0
Scientific Article   |    
Surgical Treatment of Flexible Flatfoot in Children A Four-Year Follow-up Study
Sandro Giannini, MD; Francesco Ceccarelli, MD; Maria Grazia Benedetti, MD; Fabio Catani, MD; Cesare Faldini, MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
Sandro Giannini, MD
Francesco Ceccarelli, MD
Fabio Catani, MD
Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via G.C. Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy. E-mail address for S. Giannini: giannini@ior.it

Maria Grazia Benedetti, MD
Cesare Faldini, MD
Movement Analysis Laboratory, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 Bologna, Italy

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2001; 83:S73-79 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
Flexible flatfoot in children is one of the most common disorders in orthopaedics1,2. Despite numerous papers published in the literature, the definition and etiology of flexible flatfoot; the level of disability that it may cause; and the opportunity for, appropriate time of, and efficacy of its treatment are still open to debate3,4. In fact, if the foot is only morphologically flat, characterized by a lower medial arch and a broadening of the footprint, it can be well tolerated throughout the person’s life. If, however, the foot is also functionally flat—that is, a foot that during weight-bearing and walking stays in a prevalent or persistent pronation—can cause secondary problems5,6.
Persistent pronation of the subtalar joint during the propulsive phase of gait is mostly responsible for major deformities in adult life7. Hallux valgus, metatarsalgia, tarsal tunnel syndrome, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction, and osteoarthritis of the subtalar and midtarsal joints are often the consequences and the "natural history" of this deformity8,9.
In order to avoid these problems, surgical correction of the deformity during growth is recommended10. The goal of surgical treatment is to correct the subtalar pronation, thereby restoring the appropriate relationship between the talus and the calcaneus11. The procedures that have been described are arthrodesis, osteotomy, and arthroereisis1,2,8,11,12. While arthrodesis is indicated in adults with degenerative changes in the subtalar joint, osteotomy and arthroereisis are the two principal options for children9.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes four years after correction of flexible flatfoot, in growing children, with arthroereisis of the subtalar joint with use of a bioreabsorbable implant made of poly-l-lactic acid (PLLA) approved by the European Community (Stryker Howmedica) (Fig. 1).
Twenty-one children, ranging in age from eight to fifteen years, with bilateral functional flexible flatfoot were included in the study. The diagnosis of functional flexible flatfoot was made by clinical examination, radiographic examination, and, in doubtful cases, gait analysis in order to confirm functional impairment. Clinical diagnosis was based on restriction of dorsiflexion of the ankle joint after manual correction of the deformity, increased heel valgus at rest and during the tiptoe standing test, footprint enlargement at rest and during the Jack test, and the presence of discomfort (slight pain and fatigue).
These parameters were measured before surgery and four years after it. Preoperative and postoperative data were compared by statistical analysis with the Student t test and the chi-square test (level of significance, p < 0.001). Standard lateral and dorsoplantar radiographs were made before surgery and at the time of follow-up. Meary’s line was measured in all cases. Gait analysis consisted of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic measurements. All patients were followed for four years.
Surgical treatment is performed under general anesthesia. A tourniquet is applied proximally to the lower limbs. Patients are placed in a supine position with the foot internally rotated. A 1-cm incision over the sinus tarsi is performed. The extensor retinaculum is opened to the cuboid bone with use of curved scissors. By turning the tip of the scissors upward and pushing in a medial direction toward the internal malleolus, the tip of the scissors can be felt going into the deepest region of the sinus tarsi (Figs. 2 and 3).
A 6-mm rod is introduced in the same direction, followed by an 8-mm rod until correction is obtained. The skin and the fibers of the retinaculum are retracted with two small separators to introduce the reabsorbable implant with its positioner (Figs. 4 and 5).
The reabsorbable screw is inserted to open and stabilize the implant, and it is tightened until the characteristic "squeaking" is heard from the material. The retinaculum is sutured with one 3-0 reabsorbable suture, and the skin is sutured with another stitch. This is the only surgical step available for correction. The operation is performed bilaterally when the deformity involves both feet (Figs. 6, 7, 7, 8, and 9).
After the foot is corrected by insertion of the implant, the dorsiflexion of the foot is checked with the knee in extension. In this series, it was not possible to dorsiflex six feet to a right angle. In these cases, the Achilles tendon was lengthened subcutaneously with two, three, or four alternate hemisections and forcing of the foot dorsally to stretch the tendon until 10° of dorsiflexion was achieved (Fig. 10).
In twelve feet with an accessory navicular, a prominent painful navicular bone, or interruption of Meary’s line at the naviculocuneiform joint with an angle of >10°, a medial procedure was also performed. Through a 3-cm incision over the navicular prominence, the navicular bone and the posterior tibial tendon are exposed. The periosteum and the posterior tibial tendon are detached from the navicular, with maintenance of the metatarsal expansion and the fibers directed toward the navicular. After tangential resection of the navicular prominence and the removal of the accessory navicular, the posterior tibial tendon is put under tension with use of a 2-0 reabsorbable Bunnell suture and the suture is passed from plantar to dorsal through the spongy part of the navicular bone (Figs. 11 and 12).
By the surgeon pulling the two ends of the suture, the tendon is advanced distally to lie under the navicular bone. The suture is reinforced with another cross stitch with 2-0 suture. The sheath of the posterior tibialis is sutured with 3-0 suture (Figs. 13 and 14).
When only the implant was inserted, a walking boot is worn for two weeks in order to avoid any pain during walking and to permit an earlier return to normal daily life. When the combined procedure was done, the period of immobility with a boot is five weeks: three weeks without weight-bearing and two weeks with weight-bearing. In both cases, when the boot is removed, normal footwear is worn and cycling and swimming are advised.
No significant differences were found between preoperative and postoperative plantar flexion, supination, and pronation. Dorsiflexion measured with the subtalar joint in neutral position was 11.4° &plusmn; 6.3° before surgery and 17.7° &plusmn; 3.6° at the time of follow-up (p < 0.0001) (Figs. 15 and 16). Discomfort was present in only 5% of the children at the time of follow-up, whereas it had been present in 81% of the children before surgery (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 17).
The mean heel valgus deviation at rest was 11.4° &plusmn; 4.2° preoperatively and 5.8° &plusmn; 3° at the time of follow-up (p < 0.0001) (Figs. 18, 19, and 20). The mean heel valgus correction during the tiptoe standing test was —1.9° &plusmn; 4.9° preoperatively and —6.3° &plusmn; 3.4° at the time of follow-up (p < 0.0001) (Figs. 21, 22, and 23).
The footprint grade at rest was 2.6 &plusmn; 1.3 preoperatively and 0.8 &plusmn; 1.2 at the time of follow-up (Figs. 24 and 25). The footprint grade during the Jack test was 1.8 &plusmn; 1.4 preoperatively and 0.5 &plusmn; 1.1 at the time of follow-up (Figs. 26 and 27).
With the site of angulation at the level of the talonavicular joint, the mean angulation of Meary’s line was 164° &plusmn; 10° preoperatively and 174° &plusmn; 5° at the time of follow-up (p < 0.0001) (Figs. 28, 29, 30).
Only two complications were observed in our series: small fragments of the implant impinged against the shoes at one and two years. These problems spontaneously resolved with resorption of the material.
Magnetic resonance imaging performed from three months to five years after surgery did not show sinus formation or any osseous alterations in the sinus tarsi. The implant began to change six months after surgery (Fig. 31). At one year, fragmentation of the implant could be seen but the overall structure was still intact (Fig. 32). Structural integrity disappeared at eighteen months, and fragmentation of the implant became more evident (Fig. 33). At three years, the implant had almost completely disappeared and edema in the sinus tarsi could be seen (Fig. 34). At four years, the implant was completely absorbed (Fig. 35).
Extra-articular arthroereisis with use of a bioreabsorbable implant in the sinus tarsi was simple and effective in correcting functional flexible flatfoot. Surgery performed during growth provides an optimal and lasting correction of the deformity, restoring the talocalcaneal alignment with remodeling of the subtalar joint. This correction improves the biomechanics to prevent problems caused by persistent pronation of the foot. The bioreabsorbable implant proved to be virtually complication-free and did not need to be removed.
 
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 2:Figs. 2-14 The surgical procedure (see text).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 31:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonance images. Fig. 31 At six months.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 32:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonance images. Fig. 32 At one year.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 33:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonanceimages. Fig. 33 At eighteen months.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 34:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonanceimages. Fig. 34 At three years.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 35:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonance images. Fig. 35 At four years.
Bordelon RL. Flexible flatfoot. In: Mann RA, Coughlin MJ, editors. Surgery of the foot and ankle. St. Louis: Mosby; 1993. p 717-56 
 
DeRosa GP. Flexible flatfoot. In: Gould JS, editor. Operative foot surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1994. p 834-57 
 
IsikanUE. The values of talonavicular angles in patients with pes planus. J Foot Ankle Surg,1993;32: 514-6. 32514  1993  [PubMed]
 
RoseGK, Welton EA,Marshall T. The diagnosis of flat foot in the child. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1985;67: 71-8. 6771  1985  [PubMed]
 
BertaniA, Cappello A, Benedetti MG, Simoncini L,Catani F. Flat foot functional evaluation using pattern recognition of ground reaction dat. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon),1999;14: 484-93. 14484  1999  [PubMed]
 
Giannini S, Catani F, Ceccarelli F, Girolami M,Benedetti MG. Kinematic and isokinetic evaluation of patients with flat foot. Ital J Orthop Traumatol,1992;18: 241-51. 18241  1992  [PubMed]
 
Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH. Normal and abnormal function of the foot. Los Angeles: Clinical Biomechanics; 1977. p 295-339 
 
GianniniS. Operative treatment of the flatfoot: why and how. Foot Ankle Int,1998;19: 52-8. 1952  1998  [PubMed]
 
GianniniS,Ceccarelli F. The flexible flat foot. Foot Ankle Clin,1998;3: 573-92. 3573  1998 
 
Viladot R, Richera R, Viladot A. Quince lecciones sobre patologia del pie. Barcelona: Ediciones Toray SA; 1989. p 69-93 
 
GianniniS, Girolami M,Ceccarelli F. The surgical treatment of infantile flat foot. A new expanding endo-orthotic implant. Ital J Orthop Traumatol,1985;11: 315-22. 11315  1985  [PubMed]
 
DockeryGL. Symptomatic juvenile flatfoot condition: surgical treatment. J Foot Ankle Surg,1995;34: 135-45. 34135  1995  [PubMed]
 

Submit a comment

Topics

Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 2:Figs. 2-14 The surgical procedure (see text).
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 31:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonance images. Fig. 31 At six months.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 32:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonance images. Fig. 32 At one year.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 33:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonanceimages. Fig. 33 At eighteen months.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 34:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonanceimages. Fig. 34 At three years.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 35:Figs. 31 through 35 Magnetic resonance images. Fig. 35 At four years.
Bordelon RL. Flexible flatfoot. In: Mann RA, Coughlin MJ, editors. Surgery of the foot and ankle. St. Louis: Mosby; 1993. p 717-56 
 
DeRosa GP. Flexible flatfoot. In: Gould JS, editor. Operative foot surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1994. p 834-57 
 
IsikanUE. The values of talonavicular angles in patients with pes planus. J Foot Ankle Surg,1993;32: 514-6. 32514  1993  [PubMed]
 
RoseGK, Welton EA,Marshall T. The diagnosis of flat foot in the child. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1985;67: 71-8. 6771  1985  [PubMed]
 
BertaniA, Cappello A, Benedetti MG, Simoncini L,Catani F. Flat foot functional evaluation using pattern recognition of ground reaction dat. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon),1999;14: 484-93. 14484  1999  [PubMed]
 
Giannini S, Catani F, Ceccarelli F, Girolami M,Benedetti MG. Kinematic and isokinetic evaluation of patients with flat foot. Ital J Orthop Traumatol,1992;18: 241-51. 18241  1992  [PubMed]
 
Root ML, Orien WP, Weed JH. Normal and abnormal function of the foot. Los Angeles: Clinical Biomechanics; 1977. p 295-339 
 
GianniniS. Operative treatment of the flatfoot: why and how. Foot Ankle Int,1998;19: 52-8. 1952  1998  [PubMed]
 
GianniniS,Ceccarelli F. The flexible flat foot. Foot Ankle Clin,1998;3: 573-92. 3573  1998 
 
Viladot R, Richera R, Viladot A. Quince lecciones sobre patologia del pie. Barcelona: Ediciones Toray SA; 1989. p 69-93 
 
GianniniS, Girolami M,Ceccarelli F. The surgical treatment of infantile flat foot. A new expanding endo-orthotic implant. Ital J Orthop Traumatol,1985;11: 315-22. 11315  1985  [PubMed]
 
DockeryGL. Symptomatic juvenile flatfoot condition: surgical treatment. J Foot Ankle Surg,1995;34: 135-45. 34135  1995  [PubMed]
 
Accreditation Statement
These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
CME Activities Associated with This Article
Submit a Comment
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe




Related Articles
Related Cases
Related Content
Topic Collections
Related Audio and Videos
PubMed Articles
Reconstruction of the symptomatic idiopathic flatfoot in adolescents and young adults.
Foot & ankle international / American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society [and] Swiss Foot and Ankle Society: Issue date- 2011 Mar
Deltoid ligament reconstruction with peroneus longus autograft in flatfoot deformity.
Foot & ankle international / American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society [and] Swiss Foot and Ankle Society: Issue date- 2010 Sep
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
jbjs jobs
12/22/2011
VA - Charleston Area Medical Center
12/22/2011
ME - Central Maine Medical Center