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...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research Vol. 19; no. 1; pp. 566 - 8 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
BioMed Central Ltd
14.09.2024
BMC |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 1749-799X 1749-799X |
DOI | 10.1186/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 |