Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive calcaneal osteotomy (MICO) through a medial approach: a case-control study

Gleich was the first to explain the idea of an osteotomy to change the axis of the calcaneus in 1893 [1]. Since then, several techniques regarding the exact placement of the osteotomy with different fixation devices and varying indications have been described [12, 15]. Nowadays, calcaneal osteotomy can be safely performed through minimally invasive (MI) incisions and are used for varying hindfoot pathologies as displacement of the tuber in all directions can be performed. When comparing minimally invasive calcaneal osteotomy (MICO) to traditional open approaches, the literature shows that MICO causes fewer complications, especially regarding wound healing [10, 23]. Whether an open or MI technique is used, the lateral approach is traditionally preferred for the osteotomy [9, 11, 18, 23, 25]. The patient is usually positioned in a lateral or supine decubitus position to allow access to the lateral heel [5, 18]. Depending on the surgeon’s dominant hand or the image intensifier’s position, this can sometimes be challenging as the foot has to be positioned close to the input window of the C‑arm. Additionally, if the hip is stiff and the leg cannot be rotated in the desired position, it can be a struggle to obtain a clear lateral view of the heel. To avoid these difficulties, we started using a medial incision for the calcaneal osteotomy in patients placed in the supine position during surgery and the leg could easily be externally rotated. In this setting, the calcaneus can be osteotomized under fluoroscopic guidance independent of the surgeon’s dominant hand. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the radiographic results of the MICO via a medial approach and compare it to a control group of patients with an MI osteotomy through a lateral approach. Furthermore, complications should be reported. We hypothesized that neither group had any relevant differences regarding complications and radiographic outcome.

This retrospective study includes 32 consecutive patients (MICO with medial approach, MMICO: n = 15; MICO with lateral approach, LMICO: n = 17) who underwent MICO between September 2022 and March 2023 at 3 institutions (Klinikum rechts der Isar, ATOS Klinik and Schön Klinik MHA). The study was conducted as a proof-of-principle in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics review board (Technische Universität München, 2022-503-S-KH). Exclusion criteria were lost to follow-up and a patient age < 18 years. Demographic data of included patients are given in Table 1. All MICOs were part of complex reconstructive foot and ankle surgeries with concomitant procedures (Table 2). Preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively, various clinical and radiographic data were collected. Clinically, patients were asked if they would opt for the surgery again (answers: yes/unsure/no). Mobility of the operated and nonoperated subtalar joint was documented and the difference was calculated. This was determined semi-quantitatively: difference < 10°: no significant limitation, > 10°: significant limitation. Additionally, the pain level regarding heel pain (numeric rating scale NRS, 0 no pain–10 worst possible pain) was recorded postoperatively. This modification was applied because multiple other procedures that could interfere with general foot pain were necessary in these patients. Complications (nerve damage, wound healing) were documented. Radiographically, images were taken in a standardized fashion (foot under full weight bearing in dorsoplantar and lateral views, Harris view of the calcaneus), and translation of the tuber was measured. Additionally, a possible loss of correction and the osseous consolidation of the osteotomy were documented. The last follow-up was 6 months on average (5–8 months).

The main findings of the present study are that no differences regarding the amount of displacement of the tuber and risk of nerve damage were found, independent of whether a medial or lateral incision for the MICO was chosen. Moreover, complete consolidation of all osteotomies was achieved within 6 months of surgery. The safety of the medial incision, in conjunction with its simplicity regarding placement of the foot and C‑arm offers some advantages in the setting of complex reconstructive procedures in which the MICO usually represents only a small step [3, 17‐19].

Minimally invasive calcaneal osteotomies offer the same excellent clinical results and mechanical correction with a lower complication rate as open techniques [9, 11]. Therefore, these techniques are gaining more and more acceptance among foot surgeons, and multiple studies confirm these findings (Table 4). Traditionally, calcaneal slide osteotomies are performed through a lateral approach. Here, the medial neurovascular bundle is not at direct risk; therefore, this approach is safe. Nevertheless, the neurovascular bundle can be at risk even if a lateral approach is used and the cut is too distal (Fig. 5). In this context, a safe zone of the skin incision and osteotomy cut have been defined [21]. To our knowledge, no medial incision for a MICO has been described. In our patients treated with MMICO, we could not observe any permanent damage to the neurovascular bundle medially or cutaneous nerves laterally, suggesting this procedure is safe. One might suppose that a medial incision places the medial structures at risk of damage due to its anatomical proximity. We believe the contrary occurs. After medially incising the skin, the soft tissue containing nerves can easily be protected with the nick-and-spread technique. Once the burr is inserted into the bone (safe hole technique), the medial structures cannot be damaged. Another advantage of the medial approach is that if the leg is externally rotated by 90°, the C‑arm can be entered from both sides and positioned independently of either the surgeon’s preferred hand or the patient’s operated foot side.

In our study, 28.1% of osteotomies were lateralizing. It is described that this shift can be somewhat more troublesome because the medial nerves are set under compression. To avoid this complication, some authors recommend protective tarsal tunnel release when performing lateralizing calcaneal osteotomies [2, 13, 24], especially when lateralization of the calcaneal tuberosity of more than 8 mm is performed [6]. Other authors state no beneficial effect with the tarsal tunnel release [20, 22].

One study showed that a lateralizing calcaneal osteotomy performed via an open medial approach had a clinically negligible incidence of neurologic injury while adequate translation was achieved to obtain correction of varus hindfoot deformity. The authors believed there is a less direct and less percussive injury to branches of the tibial nerve when performing the osteotomy from medial to lateral [8]. In our study, we could not find any signs of permanent paresthesia at the level of medial or lateral plantar nerves suggestive of nerve compression in the tarsal tunnel. This can be explained by the fact that we did not perform the MICO on patients with neurological diseases such as hereditary motor sensory neuropathy (HMSN) as, in these patients, the risk of tarsal tunnel syndrome in conjunction with lateral sliding calcaneal osteotomies is thought to be higher [4, 13, 14, 16]. Additionally, we performed a lateral sliding of the tuber not exceeding 15 mm. Furthermore, we agree with other authors that if the medial approach is used the periosteum of the medial calcaneus is routinely elevated or perforated with the Freer before the burr is entered into the bone [8]. This release might also put less stress on the tarsal tunnel if the tuber is slid.

Our study has some limitations. First, it is a retrospective case series with a relatively small sample size, although the number of patients is comparable to other studies dealing with MICO through a lateral approach [9, 11]. Second, the follow-up of 6 months is short. Nevertheless, after 6 months, all osteotomies were consolidated; therefore, the study’s main question regarding the safety of the MMICO could be answered. Third, we did not use a clinically established patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to evaluate clinical satisfaction after MICO. Therefore, we were not able to objectively compare the results of both groups. On the other hand, this is not possible in our study as MICO was only one part of other procedures (Table 2), and therefore, it cannot be stated which amount of the whole clinical outcome is the result of the MICO. Additionally, although PROMs may be valuable in comparison of various surgical treatments and differences between distinct population groups, clinical interpretation of these differences can sometimes be misleading [7]. Nonetheless, these limitations must be considered before conclusions about daily practical actions are drawn.

This study proves that MICO through a medial incision is as safe and powerful as through a lateral incision. The medial incision does not need the lateral decubitus position, and the C‑arm can be entered from both sides without disturbing the operating field. This allows the surgeon to perform the MICO without changing the patient’s supine position in the setting of complex reconstructive procedures of the foot.