First metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis is associated with high union rates but there is a wide range of union incidence reported. Whether the subchondral plate is completely resected, is not reported by individual studies and without meticulous care, there is often residual subchondral plate. The primary aim was to report our union rate following first metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis with complete resection of the subchondral plate, locking plate fixation and immediate protected weight bearing. A retrospective case study of 2 surgeons was performed from August 2016 to June 2023. Our study was unique in that all patients had complete resection of the subchondral plate to trabecular bone. One hundred seventeen feet were identified for analysis, in 112 patients following exclusion criteria. Patients were excluded if they had less than 3 months follow-up, revisional surgery or charcot. Demographic data and indications for the procedure were reported. A single construct locking plate with an interfragmentary compression screw through the plate was used in 37 feet and a locking plate with separate interfragmentary compression screw was used in 80 feet. We reported a nonunion incidence of 0.9% (n = 1) with a delayed union incidence of 0.9% (n = 1) and a broken hardware incidence of 0.9% (n = 1). Complete resection of subchondral plate with early weight bearing and locking plate fixation had a high union rate for first metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis. Our results compare favorably with union rates in the literature, where there is often residual subchondral plate.

BACKGROUND: As an alternative to traditional open reduction internal fixation of ankle fragility fractures, primary retrograde tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) nailing has been investigated as a treatment option. These results suggest that this treatment is an acceptable alternative treatment option for these injuries. There are still questions about the need for formal joint preparation at the subtalar or tibiotalar joint when performing primary TTC nailing for fragility fractures.
METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively evaluated 32 patients treated with primary retrograde TTC nail without subtalar or tibiotalar joint preparation for a mean of 2.4 years postoperatively. We specifically reviewed the charts for nail breakages at either joint, patients developing subtalar or tibiotalar joint pathology requiring additional treatment, including return to the operating room for formal joint preparation.
RESULTS: Fracture union occurred in 100% of patients. There were 3 cases (10.0%) of hardware failure, and 2 of these cases were asymptomatic and did not require any treatment. One patient (3.3%) developed hardware failure with nail breakage at the subtalar joint. This patient developed progressive pain and symptoms requiring revision surgery with formal arthrodesis of the subtalar and tibiotalar joint.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that retrograde hindfoot nailing without formal subtalar or tibiotalar joint preparation is an acceptable potential treatment option in ankle fragility fractures. Mid-term follow-up demonstrates favorable outcomes without the need for formal joint preparation in this high-risk population. Comparative studies with higher patient numbers and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this study.Levels of Evidence: Level IV.

Time spent in the operating room is valuable to both surgeons and patients. One of the biggest rate-limiting factors when it comes to arthrodesis procedures of the foot and ankle is cartilage removal and joint preparation. Power instrumentation in joint preparation provides an avenue to decrease joint preparation time, thus decreasing operating room time and costs. Arthrodesis of 47 joints (n) from 27 patients were included. Power rasp joint preparation in 26 joints was compared to traditional osteotome and curette joint preparation in 21 joints in both time (seconds), cost (total operating room time cost per minute), and union rate. The overall mean joint preparation time using power rasp for the subtalar joint was 268.3 seconds, talonavicular joint 212.3 seconds, calcaneocuboid joint 142.6 seconds, 1st TMT 107.2 seconds. Mean joint preparation time using traditional method for subtalar joint 509.8 seconds, talonavicular joint 393.0 seconds, calcaneocuboid joint 400.0 seconds, 1st TMT 319.6 seconds. Mean cost of joint preparation using power rasp for subtalar joint $165.47, talonavicular joint $130.89, calcaneocuboid joint $87.94, 1st TMT $66.11. Mean cost of joint preparation using traditional techniques for subtalar joint $314.34, talonavicular joint $242.35, calcaneocuboid joint $246.67, 1st TMT $197.33. Overall union rate was 98% (1 asymptomatic non-union). Increasing efficiency in the operating room is vital to every surgeon\'s practice. Power rasp joint preparation is a viable option to increase efficiency and decrease operative time, this study shows no statistically significant differences in union rate, with comparable rates to existing literature.

\"Cup-shaped power reamers\" and \"flat cuts\" (FC) are common joint preparation techniques in first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint arthrodesis. However, the third option of an \"in situ\" (IS) technique has rarely been studied. This study aims to compare the clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of the IS technique for various MTP pathologies with other MTP joint preparation techniques. A single-center retrospective review was performed for patients who underwent primary MTP joint arthrodesis between 2015 and 2019. In total, 388 cases were included in the study. We found higher nonunion rates in the IS group (11.1% vs 4.6%, p = .016). However, the revision rates were similar between the groups (7.1% vs 6.5%, p = .809). Multivariate analysis revealed that diabetes mellitus was associated with significantly higher overall complication rates (p < .001). The FC technique was associated with transfer metatarsalgia (p = .015) and a more first ray shortening (p < .001). Visual analog scale, PROMIS-10 physical, and PROMIS-CAT physical scores significantly improved in IS and FC groups (p < .001, p = .002, p = .001, respectively). The improvement was comparable between the joint preparation techniques (p = .806). In conclusion, the IS joint preparation technique is simple and effective for first MTP joint arthrodesis. In our series, the IS technique had a higher radiographic nonunion rate that did not correlate with a higher revision rate, and otherwise similar complication profile to the FC technique while providing similar PROMs. The IS technique resulted in significantly less first ray shortening when compared to the FC technique.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is growing in the field of foot and ankle, and the MIS burr is an emerging tool. Although commonly used to perform osteotomies, the burr can also be used for arthrodesis joint preparation that traditionally would be performed through open incisions. To date, there is no study comparing the quality of joint preparation between using a fluoroscopy-guided MIS technique compared to traditional open techniques. The goal of this cadaveric study is to compare the percentage of joint surfaces prepared between MIS and open techniques for the most common joints that are fused in foot and ankle surgery.
Open joint preparation was performed under direct visualization with open incisions. MIS joint preparation was performed percutaneously using fluoroscopic guidance alone, without arthroscopy. After joint preparation, cadaveric samples were disarticulated, and joint surfaces were analyzed for percentage of cartilaginous surface removed. The percentage of joint surface prepared was compared between the open and MIS techniques.
Ten cadaveric samples were used for the MIS technique and 5 samples for the open technique. Percentage of joint surface prepared was similar for all joint surfaces.
The MIS technique in the hands of experienced surgeons was found to provide overall similar percentages of surface area prepared compared to traditional open techniques.
MIS joint preparation may be useful for specific patient populations. This study suggests that MIS joint preparation is a reasonable, and possibly advantageous, alternative to open preparation in arthrodesis surgery when performed by experienced MIS surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Fusion of the talonavicular joint has proven challenging in literature. The optimal surgical approach for talonavicular arthrodesis is still uncertain. This study compares the amount of physical joint preparation between dorsal and medial approaches to the talonavicular joint.
METHODS: Twenty fresh frozen cadaver specimens were randomly assigned to receive either a dorsal or medial operative approach to the talonavicular joint. The joint surface was prepared, and the joint was disarticulated. Image analysis, using ImageJ, was performed by two blinded reviewers to assess the joint surface preparation and this was compared by surgical approach.
RESULTS: The dorsal approach had a higher median percentage of talar and total talonavicular joint surface area prepared (75% vs. 59% (p = .007) and 82% vs. 70% (p = .005)). Irrespective of approach, the talus was significantly more difficult to prepare than the navicular (62% vs 88% (p = .001)).
CONCLUSIONS: The dorsal approach provides superior talonavicular joint preparation. The lateral ¼th of the talar head was the most difficult surface to prepare, and surgeons performing double or triple arthrodesis may prepare the lateral talar head from the lateral approach.
METHODS: Level V.

BACKGROUND: Arthrodesis is considered the gold standard for end-stage ankle arthritis in patients who fail conservative management. Achieving union is paramount while minimizing complications. An essential item for successful union is preparation of the articular surface. Our study aims to evaluate the difference in joint preparation between direct lateral and dual mini-open approaches.
METHODS: Ten below knee fresh-frozen specimens were used for this study. Five were prepared through lateral approach, and five using dual mini-incisions. After preparation, all ankles were dissected and images of tibial plafond and talar articular surfaces were taken. Surface areas of articulating facets and unprepared cartilage of talus, distal tibia, and distal fibula were measured and analyzed.
RESULTS: A greater amount of total surface area was prepared with the mini-open approach in comparison to the transfibular approach. Percentage of prepared surface area of total articulating surface (including talus and tibia/fibula), talus, tibia, and fibula with the transfibular approach were 76.9%, 77.7%, and 75%, respectively. Percentages were 90.9%, 92.9%, and 88.6% with the mini-open approach. When excluding medial gutter, there was no significant difference between techniques (83.94% vs. 90.85%, p = 0.1412).
CONCLUSIONS: Joint preparation with the mini-open approach is equally efficacious as the transfibular approach for the tibiotalar joint. The mini-open approach does provide superior preparation of the medial gutter and inferior tibial surface which may help to increase union rates and decreased complications.
METHODS: V.

During traditional fusion procedures surgeons initially perform a joint resection and then the structures are realigned for correction of deformity. The procedure described herein by the author reverses this traditional surgical approach by first realigning the joint to correct deformity, then after achieving a corrected alignment, joint resection is performed in parallel without wedging. Realigning deformity as an initial step creates the conditions for an in-situ fusion wherein the deformity is corrected simultaneously with parallel bone resection. The purpose of this paper is to review the advantages and technical aspects of a realignment arthrodesis technique in which joint resection begins with the foot in the corrected position. This approach to joint fusion has been shown to simplify bone resection, eliminate post-resection adjustments, create full apposition of fusion surfaces, reliably correct deformity, and result in solid arthrodesis. The technique provides for immediate correction of deformity and is amenable for conditions that require either minimal or significant segmental shortening. There are many areas where the \"Realign-resect\" approach to joint fusion would be well suited. Full implementation of this technique may be particularly useful to the surgeon who does not have seasoned assistants in the operating room.

Purpose This study compares the amount of joint preparation and first ray shortening following first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint fusion utilizing open conical reaming versus arthroscopic technique. Methods Ten below-knee cadaver specimens were randomly assigned to undergo either open or arthroscopic first MTP fusion. Following fixation, first ray length measurements were obtained from pre-operative and post-operative radiographs and were used to determine first ray shortening. Additionally, the ratio of first ray length to second ray length was calculated both pre-operatively and post-operatively and compared between the two approaches. All ankles were then completely dissected, and prepared surface areas were demarcated. ImageJ photo analysis software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to calculate the percentage of prepared and unprepared cartilage of each articular surface of each specimen.  Results Overall, the open approach resulted in 99.3% ± 1.6% joint surface preparation, whereas the arthroscopic approach yielded 92.9% ± 7.2% (p = 0.089). On average, the head of the first metatarsal was significantly more prepared with the use of the open approach (99.5% ± 1.1%) than with the arthroscopic approach (96.6% ± 1.5%) (p = 0.008). However, with respect to the base of the phalanx, the average difference in preparation between the arthroscopic approach and the open approach was not statistically significant (90.0% ± 12.8% vs. 99.0% ± 2.2%; p = 0.160). The average amount of first ray shortening in the arthroscopic approach was 2.2 ± 1.8 mm compared to 2.1 ± 3.2 mm in the open approach (p = 0.934). The average change in the first to second ray length ratio was 0.02 for both approaches (p = 0.891). Conclusion Arthroscopic first MTP fusion can be used to achieve joint preparation comparable to open technique while maintaining first ray length.

BACKGROUND: First tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint fusion is effective for treatment of arthritis and some first ray deformities. To prepare the articular surfaces, cartilage should be carefully but completely denuded. Inadequate preparation may result in non-union, while excessive preparation may cause ray shortening and consequential transfer metatarsalgia. Preparation can be performed with an osteotome or a saw. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether utilization of an osteotome or saw would minimize shortening of the first ray in TMT arthrodesis.
METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen cadaver specimens were randomly assigned to undergo joint preparation using either an osteotome (n=5) or saw (n=5). Sample size was determined by cadaver availability. Fusion was performed using a cross-screw construct through the dorsal aspect of the proximal phalanx and the medial cuneiform. Pre- and post-operative X-rays were taken with a radiopaque ruler in the field, and changes in length in the first metatarsal and first cuneiform were compared between osteotome and sawblade groups.
RESULTS: The average change in metatarsal length was significantly smaller in the osteotome group (1.6mm) as compared to the saw group (4.4mm) (p=0.031). The average percent change in metatarsal length was also significantly smaller in the osteotome group (3.0%) compared to the saw group (8.4%) (p=0.025). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to change in cuneiform length. The osteotome group demonstrated a significantly smaller average measured change (3.0mm vs. 6.9mm, p=0.001) and percent change (4.1% vs. 9.3%, p<0.001) in total length (cuneiform plus metatarsal) in comparison to the saw group.
CONCLUSIONS: In first TMT fusion, joint preparation with an osteotome may prevent over-shortening of the first ray in comparison to preparation with a saw.