ReviewArthroplasty (London, England)2026
Outcomes after total first metatarsophalangeal joint arthroplasty for hallux rigidus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint arthroplasty in hallux rigidus remains controversial. Although used as a motion-preserving alternative to arthrodesis, outcomes vary between studies and implant designs. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated clinical outcomes, range of motion (ROM), and implant survivorship following total first MTP arthroplasty.
methodsA systematic review identified studies reporting pre- and postoperative outcomes following total first MTP arthroplasty for hallux rigidus. Pooled outcomes were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Hallux Metatarsophalangeal-Interphalangeal (AOFAS-HMI) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, and ROM. One postoperative timepoint per study was selected using a prespecified rule, prioritising the timepoint closest to 24 months, or follow-up between 12 and 36 months where discrete timepoints were not reported. Random-effects pre-post meta-analysis used an assumed pre-post correlation of 0.5. Heterogeneity, prediction intervals, leave-one-out analysis, and sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsTwelve studies were included in the AOFAS-HMI meta-analysis, seven in the VAS meta-analysis, and thirteen in the ROM meta-analysis. Arthroplasty was associated with a pooled improvement in AOFAS-HMI of 42.76 points (95% CI 38.44-47.09; p < 0.001), a pooled reduction in VAS pain of 5.24 points (95% CI 3.82-6.67; p < 0.0001), and a pooled improvement in ROM of 27.02° (95% CI 17.19-36.86; p < 0.001). Heterogeneity was high. Prediction intervals remained wholly positive for AOFAS-HMI and VAS, but crossed zero for ROM, indicating less consistent motion gain. Secondary complication outcomes were reported as crude observational frequencies across studies with variable follow-up durations. Radiographic failure occurred in 14.5% of reported feet and revision in 10.0%; these figures are not annualised incidence rates or formal meta-analytic survivorship estimates. Longer follow-up cohorts suggested reduced implant durability over time.
conclusionsTotal first MTP arthroplasty is associated with improvement in pain and function, but these benefits should be interpreted alongside appreciable revision and radiographic failure rates. ROM improves on average, although restoration of motion remains inconsistent and non-physiological. Current evidence therefore supports total arthroplasty as an option in select patients rather than a uniformly reliable alternative to arthrodesis and highlights the need for further implant development and longer-term evaluation of newer designs.
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.