header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock

Foot & Ankle

Metallic hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of end-stage hallux rigidus

mid-term implant survival, functional outcome and cost analysis



Download PDF

Abstract

Aims

To examine the mid-term outcome and cost utility of the BioPro metallic hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of hallux rigidius.

Patients and Methods

We reviewed 97 consecutive BioPro metallic hemiarthroplasties performed in 80 patients for end-stage hallux rigidus, with a minimum follow-up of five years. There were 19 men and 61 women; their mean age was 55 years (22 to 74). No patient was lost to follow-up.

Results

A total of 12 patients (15 first metatarso-phalangeal joints (MTPJs)) required a revision; one for infection, two for osteolysis and 12 for pain. The all cause rate of survival at five years was 85.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.5 to 87.9). Younger age was a significant predictor of revision (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17, p = 0.014) on excluding infection and adjusting for confounding variables (Cox regression). Significant improvements were demonstrated at five years in the Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (13.9, 95% CI 10.5 to 17.2) and in the physical component of the Short Form-12 score (6.5, 95% CI 4.1 to 8.9). The overall rate of satisfaction was 75%. The cost per quality adjusted life year at five years, accounting for a 14% rate of revision was between £4431 and £6361 depending on the complexity and morbidity of the patient.

Conclusion

The BioPro hemiarthroplasty offers good short to mid-term functional outcome and is a cost effective intervention. The relatively high revision rate is associated with younger age and perhaps the use of this implant should be limited to older patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:945–51.


Correspondence should be sent to Mr N. D. Clement; e-mail:

For access options please click here