50 - Biomechanics of Hallux Abducto Valgus Flashcards
Abduction and adduction of interossei
- Abduction and adduction of the lesser toes caused by the interossei- utilizes the 2nd toe (metatarsal) as the midline reference point
- So, abduction is movement away from the 2nd toe and adduction is movement towards the 2nd toe
- Plantar interossei adduct
- Dorsal interossei abduct
Abduction and adduction of lumbricals
- Adduction of the lesser toes caused by pull of the lumbricals utilizes the midline of the body as the reference point
- So, adduction of all toes will be towards the midline of the body
Abduction and adduction of hallux
- The actions of abduction and adduction of the great toe utilize the midline of the body
- So, abduction of the great toe means that the hallux moves away from the midline of the body [towards the 2nd toe (caused by pull of the adductor hallucis)], and adduction means towards the midline of the body [away from the 2nd toe (caused by pull of the abductor hallucis)]
- The names of abductor hallucis and adductor hallucis utilize the 2nd toe as the midline
Definition of HAV
- Prominence of the medial aspect of the 1st metatarsal head secondary to medial deviation of the 1st metatarsal shaft and lateral deviation of the great toe (toward the second toe)
- The vast majority of the bony prominence you see is normal bone
Etiology of HAV
- CURRENTLY the primary etiology is STJ pronation
- Calcaneocuboid and talonavicular joints assume
a more parallel relationship which allows more
movement in the forefoot so it can
dorsiflex and invert on the rearfoot
Diagram of pronation, neutral and supination
- On the left (pronation) you can see that the parallel relationship of the talus and calcaneus allows for increased motion in the forefoot – this motion will be dorsiflexion and inversion
- Inversion of the forefoot is consistent with supination, which is the unstable position of the foot
Prolonged pronation
- If pronation is prolonged, resupination is delayed during midstance and propulsion (resupination normally starts at 25% of the stance phase)
- Foot is unstable and becomes hypermobile (especially the first metatarsal and first ray)
- As the arch lowers with pronation and cuboid dorsiflexes the cuboid is on the same plane as 1st metatarsal, or even lower than the 1st metatarsal
- Peroneus longus loses the pulley action of the cuboid and begins to lose its ability to plantarflex the 1st metatarsal, so the 1st metatarsal is then able to dorsiflex
Diagram of pronation
- Note the difference between the normal position of the calcaneus and cuboid and the pronated position – by the cuboid dorsiflexing, you lose some of the pulley effect of the peroneus longus
- When the cuboid is dorsiflexed, the peroneus longus tendon therefore is functionally weaker
- The image on the right is just showing that the result of this is the 1st metatarsal dorsiflexing
Where does hypermobility really exist? Roling paper
Roling et al, Biomechanics of the first ray. Part IV: the effect of selected medial column arthrodeses. A three-dimensional kinematic analysis in a cadaver model. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2002
o Selective arthrodeses on 6 specimens to determine location of medial column hypermobility - Talonavicular joint (9%), naviculocuneiform joint (50%), first MCJ (41%)
o SUMMARY: Found that the most hypermobility was at the NAVICULOCUNEIFORM joint, not the 1st metatarsal cuneiform joint, which is what the traditional theory has been
Where does hypermobility really exist? Faber paper
Faber FW, et al. Mobility of the first tarsometatarsal joint in relation to hallux valgus deformity: anatomical and biomechanical aspects. Foot Ankle Int.
o Cadaveric study in hallux valgus feet
o First MCJ contributed 57%, the talonavicular joint contributed 8% and the naviculocuneiform joint contributed 35% of medial column motion
o SUMMARY: found that the 1st metatarsal cuneiform joint did contribute the most motion in the first ray, but naviculocuneiform contributed a significant amount (35%)
Hypermobility raises the question…
- Is a Lapidus procedure (fusion of 1st metatarsal-cuneiform joint) the right procedure to correct a bunion with hypermobility of the 1st ray?
- Hypermobility at the naviculocuneiform still remains – not addressed with a Lapidus
Raises another question…
- Does hypermobility even exist?
- Courtesy of Dr. Thomas Roukis, DPM at ACFAS meeting, Austin, TX, 2016.
Technical definition of hypermobility
Technical definition (applies to children) o “Increased range of motion of joints, joint laxity occurring normally in young children or as a result of disease”
Biomechanical definition of hypermobility
o “Abnormal motion of bone caused by un-resisted forces at a time when the joint should remain stable”
DPM definition of hypermobility
o Quasi-scientific by using 10 mm as normal range with 5mm dorsal and 5mm plantar
o Half of the papers show that when the 1st ray dorsiflexes, it inverts (prevailing theory)
o Half of the papers show that when the 1st ray dorsiflexes, it everts (he believes this)
o Total range of motion averages from 4.5° for the navicular-cuneiform-1st metatarsal joint, 3.5° for the 1st metatarsal-cuneiform joint, and 10° for the 1st ray
What have studies shown in terms of hypermobility?
Coughlin M and Jones C. JBJS Am, 89:1887,2007
o “1st ray mobility was routinely reduced to a normal level without need for a Lapidus”
o “Plantar gapping is not a reliable radiographic indicator of sagittal plane 1st ray hypermobility”
Faber study – 2004
o “Theory that HAV and hypermobile 1st ray should be managed with Lapidus was not supported”
o “Presence or absence of 1st ray hypermobility makes no difference to the outcomes.”
1st ray hypermobility conclusion
- To date, little has been proven regarding 1st ray hypermobility and its role in 1st ray pathology is not supported
- However, the prevailing theory is that it does play a significant role in bunion development