Treatment of hallux rigidus (HARD trial): study protocol of a prospective, randomised, controlled trial of arthrodesis versus watchful waiting in the treatment of a painful osteoarthritic first metatarsophalangeal joint

Mikko Miettinen, Lasse Rämö, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Timo Sirola, Henrik Sandelin, Ville Ponkilainen, Jussi P Repo, Mikko Miettinen, Lasse Rämö, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Timo Sirola, Henrik Sandelin, Ville Ponkilainen, Jussi P Repo

Abstract

Introduction: Hallux rigidus is a common problem of pain and stiffness of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) caused mainly by degenerative osteoarthritis. Several operative techniques have been introduced for the treatment of this condition without high-quality evidence comparing surgical to non-surgical care. In this trial, the most common surgical procedure, arthrodesis, will be compared with watchful waiting in the management of hallux rigidus.

Methods and analysis: Ninety patients (40 years or older) with symptomatic first MTPJ osteoarthritis will be randomised to arthrodesis or watchful waiting in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome will be pain during walking, assessed using the 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) at 1 year after randomisation. The secondary outcomes will be pain at rest (NRS), physical function (Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire), patient satisfaction in terms of the patient-acceptable symptom state, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), activity level (The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Sports subscale), use of analgesics or orthoses and the rate of complications. Our null hypothesis is that there will be no difference equal to or greater than the minimal important difference of the primary outcome measure between arthrodesis and watchful waiting. Our primary analysis follows an intention-to-treat principle.

Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District, Finland. Written informed consent will be obtained from all the participants. We will disseminate the findings of this study through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Protocol version: 21 June 2021 V.2.0.

Trial registration number: NCT04590313.

Keywords: adult orthopaedics; foot & ankle; surgery.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the enrolment and allocation in the HARD trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart of the interventions and follow-ups in the randomised cohort. FAAM, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure; MOXFQ, Manchester-Oxford Foot and Ankle Questionnaire; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; PASS, patient acceptable symptom state; PCS, Pain Catastrophising Scale.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Flow chart of the interventions and follow-ups in the declined cohort. FAAM, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure; MOXFQ, Manchester-Oxford Foot and Ankle Questionnaire; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; PASS, patient acceptable symptom state; PCS, Pain Catastrophising Scale.

References

    1. Lucas DE, Hunt KJ. Hallux rigidus relevant anatomy and pathophysiology. Foot and Ankle Clin 2015;20:381–9.
    1. Ho B, Baumhauer J. Hallux rigidus. EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:13–20. 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160031
    1. Brage ME, Ball ST. Surgical options for salvage of end-stage hallux rigidus. Foot Ankle Clin 2002;7:49–73. 10.1016/S1083-7515(01)00004-3
    1. Coughlin MJ, Shurnas PS. Hallux rigidus: demographics, etiology, and radiographic assessment. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:731–43. 10.1177/107110070302401002
    1. van Saase JL, van Romunde LK, Cats A, et al. . Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: Zoetermeer survey. Comparison of radiological osteoarthritis in a Dutch population with that in 10 other populations. Ann Rheum Dis 1989;48:271–80. 10.1136/ard.48.4.271
    1. Grady JF, Axe TM, Zager EJ, et al. . A retrospective analysis of 772 patients with hallux limitus. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2002;92:102–8. 10.7547/87507315-92-2-102
    1. Kunnasegaran R, Thevendran G. Hallux rigidus: Nonoperative treatment and Orthotics. Foot Ankle Clin 2015;20:401–12. 10.1016/j.fcl.2015.04.003
    1. Zammit G, Menz HB, Munteanu SE. Interventions for treating osteoarthritis of the big toe joint. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD007809. Sep 8.
    1. Smith RW, Katchis SD, Ayson LC. Outcomes in hallux rigidus patients treated nonoperatively: a long-term follow-up study. Foot Ankle Int 2000;21:906–13. 10.1177/107110070002101103
    1. Munteanu SE, Zammit GV, Menz HB, et al. . Effectiveness of intra-articular hyaluronan (Synvisc, hylan G-F 20) for the treatment of first metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1838–41. 10.1136/ard.2011.153049
    1. Gibson JNA, Thomson CE. Arthrodesis or total replacement arthroplasty for hallux rigidus: a randomized controlled trial. Foot Ankle Int 2005;26:680–90. 10.1177/107110070502600904
    1. Baumhauer JF, Singh D, Glazebrook M, et al. . Prospective, randomized, Multi-centered clinical trial assessing safety and efficacy of a synthetic cartilage implant versus first Metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis in advanced hallux rigidus. Foot Ankle Int 2016;37:457–69. 10.1177/1071100716635560
    1. McNeil DS, Baumhauer JF, Glazebrook MA. Evidence-Based analysis of the efficacy for operative treatment of hallux rigidus. Foot Ankle Int 2013;34:15–32. 10.1177/1071100712460220
    1. Yee G, Lau J. Current concepts review: hallux rigidus. Foot Ankle Int 2008;29:637–46. 10.3113/FAI.2008.0637
    1. Fitzgerald JA, Wilkinson JM. Arthrodesis of the metatarsophalangeal joint of the great toe. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1981:70–7. 10.1097/00003086-198106000-00013
    1. Goucher NR, Coughlin MJ. Hallux metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis using dome-shaped reamers and dorsal plate fixation: a prospective study. Foot Ankle Int 2006;27:869–76. 10.1177/107110070602701101
    1. Peace RA, Hamilton GA. End-Stage hallux rigidus: cheilectomy, implant, or arthrodesis? Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2012;29:341–53. 10.1016/j.cpm.2012.04.002
    1. Coughlin MJ, Shurnas PS. Hallux rigidus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A Suppl 1:119–30. 10.2106/00004623-200409001-00003
    1. Nixon DC, Lorbeer KF, McCormick JJ, et al. . Hallux rigidus grade does not correlate with foot and ankle ability measure score. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2017;25:648–53. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00878
    1. Baumhauer JF, Singh D, Glazebrook M, et al. . Correlation of hallux rigidus grade with motion, vas pain, intraoperative cartilage loss, and treatment success for first MTP joint arthrodesis and synthetic cartilage implant. Foot Ankle Int 2017;38:1175–82. 10.1177/1071100717735289
    1. Politi J, John H, Njus G, et al. . First metatarsal-phalangeal joint arthrodesis: a biomechanical assessment of stability. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:332–7. 10.1177/107110070302400405
    1. Doty J, Coughlin M, Hirose C, et al. . Hallux Metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis with a hybrid locking plate and a plantar neutralization screw. Foot Ankle Int 2013;34:1535–40. 10.1177/1071100713494779
    1. Navarro-Cano E, Guevara-Noriega KA, Lucar-Lopez G, et al. . A comparison of two designs of postoperative shoe for hallux valgus surgery: a biomechanical study in a cadaveric model. Foot Ankle Surg 2021;27:82–6. 10.1016/j.fas.2020.02.010
    1. Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, et al. . Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15:918–31. 10.1016/j.joca.2007.02.003
    1. Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. The Lancet 1974;304:1127–31. 10.1016/S0140-6736(74)90884-8
    1. Hogan MV, Mani SB, Chan JY, et al. . Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for hallux rigidus. HSS Jrnl 2016;12:44–50. 10.1007/s11420-015-9466-4
    1. Nilsdotter A-K, Cöster ME, Bremander A, et al. . Patient-reported outcome after hallux valgus surgery - a two year follow up. Foot Ankle Surg 2019;25:478–81. 10.1016/j.fas.2018.02.015
    1. Olsen MF, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, et al. . Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain. BMC Med 2017;15:35. 10.1186/s12916-016-0775-3
    1. Alghadir AH, Anwer S, Iqbal A, et al. . Test-Retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain. J Pain Res 2018;11:851–6. 10.2147/JPR.S158847
    1. Landorf KB, Radford JA, Hudson S. Minimal important difference (mid) of two commonly used outcome measures for foot problems. J Foot Ankle Res 2010;3:7. 10.1186/1757-1146-3-7
    1. Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, et al. . Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149–58. 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9
    1. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Martin-Mola E, et al. . Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: results from a prospective multina. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:1699–707. 10.1002/acr.21747
    1. Tubach F, et al. . Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:34–7. 10.1136/ard.2004.023028
    1. Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, et al. . The MOXFQ patient-reported questionnaire: assessment of data quality, reliability and validity in relation to foot and ankle surgery. Foot 2011;21:92–102. 10.1016/j.foot.2011.02.002
    1. Morley D, Jenkinson C, Doll H, et al. . The Manchester–Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ). Bone Joint Res 2013;2:66–9. 10.1302/2046-3758.24.2000147
    1. Ponkilainen VT, Miettinen M, Sandelin H, et al. . Structural validity of the Finnish Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) using the Rasch model. Foot and Ankle Surgery 2021;27:93–100. 10.1016/j.fas.2020.02.012
    1. Gallagher EJ, Liebman M, Bijur PE. Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:633–8. 10.1067/mem.2001.118863
    1. Brooks R, De Charro F. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72. 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6
    1. EuroQol . EQ-5D user guides, 2020. Available:
    1. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, et al. . Evidence of validity for the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int 2005;26:968–83. 10.1177/107110070502601113
    1. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain Catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess 1995;7:524–32. 10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524
    1. Rosenstiel AK, Keefe FJ. The use of coping strategies in chronic low back pain patients: relationship to patient characteristics and current adjustment. Pain 1983;17:33–44. 10.1016/0304-3959(83)90125-2
    1. Razmjou H, Schwartz CE, Yee A, et al. . Traditional assessment of health outcome following total knee arthroplasty was confounded by response shift phenomenon. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:91–6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.004
    1. Razmjou H, Schwartz CE, Holtby R. The impact of response shift on perceived disability two years following rotator cuff surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:2178–86. 10.2106/JBJS.I.00990
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, et al. . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009;41:1149–60. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
    1. Reeves D, Howells K, Sidaway M, et al. . The cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design was found to be highly susceptible to low statistical power and internal validity biases. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;95:111–9. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.008
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. . CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332. 10.1136/bmj.c332
    1. Järvinen TLN, Sihvonen R, Bhandari M, et al. . Blinded interpretation of study results can feasibly and effectively diminish interpretation bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:769–72. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.011
    1. World Medical Association . World Medical association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–4. 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
    1. Singal AG, Higgins PDR, Waljee AK. A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2014;5:e45. 10.1038/ctg.2013.13
    1. Beard DJ, Campbell MK, Blazeby JM, et al. . Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines). The Lancet 2020;395:828–38. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33137-X
    1. Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC. Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;43:CD003974. 10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub3

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner