This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Canale, P. B.
Right arrow Articles by Manoli, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Canale, P. B.
Right arrow Articles by Manoli, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 75, Issue 11 1610-1618, Copyright © 1993 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

The Mitchell procedure for the treatment of adolescent hallux valgus. A long-term study

PB Canale, DD Aronsson, RL Lamont and A Manoli
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children's Hospital of Michigan, Detroit 48201.

Thirty patients who had had a total of fifty-one Mitchell procedures to correct adolescent hallux valgus deformities were examined clinically and radiographically an average of seven years (range, three to seventeen years) after the operation. The average age of the patients at the time of the operation was fifteen years (range, ten to nineteen years). The result was excellent in nineteen feet, good in sixteen, fair in six, and poor in ten. The fair and poor results were associated with recurrence of the deformity, stiffness (real or perceived), and unsightly scars. The cause of the fair and poor results was inadequate correction at the time of the operation in six feet and loss of fixation in two; the loss of fixation resulted in one recurrence and one malunion. The remaining eight patients who had a fair or poor result were not totally satisfied and had reservations about more than one of three categories (relief of discomfort, appearance, or range of motion). Seventeen feet had a plantar callosity beneath the second metatarsal head, suggesting increased load-bearing by the second metatarsal. Although sixteen callosities caused no symptoms at the most recent follow-up evaluation, the long-term implications of this altered pattern of weight-bearing are unknown.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
J. C. Benson and A. S. Banks
First Metatarsal Callus Distraction
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, January 1, 2008; 98(1): 51 - 60.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]