Journals / International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy / 2021 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

THE OPERATIVE TREATMENT OUTCOMES OF CHRONIC HINDFOOT PAIN WITH POSTERIOR ANKLE ENDOSCOPY

Pages
212–218
Publication Date
2021-08-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thus, posterior ankle endoscopy is an effective, elegant and rewarding treatment method in the case of continuing chronic hindfoot pain after failed non-surgical treatment modalities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome of hindfoot endoscopy and to show the availability of this technique by short- to mid-term outcomes on 27 consecutive patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A case series of 27 patients, mean age 19-63(mean37.6) ,15 man and 12 woman, diagnosed and treated for chronic hindfoot pain were included for the study between 2010-2016 All these patients were initially treated conservatively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, posterior ankle endoscopy is an effective, elegant and rewarding treatment method in the case of continuing chronic hindfoot pain after failed non-surgical treatment modalities.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010-2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Hindfoot · posterior ankle · endoscopy

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome of hindfoot endoscopy and to show the availability of this technique by short- to mid-term outcomes on 27 consecutive patients. Methods: A case series of 27 patients, mean age 19-63(mean37.6) ,15 man and 12 woman, diagnosed and treated for chronic hindfoot pain were included for the study between 2010-2016 All these patients were initially treated conservatively. If conservative treatment is insufficient to alleviate symptoms, posterior ankle endoscopy is performed. Patient data included age, gender, the location and the pattern of foot, follow-up, the time delay from symptom onset to operation, surgeries, the length of hospitalization, the pain scores (AOFAS, VAS), time to return to work, and complications. Results: The indications for 27 patients were posterior ankle impingement syndrome (n:8), isolated flexor hallucis longus (FHL) tenosynovitis (n:7),loose body (n:2),subtalar joint arthrosis (n:3),achyl tendinitis (n:1) and peritendinitis(n:6). Symptom duration until operation was 6-22 months (mean 13.2 months). The patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery resumed to their work a mean time of 2-6 months (mean 2.5 months) after the surgery. All patients returned to their previous lives without any limitation or recurrence. Mean follow-up 46.5 months (21-96 months). AOFAS score was preoperative 44-63 (mean 51.4) and postoperative was 92-100 (mean 96.37). The VAS score was preop 5-8 (mean 6.4) and postop 0-2 (mean 0.62). One patient had a partial arterial injury that was repaired, and four patients had mild joint stiffness. Conclusion: Functional and clinical evaluations following hindfoot endoscopy revealed that all patients were very satisfied. Thus, posterior ankle endoscopy is an effective, elegant and rewarding treatment method in the case of continuing chronic hindfoot pain after failed non-surgical treatment modalities.

🔖

Cite This Article

YİĞİT, Ş., YILDIRIM, A. (2021). THE OPERATIVE TREATMENT OUTCOMES OF CHRONIC HINDFOOT PAIN WITH POSTERIOR ANKLE ENDOSCOPY. International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 212–218. https://ajindex.com/articles/767413

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Hamilton, W.G., Geppert, M.J., Thompson, F.M. Pain in the posterior aspect of the ankle in dancers. Differential diagnosis and operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 78(10):1491–1500 14, 1996. Doi: 10.2106/00004623-199610000-00006
  2. Hedrick, M.R, McBride, A.M. Posterior ankle impingement. Foot Ankle Int, 15(1):2–8, 1994. Doi: 10.1177/107110079401500102. 3. van Dijk, C.N. Hindfoot arthroscopy. Foot Ankle Clin, 11(2):391–414, 2006. Doi: 10.1016/j.fcl.2006.03.002
  3. Abramowitz, Y., Wollstein, R., Barzilay, Y., et al. Outcome of resection of a symptomatic os trigonum. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 85:10511057, 2003. Doi: 10.2106/00004623-200306000-00010
  4. Bulstra, G.H., Olsthoorn, P.G., van Dijk, C. N. Endoscopy of the posterior tibial tendon. Foot Ankle Clin, 11(2):421–427 2, 2006. Doi: 10.1016/j.fcl.2006.03.001
  5. Chow, H.T., Chan, K.B., Lui, T.H. Tendoscopic debridement for stage I posterior tibial tendon dysfunction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 13(8):695–698, 2005. Doi: 10.1007/s00167-005-0635-8
  6. Williams, M.M., Ferkel, R.D. Subtalar arthroscopy: Indications, technique, and results. Arthroscopy Mar; 20(1):93-108., 1998. Doi: 10.1016/j.fcl.2014.10.010
  7. Hamilton, W.G. Stenosing tenosynovitis of the flexor hallucis longus tendon and posterior impingement upon the os trigonum in ballet dancers. Foot Ankle, Sep-Oct; 3(2):74-80, 1982. Doi: 10.1177/107110078200300204
  8. Lawson, J.P. extremities. Radiology, Dec; 157(3):625-31, 1985. Doi: 10.1148/radiology.157.3.4059550 10. Jesus, V., Jordi, V., Maria, M., et. Al.Hindfooft endoscopy for the treatment of posterior ankle impingement syndrome: A safe reproducible technique. Foot and Ankle Surgery, Sep; 20(3):174-9, 2014. Doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2014.03.002 11. Tey, M., Monllau, J.C., Centenera, J.M., Pelfort, X. Benefits of arthroscopic tuberculoplasty in posterior ankle impingement syndrome. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, Oct; 15(10):1235-9, 2007. Doi: 10.1007/s00167-007-0349-1 12. Scholten, P.E., Sierevelt, I.N., van Dijk, C.N. Hindfoot endoscopy for posterior ankle impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90(12):2665–2672, 2008. Doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00188
  9. Tahir, O., Egemen, A., Kaan, I, Abdullah, I.S., Endoscopic treatment of posterior ankle pain.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 19:1355–1361, 2011. Doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1428-x 14. Holm, C.L. Primary synovial chondromatosis of the ankle. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am, Sep; 58(6):878-80, 1976
  10. Amendola, A., Petrik, J., Webster-Bogaer