ArticleCureus2025
Revision Surgery for a Foot With Loss of Correction After Modified Lapidus Procedure: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report a case of revision surgery for a foot with loss of correction after a modified Lapidus procedure. The patient was a 68-year-old woman, with advanced hallux valgus in both feet. First, a modified Lapidus procedure and Weil osteotomy were performed on the second ray in the left foot, with a good postoperative course. Two months later, she underwent a modified Lapidus procedure on the right foot to correct severe deformity, with a preoperative hallux valgus angle of 55° to 9° and a first-second intermetatarsal (M1M2) angle of 26° to 8°. However, correction was lost early after the surgery. Plain radiographs of the right foot, obtained two months after surgery, showed a hallux valgus angle of 24° and an M1M2 angle of 14° with no bone union. Considering that the first metatarsal was dorsiflexed and adducted around the first tarsometatarsal joint, revision surgery with additional screws and an iliac bone graft was performed, which resulted in good correction with no recurrence. Dorsiflexion of the first metatarsal was thought to be the main reason for the recurrence of hallux valgus in this case. The likely reason was that when the hallux valgus recurred, dorsiflexion of the first metatarsal was greater than the opening M1M2 angle, with less rotation of the first metatarsal head. We believe that alignment correction in the sagittal plane is one of the most important aspects of the correction of hallux valgus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.