Aims. Gastrocnemius tightness predisposes to musculoskeletal pathology
and may require surgical treatment. However, it is not clear what
proportion of patients with foot and ankle pathology have clinically
significant gastrocnemius tightness. The aim of this study was to
compare the prevalence and degree of gastrocnemius tightness in
a control group of patients with a group of patients with foot and
ankle pathology. Patients and Methods. This prospective, case-matched, observational study compared
gastrocnemius tightness, as assessed by the lunge test, in a control
group and a group with foot and ankle pathology. Gastrocnemius tightness
was calculated as the difference in dorsiflexion of the ankle with
the knee extended and flexed. Results. A total of 291 controls were paired with 97 patients with foot
and ankle pathology (FAP). The mean gastrocnemius tightness was
6.0° (. sd. 3.5) in controls and 8.0° (. sd. 5.7) in
the FAP group (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed a mean gastrocnemius
tightness of 10.3° (. sd. 6.0) in patients with
I consider the term ‘minimally invasive surgery’ (MIS) to represent a wide range of techniques directed at achieving a surgical objective with less collateral tissue damage. The surgeon choosing to employ such techniques may aspire to achieve improved or more consistent outcome for their patients but is this so? What are the complications? In certain areas of surgery the concept of MIS is well established (e.g. knee and ankle arthroscopy). In forefoot surgery the concept has been met with interest but also skepticism. Much of this skepticism pivots around concerns that the loss of direct vision (maintained in arthroscopic techniques) may increase the risk of complications. In other words, there is a concern that due to the loss of direct visualization (replaced by intra-operative xray imaging), any benefit that might arise from the less invasive technique of the operation will be negated by either poorer quality of surgical correction or higher risk of injury to adjacent structures. All surgery is associated with a degree of risk and in considering the complications specifically associated with MIS of the forefoot we must try to separate out those complications related to the specific MIS technique involved and those that are not. In other words, we need to identify whether the complication has occurred as a result of incorrect surgical planning (e.g. wrong choice of osteotomy/flaws in surgical objective), poor execution of the surgical technique, or as a result of the MIS instrumentation/equipment. I will discuss the above in relation to my experience of complications encountered whilst employing minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of
