We reviewed the outcome of distal chevron metatarsal osteotomy without tendon transfer in 19 consecutive patients (19 feet) with a hallux varus deformity following surgery for hallux valgus. All patients underwent distal chevron metatarsal osteotomy with medial displacement and a medial closing wedge osteotomy along with a medial capsular release.

The mean hallux valgus angle improved from −11.6° pre-operatively to 4.7° postoperatively, the mean first-second intermetatarsal angle improved from −0.3° to 3.3° and the distal metatarsal articular angle from 9.5° to 2.3° and the first metatarsophalangeal joints became congruent post-operatively in all 19 feet. The mean relative length ratio of the metatarsus decreased from 1.01 to 0.99 and the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score improved from 77 to 95 points.

In two patients the hallux varus recurred. One was symptom-free but the other remained symptomatic after a repeat distal chevron osteotomy. There were no other complications.

We consider that distal chevron metatarsal osteotomy with a medial wedge osteotomy and medial capsular release is a useful procedure for the correction of hallux varus after surgery for hallux valgus.

We suggested a new concept of buffered implant fixation. It is a cementless fixation using a buffer instead of the cement between the bone and the implant. We investigated the feasibility of the buffered implant fixation using a rat model. In our previous study, we measured the amount of bone around the implant to compare the buffered implant fixation with the cemented fixation. The results showed the difference in change of Bone Volume/Total Volume (BV/TV) with time between the buffered fixation and the cemented fixation. Now, in this study, we are comparing the mechanical interface strength between two fixations.

After micro CT scanning, the specimens were used for mechanical push-out test to measure the interface shear strength at the buffer-bone or cement-bone interface. The distal side of the femur was carefully removed to expose the whole distal region of the implant while the proximal side of femur was cut carefully with diamond saw (Metsaw, R& B Inc., Korea) until the proximal end of cement or buffer is exposed. The femur was embedded into a push-out jig with a plaster. The push-out jig was mounted in a material testing machine (KSU-10M, Kyungsung testing machine, Korea) and loaded at a rate of 0.01mm/s. The apparent interface strength was calculated by dividing the peak force by the surface area of the buffer or cement.

After 2 weeks, the apparent interface strength is 217.0 ± 280.0(average ± standard deviation) for buffer and 472.4 ± 381.1 for cement; after 4 weeks, 92.9 ± 67.6 and 268.1 ± 197.9; after 12 weeks, 441.9 ± 467.1 and 201.8 ± 132.3, respectively. The buffered fixation showed gain in strength with time while the cemented fixation showed reverse tendency but the interaction by ANOVA was not significant (p=0.125). Even though the excellence of buffer fixation was not clearly confirmed because of small sample size and high variance, the feasibility of the buffer fixation was shown.

However, further studies are necessary to improve the buffered implant fixation. To enhance the cell adhesion and biocompatibility, it is necessary to modify the surface of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) such as by plasma treatment or biological coating. Also, an animal test using a higher level animal such as dog or pig is necessary.

The cemented and cementless implant fixations are popular in orthopaedic arthroplasty. However, these implant fixations have some problems such as cement failure, wear debris, stress shielding, revision and so on. To overcome these problems, we are developing a new concept of buffered implant fixation which uses a bone-friendly buffer between the implant and the bone. In this study, we performed a finite element analysis to evaluate the buffered implant fixation in comparison with cemented and cementless implant fixations in mechanical aspects. In addition, we investigated the effect of buffer taper angle to the stress distribution in the buffered implant fixation.

Three-dimensional FEA of the cemented, cementless and buffered fixation were performed using the ABAQUS program. In these FEA, the ‘standardized femur’, which is the composite femur model supplied by Pacific Research Lab., was used as the bone model and the CPT stem and the Versys Fibermetal Midcoat stem were modeled for the cemented fixation and the cementless fixation, respectively. These three-dimensional models were meshed using the tetrahedral elements with 4 nodes (C3D4) and the additional contact definitions. The buffered implant fixation is similar with the polished cemented fixation except the material between the implant and the bone. The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) was selected as the buffer material. Also, several taper angles of buffer were simulated to change the stress distributions in the buffered fixation. The external load three times of mean body weight (74.3 kg) was cyclically loaded at the femoral head with the angle of 20° in adduction and 6° in flexion while the distal end of femur was fixed.

In the buffered implant fixation, the taper-locked effects were observed. The buffered fixation had greater cyclic compression for the bone compared to the cemented fixation. Also, the failure probability of the buffer in the buffered fixation was less than that of the cement in the cemented fixation. The risk factors in the buffer were 0.148 for the tension and 0.176 for the compression while, the risk factors of cement in the polished cemented implant fixation were over than 1. Moreover, the buffered fixation had widely distributed compression compared to the cementless fixation and the stress distribution could be modified easily to change the taper angle of buffer. The FEA results showed that the buffered implant fixation would provide an appropriate mechanical environment.