Background: Algorithms have been developed to aid in the decision process in order to choose an optimal surgical procedure for different types of hallux valgus. These algorithms are evaluated in this study with current level 1 and 2 studies.

Materials and methods: Criteria for typing hallux valgus and surgical procedures in the treatment algorithms as proposed by Coughlin and Robinson were categorized. PubMed searches were performed to obtain data regarding preoperative parameters and outcome of surgical procedures. Gathered data were used to assess validity of algorithms as well as the validity of factors used in preoperative planning of hallux valgus surgery and proposed advantages of specific surgical techniques.

Results: The PubMed search on preoperative criteria resulted in 196 references; four were classified as level 2 evidence. The PubMed search of surgical procedures resulted in 36 references of which seventeen were classified as level 1 or 2 evidence. Outcome was determined by severity of hallux valgus angle. The advantages of the certain procedures as advised in the algorithms to correct specific hallux valgus deformities have not been established in controlled clinical studies.

Conclusion: Widely accepted flow-charts for the treatment of hallux valgus are not based on level 1 and 2 studies. Hallux valgus angle is found to be the single significant parameter for prediction of the surgical outcome. Correction declines with hallux valgus angle exceeding 36 degrees, in these cases outcome of osteotomy becomes more uncertain.

•    Review
•    Hallux valgus
•    Algorithm

Deenik A, Verburg A, Louwerens JW, de Waal Malefijt M, de Bie R (2016) Evidence of Treatment Algorithms for Hallux Valgus. JSM Foot Ankle 1(1): 1003.

Different types of hallux valgus have been described and categorized with associated flowcharts. These types are categorized as mild, moderate, and severe hallux valgus, first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) congruency, and tarsometatarsal (TMT) hypermobility. Correction is advised using specific matching procedures; however, flowcharts differ, they are derived from a historical experience based perspective and data are often based on level 3 evidence.

In defining hallux valgus type’s opinions vary on whether the intermetatarsal angle (IMA), the hallux valgus angle (HVA), or both should be used as parameters for determining the severity of hallux valgus [1]. Controversy exists whether TMT hypermobility requires treatment by TMT arthrodesis [2], whereas others have found that a first metatarsal osteotomy can suffice [3,4]. Another topic of discussion is the optimal treatment strategy for severe hallux valgus [5]. Some authors favour a proximal procedure [6], while others propagate a distal osteotomy [7,8]. Further, mimimally invasive procedures recently have been popularized because it is claimed that complication rate is lower and recovery faster [9].

Algorithms should be supported by the findings from current level 1 and 2 studies. Purposes of this review are to assess the validity of factors presently used in preoperative planning of hallux valgus surgery and to examine whether proposed specific surgical procedures prove to do better in outcome.

Factors in preoperative planning

The following factors used in preoperative planning were extracted from the reviews of Robinson and Coughlin to distinguish among different types of hallux valgus: Severity of hallux valgus, first MTP joint congruency, and TMT instability (Table 1)

Table 1: Criteria for classification of hallux valgus types.

[10,11]. References for these parameters and matching procedures were included.

A systematic literature search in PubMed was performed using the MeSH terms ‘hallux valgus surgery’ and ‘algorithm’ or ‘distal metatarsal articular angle’ (DMAA) or ‘hypermobility’ covering the years 1966 through 2014. Trials using this search strategy were selected when two authors (Axel Deenik and Aart Verburg) agreed on the level of evidence [12]. All studies are classified according to the same procedure. All level 1 and 2 in preoperative planning were selected.

Surgical procedures

The surgical procedures for corresponding deformities were extracted from the reviews of Robinson and Coughlin and are organized in (Table 2)

Table 2: Surgical procedures matched for correction of hallux valgus types.

[10,11]. To verify parameters on this subject, a PubMed search was performed from 1966 till 2014 on the MeSH terms ‘hallux valgus osteotomy’ and ‘randomized controlled trial’ (RCT). All randomized controlled trials were selected for this review when two authors (AD and AV) agreed on the level of evidence. Given that existing guidelines consistently lack support from level 1 and 2 studies, additional cohort studies were added by author AD and verified by author AV. Cohort studies were only included when radiographic outcome parameters HVA, recurrences and hallux varus were available.

Factors in preoperative planning

With the PubMed search on ‘hallux valgus surgery’ and (‘algorithm’ or ‘DMAA’ or ‘first ray hypermobility’), 196 articles were found. Four articles relevant in preoperative planning provided level 2 evidence [1,13-15]. Additional evidence is categorized according to the mentioned classification criteria of hallux valgus.

Hallux valgus severity

HVA and IMA are advised as markers of hallux valgus severity (level 3) [16]. Correlation between HVA and IMA was early recognized (level 3) [17,18]. Robinson states that “hallux valgus severity is commonly classified in a traditional way according to radiological criteria” (level 4) [19].

Metatarsus primus varus has a higher incidence in patients with hallux valgus compared to a normal control group (level 2) [20]. The IMA is commonly used to determine the desired amount of translation. Mann introduced IMA as a tool for hallux valgus severity (level 3) [21] after observation of limitations in correction with the McBride procedure of hallux valgus with HVA exceeding 30 degrees [22,23].

In an analysis of preoperative factors (level 3) [24], however, HVA was identified as the only significant factor in surgical correction. This conclusion is supported by a regression analysis of different preoperative factors, HVA was found to be the single significant parameter for prediction of surgical outcome. Outcome declined when the HVA exceeded 36 degrees (level 2) [1]. In using cut-off points, errors of measurement on radiographs of three degrees should be taken into account [15].

Congruency

Piggott classified groups into ‘congruous’ and ‘subluxated’ in a 6.5-year follow-up study, he concluded that congruent joints with hallux valgus did not progress significantly (level 4) [25]. DMAA was introduced as a radiological marker to decide which surgical correction is necessary [26]. The clinical value of DMAA, however, in preoperative planning might be limited because of high inter observer differences [27,28]. If on radiograph increased DMAA is suspected, obtaining an interoperative view of the MTP joint is commonly advised.

First ray mobility

Lapidus introduced hypermobility of the first TMT joint as a causative factor in hallux valgus development (level 4) [29,30]. TMT hypermobility can be measured with the Klaue device (level 2) [30], although this is clinically difficult to apply [31]. Quantification of TMT hypermobility with manual examination is subjective and not reliable [32-35]. A cadaver study showed that first ray mobility reduced after correction with proximal osteotomy combined with DSTP (level 3) [4].

Lesser MTP joint pathology, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction and medial arch degeneration are examples of other factors that might influence surgical strategy in hallux valgus in order to restore anatomy; however, they are not used in algorithms. In an anatomic study the influence of the abductor hallucis on medial arch was established (level 3) [36]. General joint laxity is discussed as a factor that might influence surgical strategy in hallux valgus (level 3) [37].

There is evidence that patient expectations differ from those of orthopaedic surgeons (level 3) [35]. These patient expectations are not met in foot scores [36].

Surgical procedures’ results

The PubMed search on the Mesh terms ‘hallux valgus osteotomy’ and ‘randomized controlled trial’ resulted in 36 references, 17 were classified as level 1 and 2 evidence [17,37-53]. Correction osteotomy is an effective treatment for painful hallux valgus compared to non operative treatment (level 1) [40,52]. A mathematical model showed that proximal procedures allow for more translation (level 1) [46]. These advantages have not been validated in randomized controlled trials (level 2) [15,41]. An earlier Cochrane review comparing surgical procedures for correction of hallux valgus failed to show superiority of any technique [43,54]. Three randomized controlled trials did not show differences in correction (level 2) [41,51,55].

Additional evidence is categorized according to the mentioned classification criteria of hallux valgus (Table 3).

Table 3: Procedures for proximal, distal, shaft osteotomies and tarsometatarsal or metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis.

Different procedures achieve adequate correction; in 4 to 17% of cases, recurrence or hallux varus occurs. After use of the Lapidus procedure, hallux varus or recurrence was reported in 12% of cases [6,56]. After MTP fusion, the average HVA was 20 degrees [57]. The specific complication of non-union occurred in ten percent. The total of alignment complications, recurrences, hallux varus, and reoperations, was roughly between five and ten percent in all studies.

Mild hallux valgus

Mann found good results with the McBride procedure, however, outcome declined in patients with HVA exceeding 30 degrees [22,23].

Distal osteotomy is the most propagated alternative. Klossoc and Saro compared two distal procedures and found no clinical differences between both groups (level 1) [54]. Either osteotomy or a soft-tissue procedure can provide adequate correction for mild hallux valgus (level 3) [58].

Moderate hallux valgus

A more proximal procedure was advised in cases where HVA is 30 degrees or more (level 3) [59]. Other reports suggest that distal osteotomy can provide adequate correction with HVA under 36 degrees (level 2) [1] or in patients with metatarsus primus varus (level 2) [7] Forty percent of patients have a HVA within these 6 degrees of angular difference [24].

Severe hallux valgus

A mathematical model showed that proximal procedures allow for more translation than distal procedures (level 1) [46]. However, in randomized controlled trials the correction of HVA or IMA on radiographs is equal between more proximal and distal procedures (level 2) [38,41]. The overall complication rate was comparable in these randomized controlled trials [38,40,41], however, specific complications did occur more frequently in proximal procedures. These complications concern plantair flexion in Lapidus procedure [41], rotational malunion and complex regional pain syndrome after the scarf osteotomy [38,60].

Congruency

Osseous correction should be obtained extra-articular in case of a congruent hallux valgus [9], the scarf osteotomy is popularized because it is flexible in redressing DMAA. In case of a non-congruent hallux valgus a distal soft-tissue procedure is necessary to obtain a congruent joint. Bock observed more severe cartilage lesions during surgery with increasing hallux valgus severity [61]. However, hallux valgus severity was not correlated with symptomatic arthritis [62].

First ray hypermobility

The Lapidus procedure was popularized as treatment for first ray hypermobility, being also one of the atavistic factors causing hallux valgus by Hansen (level 3) [56]. Coughlin found that first ray mobility reduced after performing proximal osteotomy combined with DSTP (level 2) [3]. Faber performed a randomized controlled trial comparing the results of the Lapidus procedure and a distal osteotomy (level 2) [41]. In a subgroup in which first ray hypermobility was identified, no differences were found in correction. The Lapidus procedure was reported to be appropriate in addressing remaining malalignment of the first metatarsal in hallux valgus [63].

Distal soft-tissue procedure (DSTP) is advised to correct lateral contracture. A distal soft-tissue performed in addition to a chevron osteotomy did show a significant improvement in correction, however, no difference in patient’s satisfaction [44]. The outcome of DSTP can be unpredictable, possibly because limited evidence is available concerning which structures need to be released (level 3) [31,51]. A randomized controlled trial between a first web-space versus transarticular approach for correction of moderate to severe hallux valgus did not show differences (level 2).

Minimally invasive procedures have been developed to minimize soft tissue trauma. One RCT of 20 patients between percutaneous osteotomy and scarf osteotomy showed similar correction and outcome (level 2) [23]. Faster surgical procedures were found using this type of corrective surgery (level 2) [23,32].

Another development to focus on improving early mobilization is supported by low-profile plates or compression screw fixation. Calder showed that patients with screw fixation of a Mitchell osteotomy did recover earlier in comparison to those after suture fixation (level 2) [37].

Evidence for widely accepted flow-charts are not based on level 1 and 2 studies. The advantages of the different procedures to correct specific deformities have not been established in controlled clinical studies.

It seems valid to distinguish different types of hallux valgus in preoperative planning. However, there is limited evidence of differences in outcome between the currently used subtypes. The HVA was found to be the single significant parameter for prediction of the surgical outcome, because the outcome declined when the HVA exceeded 36 degrees.

It is accepted that successful correction of hallux valgus consists of balancing the soft tissues around the MTP joint and aligning the great toe and first metatarsal. Overall good outcome is achieved with distal, shaft or proximal metatarsal osteotomy, fusion of the MTP joint or TMT joint, all can address several types of hallux valgus. The theoretical advantage in correction of proximal procedures in comparison to distal ones has not been established in clinical studies [15,19,39,43]. Differences in correction between a proximal and a distal osteotomy are possibly less than assumed. Patients might be treated with more extensive procedures than required [15].

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) reach a similar correction as in open distal osseous procedures and therefore seem a justifiable alternative, although evidence is limited [13]. Quicker surgical time is recorded, however, this result might be clouded because the MIS procedures concern simple osteotomies with K-wire fixation, which were compared with scarf osteotomies with screw fixation that involve more surgical steps and metholodigical flaws in this study [22]. Lower complication rate is found, however other studies show decreased range of motion in percutaneous procedures [33]. Further research is necessary to verify the exact possible advantages.

Controversy exists whether TMT instability should be judged as a cause or an effect of hallux valgus deformity. TMT fusion and DSTP is proposed as single procedure to treat TMT instability, although decrease of TMT instability and good outcome has been obtained in proximal osteotomy with DSTP [3]. This finding suggests that extrinsic anatomical features play a role in first ray mobility. Instability might be addressed through reduction of the metatarsal head within the plantar plate and corresponding structures, which results in stability of the MTP and TMT joints.

Different opinions exist in cases where correction might be difficult to maintain, like patients with severe hallux valgus or revision cases [5]. One RCT showed similar results between distal and proximal osteotomy in severe hallux valgus [25]. In some cases fusion of the MTP or TMT joint may be more effective.

Outcome might be influenced by uncommon types of hallux valgus or related foot problems like lesser MTP joint pathology, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction, degenerative flatfoot, adductus forefoot, the patient’s age, neuromuscular disorders and arthritic diseases [62]. These items might be recognized and a focus for a new algorithm, which would still be limited to an experienced based algorithm, because to base such an algorithm on evidence based medicine will be even more difficult to achieve.

Selection bias was limited by agreement upon 2 authors (AD and AV) on presentation of all level 1 and 2 studies. Selection bias possibly did occur with including level 3 studies; however, level 3 studies will not influence the conclusion that limited evidence is available for current treatment algorithms.

The present used treatment algorithms for hallux valgus surgery are primarily based on expert opinion and are not supported by level 1 and 2 studies. Neither is the possible advantage of specific surgical procedures based on controlled clinical studies. Correction osteotomy is more effective than non operative treatment in patients with hallux valgus. Many operative techniques are adequate in achieving a good outcome. The HVA was found to be the single predictive parameter and correction declines with a HVA exceeding 36 degrees.

1. Deenik AR, de Visser E, Louwerens JW, de Waal Malefijt M, Draijer FF, de Bie RA. Hallux valgus angle as main predictor for correction of hallux valgus. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9: 70.

2. Lapidus PW. A quarter of a century of experience with the operative correction of the metatarsus varus primus in hallux valgus. Bull Hosp Joint Dis. 1956; 17: 404-421.

3. Coughlin MJ, Jones CP. Hallux valgus and first ray mobility. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 1887-1898.

4. Coughlin MJ, Jones CP, Viladot R, Golanó P, Grebing BR, Kennedy MJ, et al. Hallux valgus and first ray mobility: a cadaveric study. Foot Ankle Int. 2004; 25: 537-544.

5. Pinney SJ, Song KR, Chou LB. Surgical treatment of severe hallux valgus: the state of practice among academic foot and ankle surgeons. Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27: 1024-1029.

6. Coetzee JC, Wickum D. The Lapidus procedure: a prospective cohort outcome study. Foot Ankle Int. 2004; 25: 526-531.

7. Petje G, Steinbock G, Schiller C. Radiographic analysis of metatarsus primus varus. 45 feet followed 15 months after distal metatarsal osteotomy and lateral soft-tissue release. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997; 68: 567-570.

8. Sanhudo JA. Correction of moderate to severe hallux valgus deformity by a modified chevron shaft osteotomy. Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27: 581- 585.

9. Magnan B, Pezze L, Rossi N, Bartolozzi P. Percutaneous distal metatarsal osteotomy for correction of hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88: 1191-1199.

10. Coughlin MJ. Hallux valgus. Instr Course Lect. 1997; 46: 357-391.

11. Robinson AH, Limbers JP. Modern concepts in the treatment of hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87: 1038-1045.

12. Sackett D. Evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995; 346: 1171.

13. Giannini S, Cavallo M, Faldini C, Luciani D, Vannini F. The SERI distal metatarsal osteotomy and Scarf osteotomy provide similar correction of hallux valgus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471: 2305-2311.

14. Klaue K, Hansen ST, Masquelet AC. Clinical, quantitative assessment of first tarsometatarsal mobility in the sagittal plane and its relation to hallux valgus deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 1994; 15: 9-13.

15. Carl A, Ross S, Evanski P, Waugh T. Hypermobility in hallux valgus. Foot Ankle. 1988; 8: 264-270.

16. Coughlin MJ, Mann RA, Saltzman CL. Surgery of the foot and ankle. Mosby Inc. 2007; 184-362.

17. Hardy RH, Clapham JC. Hallux valgus; predisposing anatomical causes. Lancet. 1952; 1: 1180-1183. 

18. Hardy RH, Clapham JC. Observations on hallux valgus; based on a controlled series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1951; 33-B: 376-391.

19. Robinson AH, Limbers JP. Modern concepts in the treatment of hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87: 1038-1045.

20. Kilmartin TE, Barrington RL, Wallace WA. Metatarsus primus varus. A statistical study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73: 937-940.

21. Mann RA. Distal soft tissue procedure and proximal metatarsal osteotomy for correction of hallux valgus deformity. Orthopedics. 1990; 13: 1013-1018.

22. Mann RA. Decision-making in bunion surgery. Instr Course Lect. 1990; 39: 3-13.

23. Giannini S, Cavallo M, Faldini C, Luciani D, Vannini F. The SERI distal metatarsal osteotomy and Scarf osteotomy provide similar correction of hallux valgus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471: 2305-2311.

24. Antrobus JN. The primary deformity in hallux valgus and metatarsus primus varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984; 251-255.

25. Piggot H. The Natural history of hallux valgus in adolescence and early adult life. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1960; 42: 749-760.

26. Coughlin MJ, Roger A. Mann Award. Juvenile hallux valgus: etiology and treatment. Foot Ankle Int. 1995; 16: 682-697.

27. Chi TD, Davitt J, Younger A, Holt S, Sangeorzan BJ. Intra- and inter-observer reliability of the distal metatarsal articular angle in adult hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2002; 23: 722-726.

28. Robinson AH, Cullen NP, Chhaya NC, Sri-Ram K, Lynch A. Variation of the distal metatarsal articular angle with axial rotation and inclination of the first metatarsal. Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27: 1036-1040.

29. Myerson MS, Badekas A. Hyper mobility of the first ray. Foot Ankle Clin. 2000; 5: 469-484.

30. Klaue K, Hansen ST, Masquelet AC. Clinical, quantitative assessment of first tarsometatarsal mobility in the sagittal plane and its relation to hallux valgus deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 1994; 15: 9-13.

31. Ferrari J, Higgins JP, Prior TD. Interventions for treating hallux valgus (abductovalgus) and bunions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; CD000964.

32. Myerson MS, Badekas A. Hyper mobility of the first ray. Foot Ankle Clin. 2000; 5: 469-484.

33. Coughlin MJ, Jones CP, Viladot R, Golanó P, Grebing BR, Kennedy MJ, et al. Hallux valgus and first ray mobility: a cadaveric study. Foot Ankle Int. 2004; 25: 537-544.

34. Carl A, Ross S, Evanski P, Waugh T. Hypermobility in hallux valgus. Foot Ankle. 1988; 8: 264-270.

35. Tai CC, Ridgeway S, Ramachandran M, Ng VA, Devic N, Singh D. Patient expectations for hallux valgus surgery. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2008; 16: 91-95.

36. Schneider W, Knahr K. Surgery for hallux valgus. The expectations of patients and surgeons. Int Orthop. 2001; 25: 382-385.

37. Deenik A, van Mameren H, de Visser E, de Waal Malefijt M, Draijer F, de Bie R. Equivalent correction in scarf and chevron osteotomy in moderate and severe hallux valgus: a randomized controlled trial. Foot Ankle Int. 2008; 29: 1209-1215.

38. Deenik AR, Pilot P, Brandt SE, van Mameren H, Geesink RG, Draijer WF. Scarf versus chevron osteotomy in hallux valgus: a randomized controlled trial in 96 patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2007; 28: 537-541.

39. Easley ME, Kiebzak GM, Davis WH, Anderson RB. Prospective, randomized comparison of proximal crescentic and proximal chevron osteotomies for correction of hallux valgus deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 1996; 17: 307-316. 

40. Faber FW, Mulder PG, Verhaar JA. Role of first ray hypermobility in the outcome of the Hohmann and the Lapidus procedure. A prospective, randomized trial involving one hundred and one feet. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86-86A: 486-495.

41. Faber FW, van Kampen PM, Bloembergen MW. Long-term results of the Hohmann and Lapidus procedure for the correction of hallux valgus: a prospective, randomised trial with eight - to 11-year follow-up involving 101 feet. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-95: 1222-1226.

42. Ferrari J, Higgins JP, Prior TD. Interventions for treating hallux valgus (abductovalgus) and bunions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; CD000964.

43. Kummer FJ. Mathematical analysis of first metatarsal osteotomies. Foot Ankle. 1989; 9: 281-289.

44. Maffulli N, Longo UG, Oliva F, Denaro V, Coppola C. Bosch osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for hallux valgus correction. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009; 40: 515-524.

45. Schneider W. Influence of different anatomical structures on distal soft tissue procedure in hallux valgus surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2012; 33: 991-996.

46. Torkki M, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, Hoikka V, Laippala P, Paavolainen P. Hallux valgus: immediate operation versus 1 year of waiting with or without orthoses: a randomized controlled trial of 209 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003; 74: 209-215.

47. Torkki M, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S, Hoikka V, Laippala P, Paavolainen P. Surgery vs orthosis vs watchful waiting for hallux valgus: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001; 285: 2474-2480.

48. Klosok JK, Pring DJ, Jessop JH, Maffulli N. Chevron or Wilson metatarsal osteotomy for hallux valgus. A prospective randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993; 75: 825-829.

49. Saro C, Andrén B, Wildemyr Z, Felländer-Tsai L. Outcome after distal metatarsal osteotomy for hallux valgus: a prospective randomized controlled trial of two methods. Foot Ankle Int. 2007; 28: 778-787.

50. Sangeorzan BJ, Hansen ST. Modified Lapidus procedure for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle. 1989; 9: 262-266.

51. Coughlin MJ, Grebing BR, Jones CP. Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint for idiopathic hallux valgus: intermediate results. Foot Ankle Int. 2005; 26: 783-792.

52. Austin DW, Leventen EO. A new osteotomy for hallux valgus: a horizontally directed “V” displacement osteotomy of the metatarsal head for hallux valgus and primus varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981; 25-30.

53. Mann RA, Pfeffinger L. Hallux valgus repair. DuVries modified McBride procedure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991; 213-218.

54. Coetzee JC. Scarf osteotomy for hallux valgus repair: the dark side. Foot Ankle Int. 2003; 24: 29-33.

55. Bock P, Kristen KH, Kroner A, Engel A. Hallux valgus and cartilage degeneration in the first metatarsophalangeal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86: 669-673.

56. Schneider W, Csepan R, Knahr K. Reproducibility of the radiographic metatarsophalangeal angle in hallux surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-85A: 494-499.

57. Taylor NG, Metcalfe SA. A review of surgical outcomes of the Lapidus procedure for treatment of hallux abductovalgus and degenerative joint disease of the first MCJ. Foot (Edinb). 2008; 18: 206-210.

58. Resch S, Stenstrom A, Reynisson K, Jonsson K. Chevron osteotomy for hallux valgus not improved by additional adductor tenotomy. A prospective, randomized study of 84 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1994; 65: 541-544.

59. Lin I, Bonar SK, Anderson RB, Davis WH. Distal soft tissue release using direct and indirect approaches: an anatomic study. Foot Ankle Int. 1996; 17: 458-463.

60. Faber FW, Mulder PG, Verhaar JA. Role of first ray hypermobility in the outcome of the Hohmann and the Lapidus procedure. A prospective, randomized trial involving one hundred and one feet. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86-86A: 486-495.

61. Park HW, Lee KB, Chung JY, Kim MS. Comparison of outcomes between proximal and distal chevron osteotomy, both with supplementary lateral soft-tissue release, for severe hallux valgus deformity: A prospective randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B: 510-516.

62. Resch S, Stenstrom A, Jonsson K, Reynisson K. Results after chevron osteotomy and proximal osteotomy for hallux valgus: a prospective, randomized study. The Foot. 1993; 3: 99-104.

63. Mann RA, Pfeffinger L. Hallux valgus repair. DuVries modified McBride procedure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991; 213-218.