Introduction: The mini C-arm is a compact, user-friendly device with the advantage of reducing exposure to ionising radiation compared to the conventional C-arm. Optimising radiation exposure is not only desirable, but also a legal requirement and protocols should be in place to achieve this. The purpose of this paper is to review our use of the mini C-arm for elective foot surgery and to suggest guidelines for optimising its use.

Materials and Methods: Between 2004 and 2006, all elective foot surgery requiring intraoperative imaging were performed using the mini C-arm unit. Procedures performed included ankle, midfoot and hindfoot arthrodeses and joint injections or aspirations. Screening times and radiation doses were recorded for each procedure.

Results: Following an initial learning curve, the screening times stabilised around the median value for the individual procedures. For a subtalar or triple arthrodesis this was less than 60 seconds, for ankle arthrodesis, less than 90 seconds and for hindfoot arthrodesis using a nail, less than 100 seconds. Other single joint arthrodeses had a screening time under 30 seconds and injections or aspirations, under 12 seconds.

Discussion: As screening time is the main variable that can be controlled by the surgeon, assuming that all other precautions are followed, screening time can be used as a useful audit tool to measure optimum use of the mini C-arm. A protocol is presented which includes completion of an audit form for every operation where the mini C-arm is used. The above times can be used as a guide to enable hospital trusts to formulate their own protocols to regulate radiation exposure.

Conclusion: The mini C-arm is well suited for foot and ankle surgery. Having a protocol in place and periodic audit is essential to optimise its use. Apart from being good clinical practice, this is now a legal requirement.

Results: In males CA was significantly larger in all regions of the foot than in females. There were no significant between sex differences in PP, CT and PTI. FTI was significantly greater in males than females for most regions in the foot. IPP was earlier in females. MaxF was also significantly higher in males in all the regions except the 2nd toe. MeanF was also higher in males.

Conclusion: There were no PP differences; however the plantar surface area of the male foot was larger than females.

Introduction: Hypermobility is a common finding, however, it lacks diagnostic parameters and is poorly understood, especially in the foot.

Aim: To quantify medial column/first ray mobility in patients with midfoot arthritis and planovalgus feet.

Methods: We compared first ray mobility in patients with radiologically defined midfoot tarsometatarsal osteoarthritis, a radiologically normal first ray and planovalgus feet, with control subjects who had normal feet and first rays. An all female group of 20 patients (mean age of 70) and 20 controls (mean age of 53) met the criteria. Analysis of patients’ x-rays identified the site of their arthritis and allowed angular measurements of their flat foot deformity. Patient and control subjects underwent identical examinations, recording hindfoot correctability, medial longitudinal arch appearance, hindfoot prontion and supination, forefoot supination and degrees of flexion/extension and abduction/adduction with an electronic goniometer. Each subject was graded by the AOFAS and SF-36 outcome scores.

Results: There was a significant difference in first ray mobility between the patient and control subjects for all positions adopted (P=< 0.001), except when dorsiflexed and weight bearing (P=0.052). Patients with a neutral non-weight bearing ankle exhibited greatest mobility of 16.8 +/− 4.7 degrees compared to 9.4 +/− 2.6 degrees in controls. This was a significant difference, P=< 0.001, as was the difference between patients adopting the NWB plantarflexed, dorsiflexed and WB neutral positions. P=0.002, P=0.014, P=0.001 respectively. Patients’ median score for 5 out of 8 SF36 domains were considerably less than controls, as were patients’ AOFAS. Reduced physical and social functioning were shown to be linked to poor foot scores.

Conclusion: Patients with planovalgus feet and tarsometatarsal OA have greater first ray mobility than controls with normal feet. Recognising this may help plan orthotic or surgical treatment.

The patho-anatomy and aetiology of hallux valgus will be described. History, physical examination, radiographic evaluation, surgical evaluation and decision making will be discussed, as well as the management of common complications.

Throughout the symposium the authors’ preferred treatment and rationale will be illustrated using clinical cases.