Foot & Ankle

Lapidus Procedure (1st TMT Arthrodesis for Hallux Valgus)

Surgical technique guide for Lapidus Procedure (1st TMT Arthrodesis for Hallux Valgus) - FRCS exam preparation

Core Procedure
advanced
By OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team

Editorial maintenance, source checking, and correction workflow • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

High Yield Overview

LAPIDUS PROCEDURE (1ST TMT ARTHRODESIS FOR HALLUX VALGUS)

Definitive correction of severe hallux valgus by arthrodesis of hypermobile 1st TMT joint | advanced

Critical Danger Structures - 5 Key Zones

Danger 1: Dorsomedial Cutaneous Nerve

Location: Crosses dorsal incision 2-3mm from incision line, multiple branches

Protection: Careful subcutaneous dissection with loupe magnification, identify and retract branches medially, avoid aggressive retraction

Injury rate: 5-10% - causes dorsal foot numbness and neuroma formation

Danger 2: Dorsalis Pedis Artery

Location: Runs between EHL and EHB tendons, 15-20mm LATERAL to standard incision, palpable preoperatively

Protection: Stay MEDIAL to EHL tendon, palpate pulse before incision, avoid lateral dissection beyond EHL

Injury: Catastrophic - can cause forefoot ischemia requiring amputation

Danger 3: Deep Peroneal Nerve

Location: Accompanies dorsalis pedis artery laterally between EHL and EHB, 15-20mm from incision

Protection: Stay medial to EHL, no blind lateral dissection, direct visualization if approaching EHL

Injury: Causes first web space numbness and EHB/EDL weakness

Danger 4: Medial Plantar Neurovascular Bundle

Location: 10-15mm plantar to TMT joint, at medial midfoot

Protection: Do NOT extend dissection plantarly beyond joint line, avoid excessive plantar retraction, no plantar screw penetration

Injury: Causes medial plantar sensory loss and intrinsic muscle weakness

Danger 5: EHL Tendon

Location: Landmark structure - incision must stay MEDIAL to it, crosses TMT joint dorsally

Protection: Identify early and retract laterally with blunt retractor, avoid sharp dissection near tendon

Injury: Loss of hallux extension requiring tendon repair or transfer

Mnemonic

LAPIDUSLAPIDUS Indications

Mnemonic

DORSALDORSAL Malposition - Most Common Error

Anatomical Considerations

First TMT Joint Anatomy

  • Joint configuration: First metatarsal base articulates with medial cuneiform
  • Shape: Medial cuneiform is trapezoid - wider DORSALLY (12-15mm) than plantarly (8-10mm) - predisposes to dorsiflexion malposition
  • Orientation: Joint line oriented 45° dorsomedial to plantar lateral
  • Stability: Stabilized by capsule, plantar and dorsal ligaments (Lisfranc ligament attaches C1 to M2 base, not M1)
  • Blood supply: Dorsalis pedis (lateral), medial plantar artery (plantar), periosteal vessels

Surface Anatomy & Approach

  • Palpable landmarks: Navicular tuberosity 3cm proximal, 1st metatarsal base 3-4cm distal to navicular
  • EHL tendon: Critical landmark - stays LATERAL to it for safety
  • Dorsalis pedis: Palpable between EHL and EHB, 15-20mm lateral to incision line
  • Incision position: Dorsomedial 4-5cm longitudinal centered over TMT joint

Biomechanical Pathology

  • Hypermobility: Normal TMT translation <5mm; pathologic >9mm dorsoplantar translation
  • Deformity mechanism: Hypermobile TMT allows 1st metatarsal to drift into varus (increased IMA), hallux compensates into valgus
  • Force transmission: 50% body weight through 1st ray during push-off - hypermobility allows progressive deformity
  • Recurrence mechanism: Distal procedures in hypermobile patients fail because apex of deformity (TMT) remains mobile

Indications

Primary Indications

  1. Severe hallux valgus with hypermobility

    • IMA >18-20° (severe intermetatarsal angle)
    • HVA >40° (hallux valgus angle)
    • TMT hypermobility >9mm dorsoplantar translation
  2. Metatarsus primus varus

    • Structural varus of 1st metatarsal
    • Fixed deformity at TMT level
  3. Revision bunion surgery

    • Failed chevron, scarf, or other distal procedures
    • Recurrent deformity due to unaddressed TMT instability
  4. Younger active patients

    • Age <50 years requiring definitive correction
    • High activity demands precluding nonunion risk of osteotomy
  5. Degenerative TMT arthritis with hallux valgus

    • Concurrent arthritis and deformity - corrects both

Relative Indications

  • Moderate hallux valgus (IMA 15-18°) with clear hypermobility
  • Rheumatoid arthritis affecting first ray
  • Neuromuscular deformity with dynamic component

Contraindications

Absolute:

  • Active infection at surgical site
  • Severe peripheral vascular disease (non-palpable pedal pulses, ABI <0.5)
  • Charcot neuropathy with active inflammation
  • Non-ambulatory patient

Relative:

  • Heavy smoker (>1 pack/day) - nonunion risk 20-30%
  • Uncontrolled diabetes (HbA1c >8%) - infection and nonunion risk
  • Severe osteoporosis - fixation failure risk
  • Spastic neuromuscular disorder - deforming forces persist
  • Mild deformity (IMA <15°) - distal procedures preferable

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"A 38-year-old woman presents with recurrent hallux valgus 3 years after chevron osteotomy. Her IMA is 22° and you demonstrate 12mm of TMT hypermobility on examination. She is frustrated and wants definitive correction. How would you manage her?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This patient has recurrent hallux valgus following a distal procedure, with severe IMA (22°) and significant TMT hypermobility (12mm, pathologic threshold >9mm). The chevron failed because it didn't address the apex of her deformity - the hypermobile TMT joint. I would recommend Lapidus procedure (1st TMT arthrodesis) as definitive treatment. My rationale: (1) Corrects at the apex of deformity eliminating pathologic hypermobility, (2) Appropriate for severe IMA >18°, (3) Revision setting - distal bone stock compromised from prior surgery, (4) Younger patient desires definitive correction preventing further recurrence, (5) Fusion eliminates mobility that caused initial failure. I would counsel her about: NWB for 6 weeks, union rate 92-95%, 4-6 month recovery, low recurrence risk (<5%), and potential complications including nonunion (5-8%), transfer metatarsalgia (10-15% if technical error), and hardware prominence (10-15% may need removal). I would ensure smoking cessation if applicable and optimize any diabetes. The Lapidus is the most appropriate procedure addressing her pathology and giving the best chance of durable correction.
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"You are performing a Lapidus procedure on a patient with severe hallux valgus. After you place your dorsomedial locking plate and obtain final fluoroscopy, you notice that on the lateral view the 1st metatarsal is elevated 6-8° relative to the lesser metatarsals. The AP view shows excellent IMA correction to 8°. What is the problem, why did it occur, and how will you manage it?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is dorsiflexion malunion - the most common technical error in Lapidus procedure and a devastating complication. The problem: The 1st metatarsal is dorsiflexed 6-8° above the lesser metatarsals, which will cause severe transfer metatarsalgia as all weight shifts to 2nd-3rd metatarsal heads during gait. Why it occurred: (1) The medial cuneiform is trapezoid-shaped, wider dorsally (12-15mm) than plantarly (8-10mm), which naturally pushes the fusion into dorsiflexion, (2) Under anesthesia, gravity pulls the foot into dorsiflexion, (3) I focused on IMA correction on AP view and neglected to check sagittal plane alignment before final fixation, (4) The malposition was not recognized during provisional fixation. Management: I MUST correct this NOW before proceeding - it is much harder to correct after leaving the OR. I would: (1) Remove the plate and screws, (2) Separate the fusion site and reassess the surfaces, (3) If needed, resect additional bone DORSALLY from the cuneiform to allow plantarflexion, (4) Reduce the fusion site ensuring neutral or 5° plantarflexion - I'll hold the 1st ray actively plantarflexed, (5) K-wire provisional fixation and CHECK LATERAL FLUOROSCOPY confirming neutral/plantarflexed position before replating, (6) Reapply plate with assistant maintaining plantarflexion, (7) Final fluoroscopy confirming correction. Prevention in future: Always obtain lateral fluoroscopy BEFORE final fixation, consciously maintain plantarflexion during reduction, use K-wire provisional fixation and confirm on lateral view.
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"What is the evidence comparing plate fixation versus crossed lag screws for Lapidus procedure? If you had to choose one fixation method, which would you use and why?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
Current evidence strongly favors plate fixation over crossed lag screws. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses show: (1) Nonunion rates: Plates 5-8% versus crossed lag screws 10-15%, (2) Biomechanical studies demonstrate dorsomedial locking plates provide superior resistance to dorsiflexion moments and plantarflexion loads compared to crossed screws, (3) Some evidence for earlier weight bearing with plates, (4) No significant difference in recurrence rates or final alignment. Specific evidence: Cottom et al. showed nonunion 12% with screws versus 3% with plates. Biomechanically, Roth et al. demonstrated plantar plates strongest, followed by dorsomedial locking plates, then crossed screws. The locking mechanism provides angular stability crucial for osteoporotic bone. If I had to choose ONE method, I would use a low-profile dorsomedial locking plate supplemented with a lag screw. Rationale: (1) Lowest nonunion rate based on current literature, (2) Locking screws provide angular stability resisting dorsiflexion malposition, (3) Plate neutralizes forces while lag screw provides compression, (4) Reliable technique I can reproduce consistently, (5) Better outcomes in challenging patients (osteoporosis, smokers, revisions). The crossed screw technique is historical - adequate union rates but inferior biomechanics and higher nonunion. Some surgeons advocate plantar plating (biomechanically superior as tension side) but technically more demanding requiring plantar incision - I reserve this for revision cases.

Lapidus Procedure - Exam Day Summary

High-Yield Exam Summary

References

  1. Cottom JM, Vora AM. Fixation of Lapidus arthrodesis with a plantar interfragmentary screw and medial locking plate: a report of 88 cases. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;52(4):465-469. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2013.02.025

    • Landmark study demonstrating low nonunion rate (3%) with plate fixation
    • Plantar screw plus medial plate superior to crossed screws alone
  2. Roth KE, Peters J, Schmidtmann I, et al. Hypermobility of the first tarsometatarsal joint: a critical analysis of various measurement techniques. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(6):581-588. doi:10.1177/1071100714528493

    • Defines pathologic hypermobility as >9mm dorsoplantar translation
    • Stress radiography more reliable than clinical examination alone
  3. Gutteck N, Wohlrab D, Zeh A, et al. Comparative results of percutaneous chevron osteotomy versus Lapidus arthrodesis for hallux valgus deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(11):1529-1533. doi:10.1177/1071100713492761

    • Lapidus superior for severe deformity (IMA >15°) and hypermobile first ray
    • Lower recurrence rate with Lapidus (2% vs 8% for chevron)
  4. Ellington JK, Myerson MS, Coetzee JC, Stone RM. The use of the Lapidus procedure for recurrent hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(7):674-680. doi:10.3113/FAI.2011.0674

    • 89% good to excellent outcomes in revision setting
    • Addresses failed distal procedures by correcting at apex of deformity
  5. Klos K, Gueorguiev B, Mückley T, et al. Stability of medial locking plate and compression screw versus two crossed screws for lapidus arthrodesis: a cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(2):158-163. doi:10.3113/FAI.2010.0158

    • Biomechanical study demonstrating plate superior to crossed screws
    • Dorsomedial locking plate provides greater resistance to dorsiflexion and plantarflexion moments
  6. King CM, Richter J, Tullis B. First metatarsocuneiform arthrodesis with crossed screws or locking plate: a comparative study. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014;53(4):437-443. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2014.03.014

    • Nonunion rate: 12% with screws versus 5% with plates
    • Hardware removal more common with plates (15%) but union rate superior
  7. Blitz NM, Lee T, Williams K, et al. Early weight bearing after modified Lapidus arthodesis: a multicenter review of 80 cases. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010;49(4):357-362. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2010.04.002

    • Early weight bearing (2-4 weeks) safe with rigid plate fixation
    • No increase in nonunion or malunion with early WB protocol
  8. Kopp FJ, Patel MM, Levine DS, Deland JT. The modified Lapidus procedure for hallux valgus: a clinical and radiographic analysis. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(11):913-917. doi:10.1177/107110070502601103

    • 93% union rate with crossed screw fixation
    • Dorsiflexion malunion most common complication (18%) causing transfer metatarsalgia
  9. Patel S, Ford LA, Etcheverry J, et al. Modified Lapidus arthrodesis: rate of nonunion in 227 cases. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2004;43(1):37-42. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2003.11.009

    • Smoking increased nonunion from 5% to 25%
    • Age >50 years and diabetes also risk factors for nonunion
  10. Sangeorzan BJ, Hansen ST Jr. Modified Lapidus procedure for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle. 1989;9(6):262-266. doi:10.1177/107110078900900602

    • Classic description of technique and indications
    • Emphasis on hypermobility as key indication distinguishing Lapidus from distal procedures