Home > Journals > Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2008 December;59(6) > Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2008 December;59(6):321-8





A Journal on Orthopedics and Traumatology

Official Journal of the Piedmontese-Ligurian-Lombard Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology
Indexed/Abtracted in: EMBASE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index




Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2008 December;59(6):321-8

language: English

SERI versuSERI versus “en chevron”: a comparative study between two surgical techniques for the correction of hallux valgus

Marmotti A., Castoldi F., Bratulich A., Grassi Mantelli A., Giai Via A.

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Medical College of Turin Mauriziano “Umberto I” Hospital University of Turin, Turin, Italy


Aim. Compare indications and results of En-chevron osteotomy and SERI technique.
Methods. The study took in consideration 55 feet: En-chevron osteotomy was performed on 30 feet, SERI technique on 25, with a mean follow-up of 2.5 years. Preoperative and postoperative clinical and radiographical evaluations have been collected using AOFAS score system and radiographs, calculating hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), distal metatarsal articular angle (DMAA) and sesamoids position.
Results. Results was evaluated using the Student’s t test. En chevron group: mean HVA from 30.1° to 14.4° (±6.7 DS), mean IMA from 13.4° to 8.4° (±1.4 DS), mean DMAA from 11.6° to 8.4° (±4.5 DS), sesamoids from 2.4 to 1.3 (±0.7 DS); AOFAS hallux score from 57.1 a 83.3 (±12.2 DS). SERI group: mean HVA from 31° to 20.1° (±7.2 DS), mean IMA from 13.7° to 8-8° (±2.7 DS), mean DMAA from 10.6° to 6.5° (±2.6 DS), sesamoids from 2.4 to 1.1 (±0.8 DS); AOFAS hallux score from 56.4 a 81.1 (±11.2 DS).
Conclusion. Radiological results and patients’ satisfaction suggest both techniques are successful in treating hallux valgus deformity, but SERI technique allows a shorter surgical time and cost reductions. There are some differences in the amount of correction of the radiological angles between the two techniques.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail