a1ae104ff3d4626ebd
PMID 39272201
PQID 3104538533
PQPubID 23479
PageCount 8
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_54784f63b9ad45a1ae104ff3d4626ebd
proquest_miscellaneous_3104538533
gale_infotracmisc_A808663252
gale_infotracacademiconefile_A808663252
pubmed_primary_39272201
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13018_024_05007_0
crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s13018_024_05007_0
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2024-09-14
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2024-09-14
PublicationDate_xml – month: 09
  year: 2024
  text: 2024-09-14
  day: 14
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace England
PublicationPlace_xml – name: England
PublicationTitle Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
PublicationTitleAlternate J Orthop Surg Res
PublicationYear 2024
Publisher BioMed Central Ltd
BMC
Publisher_xml – name: BioMed Central Ltd
– name: BMC
References 5007_CR1
SE Smith (5007_CR5) 2012; 51
O Elshazly (5007_CR15) 2019; 25
Q Ma (5007_CR16) 2019; 25
DT Loveday (5007_CR21) 2016; 22
JP Higgins (5007_CR11) 2008
A Deenik (5007_CR12) 2008; 29
A Bia (5007_CR3) 2018; 57
A Liberati (5007_CR10) 2009; 8
5007_CR4
SP Adam (5007_CR7) 2011; 469
N Maffulli (5007_CR19) 2009; 4
M Fakoor (5007_CR6) 2014; 2
W Schneider (5007_CR17) 2004; 86
GJ Sammarco (5007_CR20) 2001; 391
RMSM Jeuken (5007_CR14) 2016; 37
E Wagner (5007_CR2) 2012; 17
B van Groningen (5007_CR18) 2016; 29
AR Deenik (5007_CR8) 2007; 28
DLS Mahadevan (5007_CR9) 2016; 22
MWJ Lee (5007_CR13) 2017; 38
References_xml – volume: 51
  start-page: 437
  issue: 4
  year: 2012
  ident: 5007_CR5
  publication-title: J Foot Ankle Surg
  doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2012.02.016
– volume: 37
  start-page: 687
  issue: 7
  year: 2016
  ident: 5007_CR14
  publication-title: Foot Ankle Int
  doi: 10.1177/1071100716639574
– volume: 22
  start-page: 259
  issue: 4
  year: 2016
  ident: 5007_CR21
  publication-title: Foot Ankle Surg
  doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2015.11.004
– volume: 25
  start-page: 469
  issue: 4
  year: 2019
  ident: 5007_CR15
  publication-title: Foot Ankle Surg
  doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2018.02.017
– ident: 5007_CR4
  doi: 10.2106/00004623-200010000-00002
– volume: 38
  start-page: 838
  issue: 8
  year: 2017
  ident: 5007_CR13
  publication-title: Foot Ankle Int
  doi: 10.1177/1071100717704941
– volume: 29
  start-page: 18
  year: 2016
  ident: 5007_CR18
  publication-title: Foot
  doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2016.09.002
– volume: 57
  start-page: 123
  issue: 1
  year: 2018
  ident: 5007_CR3
  publication-title: J Foot Ankle Surg
  doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.06.027
– volume: 86
  start-page: 1016
  issue: 7
  year: 2004
  ident: 5007_CR17
  publication-title: J Bone Joint Surg Br
  doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.86B7.15108
– volume: 28
  start-page: 537
  issue: 5
  year: 2007
  ident: 5007_CR8
  publication-title: Foot Ankle Int
  doi: 10.3113/FAI.2007.0537
– volume: 2
  start-page: 31
  issue: 1
  year: 2014
  ident: 5007_CR6
  publication-title: Arch Bone Jt Surg
– volume: 8
  start-page: e1000100
  issue: 7
  year: 2009
  ident: 5007_CR10
  publication-title: PLoS Med
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
– volume: 25
  start-page: 755
  issue: 6
  year: 2019
  ident: 5007_CR16
  publication-title: Foot Ankle Surg
  doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2018.09.003
– ident: 5007_CR1
  doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-3-21
– volume: 391
  start-page: 59
  year: 2001
  ident: 5007_CR20
  publication-title: Clin Orthop Relat Res
  doi: 10.1097/00003086-200110000-00008
– volume: 4–
  start-page: 525
  issue: 4
  year: 2009
  ident: 5007_CR19
  publication-title: Orthop Clin North Am
– volume-title: Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
  year: 2008
  ident: 5007_CR11
  doi: 10.1002/9780470712184
– volume: 22
  start-page: 109
  issue: 2
  year: 2016
  ident: 5007_CR9
  publication-title: Foot Ankle Surg
  doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2015.05.012
– volume: 29
  start-page: 1209
  issue: 12
  year: 2008
  ident: 5007_CR12
  publication-title: Foot Ankle Int
  doi: 10.3113/FAI.2008.1209
– volume: 17
  start-page: 481
  issue: 3
  year: 2012
  ident: 5007_CR2
  publication-title: Foot Ankle Clin
  doi: 10.1016/j.fcl.2012.06.007
– volume: 469
  start-page: 854
  issue: 3
  year: 2011
  ident: 5007_CR7
  publication-title: Clin Orthop Relat Res
  doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1510-6
SSID ssj0050584
Score 2.3473787
SecondaryResourceType review_article
Snippet This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopedic...
Background This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American...
Abstract Background This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the differences in hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA),...
SourceID doaj
proquest
gale
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Open Website
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
StartPage 566
SubjectTerms Bunion
Chevron osteotomy
Comparative analysis
Complication
Hallux valgus
Hallux Valgus - diagnostic imaging
Hallux Valgus - surgery
Hallux valgus angle
Humans
Intermetatarsal angle
Metatarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging
Metatarsal Bones - surgery
Osteotomy
Osteotomy - methods
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Scarf osteotomy
Treatment Outcome
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  dbid: DOA
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Nb9QwELVQT70gEAUCBRkJiQOyuk5sx-HWVq0qJDhRqTfLnwVpN0GbXQT8o_7LztjZpQsSXLhF8Vhx7PHMm8TzhpDX-LfMtrZlXLUQoDROM51kYrzmMWlnW58DxQ8f1cWleH8lr-6U-sIzYYUeuEzcEfJNiaQa19kgpOU2QgCRUhMEQPHoAlpf8HmbYKrYYHDrWmxSZLQ6GsFSc83AHzFow49zO24os_X_aZN_Q5rZ45w_IPcnqEiPyxAfknuxf0RuTj_Hb8uhp5icMayGxQ9q-0BHb5fpzj2AohTLpKy_U1Cl6_UIUtfzmGWRIWK5wGOGENTCA0qLxzIdOcnhHbX0F8EzLcktuSd2YnaiMaFDouDowrD48jMGOp15n8NlrgQyHpDL87NPpxdsKrfAvNCzFfPRypRmArymVYIHGUPrreicdc675HUb8H8M90laicxgUUWsXe1F4iry1Dwme_3Qx6eEerBavrOd1g0H72c1zH8AJBekh4BNuorwzewbP3GRY0mMuckxiVamrJiBFTN5xcysIm-3fb4WJo6_Sp_gom4lkUU73wDdMpNumX_pVkXeoEoY3OswPG-nlAV4SWTNMscaAkLV1LKuyOGOJOxRv9P8aqNUBpvwYFsfh_VoAF0L8DkAuivypGjbdswAXdsaANqz__Euz8l-nfW_Y1wckr3Vch1fAJ5auZd569wC6v8fKg
  priority: 102
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
Title Chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for hallux valgus angle and intermetatarsal angle correction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39272201
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3104538533
https://doaj.org/article/54784f63b9ad45a1ae104ff3d4626ebd
Volume 19
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3di9QwEA_3AXIvovhV71wiCD5IddMmbVYQ2TvuOBbuEHVh30Kajz1ht_XaXbnzP_K_dCZtV09Pn1qaCU0zM5mZJvMbQl7gbpnOdR6zLIcAJS1kLL3wMUuY87LQuQmB4tl5djrlk5mYbZG-3FE3gc2toR3Wk5rWi9dXl9fvQeHfBYWX2ZsG1mEmY7A28VCEX2_bZBcsU46KesY3uwpg7CXvE2du7bdH7oC_kCdJVyOmt1MBzv_vRfsPVzSYpJN75G7nS9Jxy_z7ZMuVD8iPowv3ra5Kitkb1apaXlNdWtoYXfvfnoGvSrGOyvqKgqzN1w1QzRcu0CKERL3Ec4gwNfCCtsVgHY-QBfGWavoLAZq22S-hJ3aKdYdzQitPwRLaavnlu7O0OxS_gNtQKqR5SKYnx5-PTuOuHkNsuByuYuO08H7IwazqjDMrnM2N5qNCF4UpvJG5xQ0bZrzQAqHDXOawuLXhnmWO-fQR2Smr0j0h1MCyZkZ6JGXKwDxqCayw4OpZYSCiE0VEWD_7ynRg5VgzY6FC0CIz1TJPAfNUYJ4aRuTVps_XFqrjv9SHyNQNJcJshwdVPVed1ioEO-M-S4uRtlxoph1Er96nlkMc6AobkZcoEgrFE4ZndJfTAB-JsFpqLCFizNJEJBE5uEEJSmxuND_vhUphE558K121bhS43xyMEnjlEXncSttmzL2sPv1nyz7ZS4J8j2LGD8jOql67Z-BFrYoB2c5n-YDsjseTTxO4Hh6ff_g4CP8kBkFtfgKULh4Z
linkProvider Scholars Portal
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Chevron+osteotomy+and+scarf+osteotomy+for+hallux+valgus+angle+and+intermetatarsal+angle+correction%3A+a+systematic+review+and+meta-analysis+of+randomized+controlled+trials&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+orthopaedic+surgery+and+research&rft.au=Peng%2C+Yu-Ning&rft.au=Peng%2C+Yu-Hsiang&rft.au=Chen%2C+Carl+P+C&rft.date=2024-09-14&rft.eissn=1749-799X&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=566&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs13018-024-05007-0&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F39272201&rft.externalDocID=39272201
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1749-799X&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1749-799X&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1749-799X&client=summon