A total of 30 isolated hallux valgus deformities with a mean preoperative intermetatarsal (IMA) angle of 12.9° (range 11-15°) were operated with a chevron osteotomy. The mean follow-up was 14.4 (range 8-17) months. The mean dorsiflexion at the last follow-up was 44° (range 20-60°). Only 2 patients had a dorsiflexion <40°. The mean reduction of the IM angle was 5.6° (range 3-7°). One patient required wound revision. There was no infection or avascular necrosis of the metatarsal head observed in the patients. At follow-up, 20 (67%) patients were completely satisfied, 9 (30%) satisfied, and 1 (3%) was not satisfied.

Sicherung der orthograden Großzehenausrichtung bei Hallux-valgus-Korrekturen. Reduktion der Funktionseinschränkung im Großzehengrundgelenk durch Verzicht auf eine mediale Kapselraffung.

The hallux rigidus is an over 100-year-known pathology. Yet an overall accepted therapy regime does not exist. The aim of this prospective study was to analyze the long-term clinical outcome and patient satisfaction of joint preserving operative care in patients with symptomatic hallux rigidus.

AIM The critical incident reporting system (CIRS)and a surgical safety checklist (SSC) are considered to be the most powerful and important means for patient safety and for avoiding surgical errors. Nevertheless, these tools are not yet standard in orthopaedic surgery. We have implemented CIRS and a surgical checklist adapted to the specific conditions in orthopaedic surgery. METHOD In this article, we provide a guideline to put CIRS and SSC into practice and report on preliminary results one year after implementation in our department. RESULTS A comprehensive statistical analysis of the reduction in surgical errors cannot yet be given. As a first effect after one year, an improvement in interdisciplinary team building, an increased sense of responsibility of each employee and a positive change in failure culture can be observed. CONCLUSIONS SSC and reporting near mistakes enables a comprehensive failure analysis helping to avoid future complications and improve medical quality.

Die Ruptur der Sehne des M. peronaeus longus wird trotz der Schmerzsymptomatik und deutlichen Funktionseinschränkungen oft verspätet diagnostiziert. Bei der akut auftretenden Form liegt meist ein Trauma zugrunde, die chronische Form entwickelt sich dagegen schleichend. Das konventionelle Röntgenbild zeigt bei vorhandenem Os peronaeum und davon distal gelegener Ruptur dessen Dislokation. Der Goldstandard zur Diagnosestellung ist das MRT. Bei Patienten mit geringer funktioneller Beeinträchtigung ist die konservative Therapie zu empfehlen. Höhergradige funktionelle Beeinträchtigungen sollten chirurgisch therapiert werden. Dabei ist die direkte Rekonstruktion anzustreben. Bei älteren Rupturen ist die direkte Rekonstruktion aufgrund der Retraktion der Sehnenstümpfe meist nicht möglich. In diesen Fällen kann ein Sehnentransfer, Sehnentransplantation oder die ossäre Verankerung am lateralen Os calcanaeum erforderlich werden. In gleicher Sitzung sollte eine zusätzlich bestehende Ruptur des Retinaculum Mm. peronaeorum sup. rekonstruiert werden. Wir berichten anhand eines Patienten über die Ruptur der Sehne des M. peronaeus longus und geben eine Übersicht der aktuellen Literatur wieder.

OBJECTIVE:The Implementation of a DRG-Variant in Germany - voluntarily since January 1 st, 2003 and obligatory from January 1 st, 2004 - has been leading to uncertainty, particularly in the hospitals, due to fears that currently practised German diagnostic and therapeutic measures will not be financed properly by a DRG-Variant. The G-DRG-Version 1.0 that was drawn up in connection with an executive order law is to a large degree identical to the Australian AR-DRG-Version 4.1. Adjustments to German requirements were made only marginally. Therefore it is necessary for every medical field to investigate by stock-taking to what extent currently practised German diagnostic and therapeutic measures are considered in the G-DRG-Version 1.0 and whether and where modifications and adaptations need to be made. In order to make qualified statements scientific evaluations of possible problems have to be made based German data. Therefore an evaluation was made of the mapping of the medical fields of orthopaedics and trauma surgery. The German Society of Trauma Surgery (DGU), the German Society of Orthopaedy and Orthopaedic Surgery (DGOOC) in cooperation with the DRG-Research-Group of the University Hospital Muenster, the German Hospital Federation (DKG) and the German Medical Association carried out a DRG evaluation project in order to investigate the medical and economical homogeneity of the case groups.METHOD:12,645 orthopaedic and trauma surgery cases from 23 hospitals - 11 university hospitals and 12 non-university hospitals - were collected within an period of three months and were scientifically evaluated with regard to their performance homogeneity and length of stay homogeneity.RESULTS:The data formed the basis for the proof of suspected deficiencies of mapping of orthopaedic and trauma surgery cases within the G-DRG-Variant. Based on the data and additionally on conclusions of medical experts when the number of cases were small, 14 suggestions for adaptation were proposed and submitted by the deadline of March 31 st, 2003 to the InEK.CONCLUSION:The results of the DRG-Evaluation Project demonstrate the problems of mapping the very heterogenous and complex medical performances of orthopaedy and trauma surgery to a flat rate financing system that is not adapted properly to German conditions. The G-DRG-Variant Version 1.0 does not offer the sufficient possibilities of differentiation that are needed to map the various orthopaedical and trauma surgical measures in Germany.

The introduction of the DRG system in Germany-optional since 1 January 2003 and mandatory for all hospitals as of 1 January 2004-has resulted in great uncertainty, particularly on the part of hospitals, since apprehension prevails that the diagnostic and therapeutic measures practiced in Germany will not be appropriately represented and remunerated by a DRG system. The G-DRG version 1.0 prepared within the framework of substitutive execution is largely identical to the Australian AR-DRG version 4.1. Adjustments that do justice to the realities of German treatment modalities were at most insignificant. It is therefore essential that stock be taken for each medical specialty to determine to what extent treatment procedures commonly followed in Germany are adequately reflected in this G-DRG system or whether adjustments are necessary to make allowances for German realities. To be able to provide qualified statements on the problems involved, scientific analysis of possible problems is necessary utilizing German data. Thus, we undertook an evaluation of how the special fields of orthopedics and accident surgery are represented in the G-DRG system. The resultant data form the basis for evidence of presumable deficits in the representation of orthopedic and accident surgery cases in the G-DRG system. The German Association for Trauma Surgery and the German Association for Orthopedics and Orthopedic Surgery have undertaken a DRG evaluation project together with the Organization of Directors for Accident Surgery (chairperson: Professor Dr. Mischkowsky, Kempten), the Organization of Directors for Orthopedics (chairperson: Professor Dr. Puhl, Ulm), the DRG Working Group of the German Association for Accident Surgery, and the Joint Commission of the Professional Association of German Surgeons and the German Association for Surgery in cooperation with the DRG Research Group of the University Clinic Muenster, the German Hospital Association, and the German Medical Association with the goal of examining the medical and economic homogeneity of the case groups. A total of 12,645 orthopedic and trauma surgery cases were collected from 23 clinics-11 university hospitals and 12 non-university hospitals-and assessed. On the basis of this database and when too few cases were evaluable also based on clinical considerations, 14 adjustment proposals were formulated and submitted on schedule on 31 March 2003 to the Institute for Hospital Remuneration. The results of the DRG evaluation project illustrated the problems involved in representing the exceedingly heterogeneous and complex activities of orthopedic and trauma surgery departments in a flat rate financing system that is not attuned to the realties of German treatment procedures. Version 1.0 of the G-DRG system is not sufficiently differentiated to represent the multifaceted diagnostic and therapeutic services provided by trauma surgery and orthopedic departments in Germany.