https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1502-4668
Figures
Abstract
Background
Satisfaction with hallux valgus repair is often poor, despite good surgical outcomes. Many tools have been developed to assess the outcome of the procedure; however none evaluate the association between the initial motive for repair and the reasons for post-surgical dissatisfaction. The aim of this study was to develop a new tool to analyse the subjective and objective expectations of individuals during a pre-operative consultation for hallux valgus repair in order to improve post-surgical satisfaction.
Methods
We first collected the reasons for dissatisfaction with repair from the medical files of dissatisfied individuals. Then, a steering committee of 4 French experts in the management of hallux valgus designed a questionnaire based on the reasons for dissatisfaction. We then used the DELPHI method to validate the questionnaire: we submitted the questionnaire to a panel of 34 francophone experts in hallux valgus repair for rating in 4 rounds.
Results
The medical files of 853 individuals were reviewed and a 52-item questionnaire relating to expectations from hallux valgus surgery was drafted. After the 4 rounds, a final 44 item questionnaire reached consensus. Thirteen items related to clinical and psychological profile, 5 to pain, 9 to physical activity, 4 to aesthetics and 13 to footwear.
Citation: Blouin C, Genet F, Denormandie P, Graff W, Perrier A (2022) Development of a preoperative questionnaire to improve satisfaction with hallux valgus repair: A Delphi study. PLoS ONE 17(10): e0276303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276303
Editor: Faizan Iqbal, Baqai Medical University, PAKISTAN
Received: June 29, 2022; Accepted: October 5, 2022; Published: October 24, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Blouin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All files are available from the "Qualitative and Data Repository" (accession number doi:10.5064/F6IJHYLR). https://qdr.syr.edu/.
Funding: C.B. This research was supported by the Agence Régionale de Santé Île-de-France (Winner of the 2018 call for proposals "emergence of dual teacher-researcher functions") and the Institut de Santé Parasport Connecté (ISPC) (thesis support bursary). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Hallux valgus is the most common disorder of the foot [1]. It affects 30% of women and 13% of men of all ages, and its prevalence increases with age [2]. The only effective treatment for hallux valgus is surgery [3–5].
Hallux valgus deformity is commonly analysed descriptively. The clinical examination of this deformity begins with an exhaustive morpho-static and morpho-dynamic, bilateral analysis of the lower limbs, associated with muscular, articular, vascular, neurological, etc. assessments [6–8]. The extent of the hallux valgus can be graded clinically with the Manchester scale, which is a method of assessing the deformity using a set of standardised photographs [9].
In order to make a therapeutic decision, the clinical assessment must be complemented by imaging. Metrology using standard radiographs of the foot and ankle, performed under load, must be comparative. A large number of angular measurements of the foot is necessary to understand the pathophysiology of the deformity [10–12]. Measurements of the hallux valgus angle (HVA) and the intermetatarsal angle (IMA) allow classification of the severity of the hallux valgus [13, 14]. In addition, the anatomical characteristics of the sesamoid bones of the hallux can be evaluated with dorsoplantar and axial radiographs. They allow morphological classification and measurements such as the sesamoid rotation angle (SRA), which is important for the choice of surgical technique [15–20].
Recently, a new classification of hallux valgus, based on three-dimensional anatomy of the first ray, with a decision algorithm for management has been proposed [21]. Radiological measurements are nowadays often complemented by three-dimensional CT techniques [22–24].
Baropodometry is also used as part of the routine clinical assessment of hallux valgus [25–27]. In particular, it provides a measurement of dynamic plantar pressures before and after the operation [28, 29]. However, none of these assessments provide information about the individual’s functional goal for surgery.
Postoperative satisfaction depends on the adequacy between the result obtained and the individual’s preoperative expectations [30, 31]. However, studies have shown that there is no correlation between subjective satisfaction and deformity reduction after hallux valgus repair [32–34]: the criteria for a good outcome differ between the surgeon and the individual [35]. Despite adequate deformity reduction following surgery [32, 36], dissatisfaction with the outcome is frequent [31, 37]. We suggest this is because the focus of the preoperative consultation is typically on pain, and the individual’s needs and expectations are not fully expressed and/or are not fully investigated by the surgeon. It has been reported that clinicians only question people regarding their motive for repair and their postsurgical expectations in 36% of cases [38]. When they do ask, they interrupt the response in 70% of cases after a mean 11 s [38]. This short time could explain why the person’s full motives are not identified. The person may assume that the surgical intervention will address all their limitations and allow them to return to their pre hallux valgus state, however, this is not possible since surgery can only reduce the deformity.
Defining surgical goals improves the quality of care [39]. Setting goals according to the SMART (specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic, time-bound) criteria [40] facilitates the achievement of realistic expectations, however is not easy during a short surgical consultation. More than 139 self-report questionnaires relating to the ankle and foot have been published [41, 42] but none allow a comprehensive, precise and pertinent evaluation of the foot and ankle that could facilitate goal setting. Furthermore, they do not cover the 4 main expectations of individuals for hallux valgus surgery that have been reported in the literature: pain, footwear, physical activities and aesthetics [7, 43–45]. A specific tool that the surgeon can use to determine the individual’s motives for and expectations from hallux valgus repair is therefore required.
The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire that would encompass the main expectations of hallux valgus repair that could influence satisfaction with postoperative outcomes. To this purpose, we used the Delphi method [46]. This method uses rounds of questionnaires to collate expert opinion on specific subjects until consensus is reached [47, 48].
Method
Design
We used an inverse approach to develop a questionnaire relating to expectations from the reasons for dissatisfaction with hallux valgus repair: the reasons for dissatisfaction were collected from medical records for the development of the initial questionnaire. We then applied the Delphi method in 4 rounds to reach a consensus-based questionnaire.
The study is reported according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines [49]. The study was approved by the Committee for The Protection of Persons Sud-Est III (reference RCB 2021-A00603-38, CPP 2021-034B). Written consent was obtained from all participants.
Review of reasons for dissatisfaction with hallux valgus repair
In 2015, we created a system of postoperative consultations specifically for individuals who were insufficiently satisfied with the outcomes of forefoot surgery. All the consultations were conducted by 2 podiatrists who were not involved in pre-surgical or surgical care. The podiatrists recorded both the subjective and objective reasons for dissatisfaction in the person’s medical file. The purpose of the consultation was to determine possible solutions to improve satisfaction.
We collected all the reasons for dissatisfaction recorded in the medical files between 2015 and 2021 and collated them to determine reasons that were recurrent. We also compared the reasons for dissatisfaction recorded by the podiatrists with the motive for repair recorded by the surgeon.
The list of recurrent reasons was submitted to the steering committee who grouped the reasons into 4 main types of expectations (pain, footwear, aesthetics and physical activity), according to reports in the literature [41–43, 45]. Using these data, they then drafted 52 questions that constituted the initial questionnaire (S1 File).
Steering committee
The steering committee was composed of 2 podiatrists from the La Croix Saint-Simon hospital, France’s leading hospital for orthopedic foot surgery, and 2 orthopedic surgeons from the national healthcare system who were experts in foot surgery.
Expert panel
We selected francophone experts (from France, Belgium and Canada) by screening the lists of members of relevant academic societies: we verified their curriculum vitae and asked those who had at least 5 years’ experience in the treatment of hallux valgus and who had published or communicated on the subject to participate, according to the recommendations for conducting Delphi surveys [50]. They all provided written consent for participation and signed confidentiality forms.
Of the 40 experts contacted, a total of 34 agreed to participate: 27/34 (79.4%) men and 7/34 (20.6%) women. Their professions were orthopaedic surgeon (27/34; 79.4%), rheumatologist (2/34; 5.9%), podiatrist (5/34; 14.7%). Mean age was 50.4 (SD 9.6) years, mean duration of practice was 20.8 (10.6) years and mean experience in the management of foot deformities was 20.3 (9.3) years. The areas of expertise of the panel members are shown in Table 1.
The experts’ academic degrees were PhD (4/34; 11.8%) and MSc (10/34; 29.4%). The remaining experts had no postgraduate academic degree (20/34; 58.8%).
In total, 4/34 (11.8%) had no postgraduate certificates and 30/34 (88.2%) had at least 1 post graduate certificate (range 1 to 11 certificates).
Most of the experts were involved in research: 11/34 (32.4%) had published between 1 and 5 articles and 15/34 (44.1%) had published more than 5; 30/34 had presented at conferences (88.2%). Self-report of their knowledge of hallux valgus surgery was 6.1 (SD 0.8) on a Likert scale of 1 to 7.
Delphi method
Developed in 1950 by Olaf Helmer at the Rand Corporation [46], the purpose of the Delphi method is to converge the opinions of a group of experts to create consensus on specific subjects through rounds of questionnaires [47]. This method involves a structured communication process with a defined group of experts and is based on the principle of individual and anonymous exchanges. The purpose for the present study was to identify and refine the most pertinent items for our measurement tool [48].
Four rounds of questionnaires were conducted between November 2021 and January 2022 (Fig 1). At each stage, the questionnaire was submitted to the expert panel via the Drag’n Survey tool (RGPD compatible). It was modified between each stage by the steering committee, according to the comments from the expert panel. No personal data were collected online. The criteria for selection of the consensus-validated items are presented in Fig 2.
Delphi round 1
In the first round, the initial questionnaire (V1) was submitted to the expert panel. They were asked to rate each item according to the degree of importance of the item in their opinion using a 9-point Likert-type scale [51] ranging from ’strongly disagree’ (score = 1) to ’strongly agree’ (score = 9). An open-ended question provided at the end asked the experts to provide any comments, add items they felt were missing or rephrase items if they felt it was necessary in order to ensure the comprehensibility of each question and the possible answers of the individuals completing it.
We then selected the questionnaire items according to the ratings [52]. An item was removed if 25% of the experts rated it ≤ 4 (1st quartile score) and if the mean score was ≤ 6 and/or the median score was ≤ 7. The items retained constituted the V1* questionnaire.
Additional items suggested by the experts in response to the open-ended question were retained if they were suggested by at least 3 (questionnaire V2).
Delphi round 2
The second round followed the same process as the first but involved only the 3 items that were added or modified by the panel during round 1 (questionnaire V2).
After validation by the experts, the items of the V2 questionnaire were added to the V1* questionnaire to create questionnaire V3.
Delphi round 3
In the third round, the experts evaluated questionnaire V3. A 4-point Likert-type scale was used: 1 for "strongly disagree", 2 for "disagree", 3 for "agree" and 4 for "strongly agree". The reason for the change in scale was to force the experts to decide between agreement or disagreement for each item. The results of this round were used to create questionnaire V4.
Delphi round 4
In the fourth round, the experts were provided with the statistical parameters of position (median, mean) and dispersion (interquartile range) of the ratings of the whole expert panel for each item in V3 as well as their own first rating of each item so that they could compare their responses with those of the rest of the panel. The 4-point Likert-type scale was again used for the rating of each item.
Items that did not reach consensus were discarded, i.e. those with a score with a 1st quartile ≤ 2 (indicating that 25% of experts disagreed), and a mean score ≤ 3 and/or a median score ≤ 3.
The retained items constituted the final version (V5).
Results
Reasons for dissatisfaction with surgical outcomes
Of the 6080 individuals who underwent hallux valgus repair between 2015 and 2021, 853 (14.0%) consulted our unit because of dissatisfaction. Comparison of the reasons for dissatisfaction with the motives for repair revealed that 100% of the individuals had not fully expressed their motives at the initial consultation.
The subjective expectations that were not fully expressed during the pre-surgical consultation and that were not resolved by the repair related to footwear issues (309/853; 36.2%), aesthetic appearance (160/853; 18.8%), functional limitations (127/853; 14.9%) and pain in the foot outside the first ray (257/853; 30.1%).
Results of the questionnaire rounds
The process used to reach the final version of the questionnaire is shown in Fig 3.
In round 1, 8 items were removed (height, weight, shoe size, family history of deformity, history of sprains, sprain rehabilitation, fracture rehabilitation, daily use of stairs) (Table 2). The item regarding wearing safety shoes was reworded. The experts proposed 18 additional items for inclusion in the questionnaire, of which 2 were added.
In the round 2, the 2 previously added items (location of pain, patient anxiety) and the modified item (wearing shoes at work) were validated (Table 2).
In round 3, 2 items met the conditions for elimination in the final stage if the rating was maintained in the following round (history of fractures and use of stairs during physical activity) (Table 2).
During round 4, 14.3% (224/1564) of the responses were modified because the experts changed their opinion.
The items with the highest frequency of change of opinion related to:
- hallux pain due to skin lesions (9/34; 26.5% change of opinion)
- daily stair use (9/34; 26.5% change of opinion)
- self-reported hallux valgus deformity in the right foot (8/34; 23.5% change of opinion) and left foot (7/34; 20.6% change of opinion)
- asymmetry between the feet considered unsightly by the individual (8/34; 23.5%).
- The two items eligible for elimination in the previous stage were definitively eliminated (Table 2).
In total, 44 items were retained, of which 13 related to the individual’s clinical and psychological profile, 5 to pain, 9 to physical and functional discomfort, 4 to aesthetic appearance and 13 to footwear and use of orthopaedic devices.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the only study to have attempted to develop a tool to identify patient expectations during a pre hallux valgus repair consultation to improve satisfaction with postoperative outcomes. The study is original in that it involved an inverse approach that began with the reasons for dissatisfaction with hallux valgus repair of 853 individuals. The reasons for dissatisfaction were grouped into 4 themes according to the literature (pain, footwear, aesthetics and physical activity), and a 52-item questionnaire was drafted. The pertinence of the items was then improved by a 4-round Delphi approach which resulted in the final 44 item questionnaire.
Expert panel
We chose to include only French-speaking clinicians in the expert panel since our aim was to design a questionnaire for use in France. We included a high proportion of orthopaedic surgeons (79.4%) because these professionals are the most often consulted preoperatively. However, we also included other types of clinicians because individuals who are dissatisfied with surgical outcomes do not always return to their surgeon but may prefer to seek advice from other types of foot expert.
The mean age (50.4, SD 9.6 years), number of years of practice (20.8, 10.6 years) and experience with foot deformities (20.3, 9.3 years) of the expert panel demonstrated that they were indeed experts. They kept their knowledge up to date through post graduate courses, attending symposia about hallux valgus management, and as members of learned societies. In addition, the majority (77%) of experts had published in this domain.
Reasons for dissatisfaction
According to the literature, individuals seeking hallux valgus repair expect an improvement in pain, aesthetics, footwear or function [7, 53]: this corresponded to the reasons for dissatisfaction found in our review of medical records (S2 File). Studies have related dissatisfaction with hallux valgus repair to post-surgical complications and have reported rates of dissatisfaction between 10.6 and 33% depending on the surgical technique used [31, 37, 54, 55]. Therefore, the 14.0% rate of dissatisfaction in the present study is within the range of other studies, however our results show that the dissatisfaction was not caused by complications, but by a lack of achievement of expectations.
The results of the review of dissatisfaction showed a 30.1% rate of post repair pain, which is similar to the 31% rate in the literature; furthermore, pain mainly affected the forefoot but not the 1st ray, which corresponds to the location reported in the literature [37, 56].
We found that 36.2% of individuals were dissatisfied post repair because of footwear issues. One study found that foot width did not change after surgery in 37% of cases and that it actually widened in 18% of cases [57]. Another study found that 14% of individuals still experienced discomfort even with comfortable footwear post repair [58]. Together with our results, our findings support the suggestion by Robinson et al. [58] that preoperative counselling is essential to ensure realistic expectations from repair.
Hallux valgus has been found to limit function in 15% of affected individuals [59], however, repair improves function in most cases [32]. Our results agree with this in that 85% of the dissatisfied individuals were not dissatisfied with the functional outcomes of the repair. However, 15% expected to achieve a higher level of functional improvement post repair than that which occurred, and this was the cause of their dissatisfaction: again, this demonstrates the importance of a preoperative discussion about the goals of surgery.
The American Orthopedic Foot Ankle Society Board of Directors published a statement that hallux valgus surgery should not be performed for aesthetic purposes [60]. As a result, there is a lack of data relating to the impact of repair on aesthetic outcomes with which to compare the rate of dissatisfaction of the individuals in the present study. According to the literature, individuals consider the aesthetic results of repair as good/excellent in 88% to 96% of cases: this is based on subjective perception of 1st ray alignment and the visual appearance of the scar [61–63]. The higher rate of dissatisfaction in the present study (19%) could be explained by other aesthetic considerations, such as asymmetry in the morphology of the two feet.
These results show that dissatisfaction may not only be related to complications as reported in the literature [37] but to an expression of expectations that is only partial. A typical example is problems with footwear: the individual explains to the surgeon that they want surgery to resolve their footwear problems. The surgeon assumes that the problems are caused by rubbing of the exostoses, which they remove during surgery. However, the person is not fully satisfied because what they really wanted was to be able to wear their tango shoes from the 1980’s again. Such personal goals may be difficult to ascertain during a consultation [53]: this supports the development of a tool to facilitate the identification of individuals’ expectations from hallux valgus repair.
Development of the questionnaire and validation of items by the expert panel
Of the 52 items in the initial questionnaire developed by the steering committee from the reasons for dissatisfaction of the 853 individuals, 44 were validated by the expert panel.
Among the general questions, age and sex were retained. Hallux valgus is more frequent in women than men and in older than younger people [4, 58], furthermore, women tend to have greater difficulties with shoe fitting because of hallux valgus than men. Although age does not appear to have an impact on surgical outcomes [64, 65], older people tend to have a more sedentary lifestyle than younger people [66] and may therefore have different functional expectations that should be considered in the surgical decision.
The first item that related to expectations involved ranking the motives for consultation in their order of importance to the individual (pain, footwear, physical activity and aesthetics). This item achieved the full consensus of the panel. None of the terms were modified, which demonstrates that they encompass the main motives for repair according to the panel’s experience. The following item asked about the time expected by the individual for improvement to occur. This also achieved full consensus. The individual must be aware of the healing time to avoid increases in function or the wearing of certain types of footwear too rapidly, which could risk damaging the repair [67].
The items relating to pain were all validated by the expert panel; the experts also added an item relating to pain location. This makes sense since hallux valgus may cause pain in areas other than the first metatarsophalangeal joint, such as the lateral metatarsals [27]. A precise analysis of the extent of preoperative pain is essential since the degree of preoperative pain may influence postoperative persistence of pain [56]. Furthermore, metatarsal pain can arise secondary to hallux valgus surgery [37, 68]: a thorough identification of pain areas may therefore limit dissatisfaction arising from poor identification of preoperative pain.
The panel validated all the items relating to aesthetics, confirming reports in the literature that many individuals seek repair to improve the aesthetic appearance of their foot [43, 45, 69]. Furthermore, aesthetic perceptions may influence pain levels and the functional benefits of surgery [69]. Since hallux valgus repair should not be performed for cosmetic reasons [59], such motives must be ascertained preoperatively.
All the items that concerned physical activity, daily life and occupation were validated, except for stair-use. Resuming previous activities, including sports may be an important motive for hallux valgus repair for some individuals [70]. Therefore, the identification of specific functional objectives is very important to ensure that they are realistic. Hallux valgus repair may also require a period of sick leave [71], therefore the person must be aware of the potential duration of their recovery to plan accordingly.
Some individuals want hallux valgus repair so they can wear standard or specific types of footwear [58]. This obviously corresponded with the panel’s experience since they validated all items relating to footwear and expanded the item relating to footwear at work to encompass all types of footwear. Studies have shown that hallux valgus repair improves foot morphology [57, 72] and shoe fitting [58], however, it is not always possible to return to wearing all kinds of shoes (e.g. high heels) postoperatively. Expectations and likely outcomes should therefore be thoroughly discussed prior to surgery.
Many individuals with hallux valgus use orthotic devices. The results of our review of the reasons for dissatisfaction showed that some individuals were disappointed if they still required an orthotic device post-surgery, particularly if they had not been informed of this preoperatively (S2 File). All the items relating to orthotic devices were validated by the expert panel. This section of the questionnaire should be useful to determine if orthotics have not been attempted: they could be tried as they may avoid the need for surgery, particularly if the person’s motive is to reduce pain [73, 74].
Discarded items
Eight items that were included in the initial questionnaire were discarded by the expert panel. Among the general items, weight and height were discarded: these variables are unlikely to influence the motive for hallux valgus repair [75–77] and were thus unnecessary. In addition, these data are systematically collected before the consultation as they are part of the medical file.
We were surprised that the items relating to shoe size and family history of deformity were discarded since these issues were frequent reasons for dissatisfaction (S2 File). They may be considered to be related to the aesthetic aspects of hallux valgus, and therefore not indicative of a surgical procedure, which may explain the choice of the panel who found these items not useful [58].
A history of ankle sprain or fracture was a source of post-repair dissatisfaction for some of the individuals. If some instability remained, it could be exacerbated by the anatomical changes caused by the repair [78–80]. However, to our knowledge, no such reports of increased instability post repair exist in the literature, which may explain why the experts removed this item.
We included items about stair-use because pain on stairs was a complaint of a proportion of the sample. However, the experts may have considered that, in contrast with hallux rigidus, hallux valgus deformity does not systematically limit extension of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and thus should not limit stair use [81, 82]. Furthermore, metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis, which might affect stair climbing, is usually only performed in the case of severe deformities or during surgical revision [83, 84].
Additional items
Anxiety was not an issue that emerged from the review of the reasons for dissatisfaction, therefore we had not included this concept in the initial questionnaire. Although, the association between psychological symptoms or personality traits and postoperative outcomes is somewhat debated [85, 86], anxiety and depression may increase pre-surgical expectations, levels of pain perception, and post-surgical dissatisfaction [87, 88]. The panel therefore felt that questions about anxiety relating to the individual’s personal or professional situation, the foot deformity, the surgical procedure, or what would happen if surgery was not undertaken were necessary. These questions should facilitate consideration of the psychological aspects relating to hallux valgus and its repair in treatment planning, and particularly the decision to perform a surgical intervention.
Evaluation of hallux valgus
Although the Manchester scale has been validated against radiographic measurements and can indicate pressure thresholds related to deformity, the decision to undertake surgery cannot be based on visual observation alone [89, 90]. However, the role of radiographic findings in surgical decision making is debated. There appears to be no correlation between the severity of preoperative hallux valgus, radiographic correction of the deformity and the post-op SF 36 quality of life score [32]. Since in orthopaedic surgery, subjective, functional and objective outcomes are not always related, the results of hallux valgus surgery cannot be reduced to the radiographic outcome alone [7]. Radiological measurements can bias the interpretation of the deformity and should always be compared with the clinical examination data [24]. There are difficulties associated with defining each individual’s deformity despite imaging, and thus the optimal choice of management. The three-dimensional classification of hallux abducto valgus may be unreliable, supporting the fact that two-dimensional radiographs are limited for the assessment of three-dimensional deformity [91]. With the development of Cone beam weightbearing computed tomography, a new classification system may be necessary. The three-dimensional pattern of the deformity must be understood in order to plan surgery.
Stato-dynamic baropodometry is necessary for a functional evaluation of the foot. However, it is currently mainly used to assess post-surgical outcomes in terms of changes in plantar pressures, because criteria have not been defined for diagnosis and surgical decision making [92–96]. Studies are still need to assist diagnosis and facilitate surgical decisions.
The difficulties associated with assessment and classification of hallux valgus support our pre-surgical questionnaire to limit the risk of inappropriate decision making. The evaluation tools for hallux valgus allow a decision to be made according to the anatomical relevance of the surgical procedure to be carried out, but do not evaluate the relevance in relation to the individual’s expectations for their life after surgery. The biomechanics of this three-dimensional deformity are extremely complex and understanding the individual’s expectations is a challenge.
The questionnaire validated by the Delphi method in the present study could be completed prior to a consultation for surgical advice, without encroaching on the practitioner’s time. Further studies are now needed to validate its clinical utility for individuals with hallux valgus.
Limitations
We did not investigate possible external influences (social media and marketing) on the individual’s decision to undergo hallux valgus surgery.
We also did not consider the individual’s history of medical/paramedical consultations for the hallux valgus deformity or the possible etiologies of the deformity (family history, congenital aspect, etc.). as this information should be documented in the medical file.
Although this questionnaire is intended to limit the risk of surgical decision-making being influenced by personal factors or medical jargon used by practitioners, it will not prevent an unbalanced caregiver-patient relationship.
Conclusion
Using data relating to dissatisfaction with hallux valgus repair and the Delphi method, we developed a 44-item questionnaire to determine individuals’ expectations from surgical repair. We believe the use of this questionnaire will reduce dissatisfaction with postoperative outcomes by ensuring that surgical objectives and methods match expectations. Further studies are now required to evaluate the psychometric properties of this tool, and to create a scoring method that would allow surgeons to rapidly determine if the individual’s expectations are appropriate. The next step is to validate this questionnaire in a large sample of individuals with hallux valgus to evaluate the benefits of supporting individuals to discern their reason for consultation. Following this, clinical trials should assess the effect of use of the questionnaire on post operative satisfaction.
Supporting information
S1 File. Questionnaire to determine the reasons for consultation.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276303.s001
(PDF)
S2 File. Main subjective expectations that were not fully expressed during the pre-surgical consultation and not resolved by hallux valgus repair.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276303.s002
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We thank Johanna Robertson for language assistance and constructive criticism, and all the participants in the study.
References
- 1. Golightly YM, Hannan MT, Dufour AB, Hillstrom HJ, Jordan JM. Foot Disorders Associated With Overpronated and Oversupinated Foot Function: The Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35: 1159–1165. pmid:25037712
- 2. Nix S, Smith M, Vicenzino B. Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3: 21. pmid:20868524
- 3. Ferrari-Portafaix C, Perrier A. Hallux valgus: traitements médical et podologiques. Hallux valgus. 2020; 10.
- 4. Laffenêtre O, Solofomalala G, de Lavigne C, Bauer T. Hallux valgus: techniques chirurgicales. EMC-Techniques chirurgicales-Orthopédie-Traumatologie. 2010;5: 1–16.
- 5. Mortka K, Lisiński P. Hallux valgus—a case for a physiotherapist or only for a surgeon? Literature review. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27: 3303–3307. pmid:26644698
- 6. Maestro M, Schramm M, Bonnel F. Anatomie et biomécanique de l’avant-pied. 2018; 22.
- 7. Piclet-Legré B, Graff W, Association française de chirurgie du pied. Hallux valgus. 2017. Available: http://ezproxy.usherbrooke.ca/login?url = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9782294750663
- 8. Ray JJ, Friedmann AJ, Hanselman AE, Vaida J, Dayton PD, Hatch DJ, et al. Hallux Valgus. Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics. 2019;4: 247301141983850. pmid:35097321
- 9. Garrow AP, Papageorgiou A, Silman AJ, Thomas E, Jayson MIV, Macfarlane GJ. The Grading of Hallux Valgus. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 2001;91: 74–78. pmid:11266481
- 10. Coughlin MJ. Juvenile Hallux Valgus: Etiology and Treatment. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16: 682–697. pmid:8589807
- 11. Brage ME, Holmes JR, Sangeorzan BJ. The Influence of X-Ray Orientation on the First Metatarsocuneiform Joint Angle. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15: 495–497. pmid:7820242
- 12. Sorto LA, Balding MG, Weil LS, Smith SD. Hallux abductus interphalangeus. Etiology, x-ray evaluation and treatment. 1975. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1992;82: 85–97. pmid:1564645
- 13. Coughlin MJ, Saltzman CL, Nunley JA. Angular Measurements in the Evaluation of Hallux Valgus Deformities: A Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the American Orthopædic Foot & Ankle Society on Angular Measurements. Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23: 68–74. pmid:11822697
- 14. Coughlin MJ, Jones CP. Hallux valgus: demographics, etiology, and radiographic assessment. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28: 759–777. pmid:17666168
- 15. Zhang L, Wang J, Liu J, Luo J. Classification of Hallucal Sesamoid Bone Correlated with Hallux Valgus Severity. BioMed Research International. 2020;2020: 1–10. pmid:32685550
- 16. Hardy RH, Clapham JCR. Observations on Hallux Valgus; based on a controlled series. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British volume. 1951;33-B: 376–391. pmid:14861244
- 17. Smith RW, Reynolds JC, Stewart MJ. Hallux Valgus Assessment: Report of Research Committee of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Foot & Ankle. 1984;5: 92–103. pmid:6389278
- 18. Agrawal Y, Desai A, Mehta J. Lateral sesamoid position in hallux valgus: Correlation with the conventional radiological assessment. Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2011;17: 308–311. pmid:22017908
- 19. Kuwano T, Nagamine R, Sakaki K, Urabe K, Iwamoto Y. New Radiographic Analysis of Sesamoid Rotation in Hallux Valgus: Comparison with Conventional Evaluation Methods. Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23: 811–817. pmid:12356178
- 20. Talbot KD, Saltzman CL. Assessing sesamoid subluxation: how good is the AP radiography. Foot Ankle Int. 1998;19: 547–554. pmid:9728703
- 21. Hatch DJ, Santrock RD, Smith B, Dayton P, Weil L. Triplane Hallux Abducto Valgus Classification. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2018;57: 972–981. pmid:29784530
- 22. Mansur NSB, Lalevee M, Schmidt E, Dibbern K, Wagner P, Wagner E, et al. Correlation between indirect radiographic parameters of first metatarsal rotation in hallux valgus and values on weight-bearing computed tomography. International Orthopaedics (SICOT). 2021;45: 3111–3118. pmid:34383104
- 23. Yildirim Y, Cabukoglu C, Erol B, Esemenli T. Effect of Metatarsophalangeal Joint Position on the Reliability of the Tangential Sesamoid View in Determining Sesamoid Position. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26: 247–250. pmid:15766429
- 24. de Cesar Netto C, Richter M. Use of Advanced Weightbearing Imaging in Evaluation of Hallux Valgus. Foot and Ankle Clinics. 2020;25: 31–45. pmid:31997745
- 25. Martínez-Nova A, Sánchez-Rodríguez R, Pérez-Soriano P, Llana-Belloch S, Leal-Muro A, Pedrera-Zamorano JD. Plantar pressures determinants in mild Hallux Valgus. Gait & Posture. 2010;32: 425–427. pmid:20643550
- 26. Wen J, Ding Q, Yu Z, Sun W, Wang Q, Wei K. Adaptive changes of foot pressure in hallux valgus patients. Gait & Posture. 2012;36: 344–349. pmid:22555063
- 27. Verdu Roman C, Martinez Gimenez E, Bustamante Suarez de Puga D, Mas Martinez J, Morales Santias M, Sanz-Reig J. Hallux valgus with and without metatarsalgia in women: a matched-cohort study of plantar pressure measurements. IJOO. 2021;55: 436–444. pmid:34306558
- 28. Verdu-Roman C, Sanz-Reig J, Martinez-Gimenez E, Orozco-Beltran D, Quesada JA, Lopez-Pineda A, et al. Association between preoperative dynamic plantar pressures and clinical outcomes at 6 months after hallux valgus surgery. Fuß & Sprunggelenk. 2019;17: 75–86.
- 29. Verdu-Roman C, Sanz-Reig J, Martinez-Gimenez E, Carratala-Munuera C, Lopez-Pineda A, Quesada JA, et al. Plantar pressure improvement in moderate hallux valgus with modified chevron osteotomy: Clinical and radiographic outcomes. Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2020;26: 205–208. pmid:30871917
- 30. Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, Patton JT, MacDonald D, Simpson AHRW, et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open. 2013;3: e002525. pmid:23575998
- 31. Lim JBT, Chou ACC, Yeo W, Lo NN, Chia S-L, Chin PL, et al. Comparison of patient quality of life scores and satisfaction after common orthopedic surgical interventions. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25: 1007–1012. pmid:25893611
- 32. Thordarson D, Ebramzadeh E, Moorthy M, Lee J, Rudicel S. Correlation of hallux valgus surgical outcome with AOFAS forefoot score and radiological parameters. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26: 122–127. pmid:15737253
- 33. Baca E, Tuy E, Çelen KM. Can radiology reflect patient satisfaction after hallux valgus surgery? Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2019;30: 241–245. pmid:31650920
- 34. Matthews M, Klein E, Youssef A, Weil L, Sorensen M, Weil LS, et al. Correlation of Radiographic Measurements With Patient-Centered Outcomes in Hallux Valgus Surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39: 1416–1422. pmid:30136598
- 35. Baumhauer JF, McIntosh S, Rechtine G. Age and Sex Differences Between Patient and Physician-Derived Outcome Measures in the Foot and Ankle: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. 2013;95: 209–214. pmid:23389783
- 36. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15: 349–353. pmid:7951968
- 37. Barg A, Harmer JR, Presson AP, Zhang C, Lackey M, Saltzman CL. Unfavorable Outcomes Following Surgical Treatment of Hallux Valgus Deformity: A Systematic Literature Review. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2018;100: 1563–1573. pmid:30234626
- 38. Singh Ospina N, Phillips KA, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Gionfriddo MR, Branda ME, et al. Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda-Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters. J GEN INTERN MED. 2019;34: 36–40. pmid:29968051
- 39. Schut HA, Stam HJ. Goals in rehabilitation teamwork. Disability and Rehabilitation. 1994;16: 223–226. pmid:7812023
- 40. Krasny-Pacini A, Hiebel J, Pauly F, Godon S, Chevignard M. Goal Attainment Scaling in rehabilitation: A literature-based update. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2013;56: 212–230. pmid:23562111
- 41. Hunt KJ, Hurwit D. Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Foot and Ankle Research: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2013;95: e118. pmid:23965711
- 42. Schrier JCM, Palmen LN, Verheyen CCPM, Jansen J, Koëter S. Patient-reported outcome measures in hallux valgus surgery. A review of literature. Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2015;21: 11–15. pmid:25682400
- 43. Tai C, Ridgeway S, Ramachandran M, Ng V, Devic N, Singh D. Patient Expectations for Hallux Valgus Surgery. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2008;16: 91–95. pmid:18453668
- 44. Schneider W, Knahr K. Surgery for hallux valgus. The expectations of patients and surgeons. International Orthopaedics (SICOT). 2001;25: 382–385. pmid:11820447
- 45. Wilkinson AN, Maher AJ. Patient expectations of podiatric surgery in the United Kingdom. J Foot Ankle Res. 2011;4: 27. pmid:22145971
- 46. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. 2004; 15.
- 47. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science. 1963;9: 458–467.
- 48. McCarthy C, Rushton A, Billis V, Arnall F, Oldham J. Development of a clinical examination in non-specific low back pain: a Delphi techniqued. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2006;38: 263–267. pmid:16801210
- 49. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89: 1245–1251. pmid:24979285
- 50.
Maleki K. Méthodes quantitatives de consultation d’experts: Delphi, Delphi public, Abaque de Régnier et impacts croisés. Paris: Publibook; 2009.
- 51. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 1932;22(140): 55–55.
- 52. Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review. Wright JM, editor. PLoS ONE. 2011;6: e20476. pmid:21694759
- 53. Parker J, Nester CJ, Long AF, Barrie J. The Problem with Measuring Patient Perceptions of Outcome with Existing Outcome Measures in Foot and Ankle Surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24: 56–60. pmid:12540083
- 54. Barg A, Saltzman C. Outcomes Following Surgical Treatment of Hallux Valgus Deformity: A Systematic Literature Review. Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics. 2017;2: 2473011417S0001.
- 55. Ferrari J, Higgins JPT, Prior TD. Interventions for treating hallux valgus (abductovalgus) and bunions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; CD000964. pmid:14973960
- 56. Chen JY. Pain Resolution After Hallux Valgus Surgery. Foot & Ankle Society. 2016; 5. pmid:27325622
- 57. Tenenbaum SA, Herman A, Bruck N, Bariteau JT, Thein R, Coifman O. Foot Width Changes Following Hallux Valgus Surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39: 1272–1277. pmid:29952666
- 58. Robinson C, Bhosale A, Pillai A. Footwear modification following hallux valgus surgery: The all-or-none phenomenon. WJM. 2016;6: 171. pmid:27376022
- 59. Souza Júnior EÁ, Vieira MCT, Baumfeld TS, Soares Baumfeld D. Patients’ perspective on the surgical treatment of hallux valgus. J Foot Ankle. 2020;14: 36–40.
- 60.
AOFAS Board of Directors. Position statement cosmetic foot and ankle surgery. 2015. Available: https://www.aofas.org/docs/default-source/research-andpolicy/position_statement_on_cosmetic_foot_and_ankle_surgery.pdf?sfvrsn=c416380b_2.
- 61. Rossi WR, Ferreira JC. Chevron osteotomy for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle. 1992;13: 378–381. pmid:1427526
- 62. Oh IS, Choi SW, Kim MK, Lee SY, Lee JS. Clinical and Radiological Results after Modified Distal Metatarsal Osteotomy for Hallux Valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29: 473–477. pmid:18510898
- 63. Giotis D, Paschos NK, Zampeli F, Giannoulis D, Gantsos A, Mantellos G. Modified Chevron osteotomy for hallux valgus deformity in female athletes. A 2-year follow-up study. Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;22: 181–185. pmid:27502227
- 64. Goh GS, Tay AYW, Thever Y, Koo K. Effect of Age on Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Hallux Valgus Surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2021;42: 798–804. pmid:33451267
- 65. Milnes HL, Kilmartin TE, Dunlop G. A pilot study to explore if the age that women undergo hallux valgus surgery influences the post-operative range of motion and level of satisfaction. Foot (Edinb). 2010;20: 109–113. pmid:20884197
- 66. Chastin SFM, Buck C, Freiberger E, Murphy M, Brug J, Cardon G, et al. Systematic literature review of determinants of sedentary behaviour in older adults: a DEDIPAC study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12: 127. pmid:26437960
- 67. Fournier M, Saxena A, Maffulli N. Hallux Valgus Surgery in the Athlete: Current Evidence. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2019;58: 641–643. pmid:30448185
- 68. Bock P, Kluger R, Kristen K-H, Mittlböck M, Schuh R, Trnka H-J. The Scarf Osteotomy with Minimally Invasive Lateral Release for Treatment of Hallux Valgus Deformity: Intermediate and Long-Term Results. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2015;97: 1238–1245. pmid:26246258
- 69. Bahar H, Yildiz KI. Association of Visual Appearance on Outcomes After Hallux Valgus Surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2021;42: 1584–1588. pmid:34189980
- 70. MacMahon A, Karbassi J, Burket JC, Elliott AJ, Levine DS, Roberts MM, et al. Return to Sports and Physical Activities After the Modified Lapidus Procedure for Hallux Valgus in Young Patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37: 378–385. pmid:26578481
- 71. Graff W, Biau D, Manach Q. Influence of socioprofessional category on the duration of sick leave after hallux surgery. A prospective study of 102 cases. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2014;100: S275–S279. pmid:25175983
- 72. Panchbhavi V, Cordova J, Chen J, Janney C. Does Hallux Valgus Correction Reduce the Width of the Forefoot? Foot & Ankle Specialist. 2020;13: 112–115. pmid:30957541
- 73. Reina M, Lafuente G, Munuera PV. Effect of custom-made foot orthoses in female hallux valgus after one-year follow up. Prosthetics & Orthotics International. 2013;37: 113–119. pmid:22691724
- 74. Kwan M-Y, Yick K-L, Yip J, Tse C-Y. Hallux valgus orthosis characteristics and effectiveness: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11: e047273. pmid:34408037
- 75. Milczarek MA, Milczarek JJ, Tomasik B, Łaganowski P, Nowak K, Domżalski M. Being overweight has limited effect on SCARF osteotomy outcome for hallux valgus correction. Int Orthop. 2017;41: 765–772. pmid:28210803
- 76. Wirth SH, Renner N, Niehaus R, Farei-Campagna J, Deggeller M, Scheurer F, et al. The influence of obesity and gender on outcome after reversed L-shaped osteotomy for hallux valgus. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20: 450. pmid:31615482
- 77. Chen JY, Lee MJH, Rikhraj K, Parmar S, Chong HC, Yew AKS, et al. Effect of Obesity on Outcome of Hallux Valgus Surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36: 1078–1083. pmid:25881625
- 78. Tanaka Y, Takakura Y, Fujii T, Kumai T, Sugimoto K. Hindfoot alignment of hallux valgus evaluated by a weightbearing subtalar x-ray view. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20: 640–645. pmid:10540995
- 79. Steinberg N, Finestone A, Noff M, Zeev A, Dar G. Relationship between lower extremity alignment and hallux valgus in women. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34: 824–831. pmid:23460668
- 80. Lee HY, Lalevee M, Mansur NSB, Vandelune CA, Dibbern KN, Barg A, et al. Multiplanar instability of the first tarsometatarsal joint in hallux valgus and hallux rigidus patients: a case-control study. Int Orthop. 2022;46: 255–263. pmid:34468786
- 81. Arge A, Lenzner A, Gapeyeva H, Pääsuke M. Range of motion and pain intensity of the first metatarsophalangeal joint in women with hallux valgus deformation after two-month home exercise programme. AKUT. 2012;18: 111.
- 82. Gilheany MF, Landorf KB, Robinson P. Hallux valgus and hallux rigidus: a comparison of impact on health-related quality of life in patients presenting to foot surgeons in Australia. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008;1: 14. pmid:19077213
- 83. Coughlin MJ, Grebing BR, Jones CP. Arthrodesis of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint for Idiopathic Hallux Valgus: Intermediate Results. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26: 783–792. pmid:16221449
- 84. Smyth NA, Aiyer AA. Introduction: Why Are There so Many Different Surgeries for Hallux Valgus? Foot and Ankle Clinics. 2018;23: 171–182. pmid:29729792
- 85. Klein EE, Wirt C, Greenley R, Weil LS, Weil L, Fleischer AE. Do Patient Personality Traits and Self-Reported Physical and Psychosocial Symptoms Help to Predict Hallux Valgus Surgery Outcomes? The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2021; S106725162100510X. pmid:34998678
- 86. Shakked R, McDonald E, Sutton R, Lynch M-K, Nicholson K, Raikin SM. Influence of Depressive Symptoms on Hallux Valgus Surgical Outcomes. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39: 795–800. pmid:29620945
- 87. Henry JK, Barth K, Cororaton A, Hummel A, Cody EA, Mancuso CA, et al. Association of Depression and Anxiety With Expectations and Satisfaction in Foot and Ankle Surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021;29: 714–722. pmid:34142981
- 88. Parrini MM, Spada A, Betti S, Randelli P, Cabitza P. Anxiety trait level and patient management in foot surgery. Orthopaedic Proceedings. 2009;91-B: 271–271.
- 89. Menzildzic S, Chaudhry N, Petryschuk C. Using Manchester Scale classification of Hallux Valgus as a valuable tool in determining appropriate risk categorization during initial diabetic foot screening in primary health care settings. Foot (Edinb). 2021;47: 101810. pmid:33957522
- 90. Menz HB, Munteanu SE. Radiographic validation of the Manchester scale for the classification of hallux valgus deformity. Rheumatology. 2005;44: 1061–1066. pmid:15901901
- 91. Padovano AG, Lalli T, Tennant JN, Martin KD, Santrock RD. The Triplanar Hallux Abducto Valgus Classification System: Is it Valid? Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics. 2022;7: 2473011421S0038.
- 92. Moerenhout K, Chopra S, Crevoisier X. Outcome of the modified Lapidus procedure for hallux valgus deformity during the first year following surgery: A prospective clinical and gait analysis study. Clinical Biomechanics. 2019;61: 205–210. pmid:30594769
- 93. Martínez-Nova A, Sánchez-Rodríguez R, Leal-Muro A, Pedrera-Zamorano JD. Dynamic plantar pressure analysis and midterm outcomes in percutaneous correction for mild hallux valgus. J Orthop Res. 2011;29: 1700–1706. pmid:21547939
- 94. Costa JM, Ávila AOV, Kleinowski DN, Kroth LM, Contreras MEK. Osteotomia em Chevron modificada: análise preliminar do comportamento baropodométrico. Acta ortop bras. 2010;18: 191–196.
- 95. Schuh R, Hofstaetter SG, Adams SB, Pichler F, Kristen K-H, Trnka H-J. Rehabilitation After Hallux Valgus Surgery: Importance of Physical Therapy to Restore Weight Bearing of the First Ray During the Stance Phase. Physical Therapy. 2009;89: 934–945. pmid:19608631
- 96. Nyska M, Liberson A, McCabe C, Linge K, Klenerman L. Plantar foot pressure distribution in patients with Hallux valgus treated by distal soft tissue procedure and proximal metatarsal osteotomy. Foot and Ankle Surgery. 1998;4: 35–41.