Fusion Versus Flexible Reconstruction for Patients with Flexible Flatfoot

Abstract

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: When passively correctible, adult acquired flatfoot deformities (AAFD) are often treated with joint-sparing procedures. Questions remain, however, as to the efficacy of such flexible procedures when clinical deformities become more severe. In patients with increasingly severe deformities, a primary fusion may lead to more predictable outcomes, but also risks nonunion. The primary aim of this study was to compare the reoperation rates and complication rates following flexible reconstructions versus fusion procedures in the treatment of flexible AAFD. Methods: All patients, who were diagnosed and treated surgically for a flexible AAFD between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2016, were identified. Exclusion criteria included incomplete medical records, rigid flatfoot deformities, and prior flatfoot surgery. Procedures defined as flexible reconstructions included medial calcaneal osteotomy (MCO), lateral calcaneal lengthening (LCL), double osteotomy, posterior tibial tendon (PTT) debridement, or PTT augmentation; procedures defined as fusions included subtalar (ST) arthrodesis, talonavicular (TN) arthrodesis, calcaneocuboid (CCJ) arthrodesis (alone or in combination with a LCL), double arthrodesis, or triple arthrodesis. Patient demographics, type of surgical procedure, postoperative complications, and reoperation rates were collected. Bivariate analysis was performed to compare patients who had a flexible reconstruction procedure versus a fusion procedure. Results: Two-hundred-thirty-nine patients (255 feet, mean follow up 62±50 months, range 15-104) were included. Two-hundred-eight (87%) patients underwent a flexible reconstruction, average age 55 (±12.0), while 31 (13%) patients underwent a fusion, average age 58 (±14.4) (p = 0.161). Age, BMI, diabetes and neuropathy rates were similar for both groups. Fifty-four patients (24%) underwent a flexible reconstruction and returned to the OR versus 11 (34%) in the fusion group (p = 0.217). Nonunion occurred more in the fusion group, with 5 (16%) versus 10 (4%) nonunions in the flexible reconstruction (p = 0.027). Symptomatic nonunion rates were similar. Rates of surgical revision for nonunion among patients returning to the OR were similar between flexible (7/54, 3%) and fusion (3/11, 9%) groups (p = 0.117). Conclusion: No significant difference in reoperation rates was found between flexible AAFD patients who were treated with flexible reconstructions versus fusions. As expected, the nonunion rate was significantly higher in the fusion group. Notably, rates of revision surgery for nonunion were similar between groups. Our findings suggest that nonunion should be less of a concern when considering a flexible versus fusion procedure for patients with a severe AAFD, and that other factors such as the degree of deformity should guide decision making.