Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Saw transection of retained compression screws with damaged heads instead of removal in revision first metatarsal osteotomy: a technique tip
  1. Radwane Faroug1 and
  2. Ali Abbasian2
  1. 1Trauma & Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals UCLH, London, UK
  2. 2Trauma & Orthopaedics, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mr Radwane Faroug; rad.faroug{at}


Distal first metatarsal osteotomy is performed to correct hallux valgus. The surgery is being performed throughout the UK in increasing numbers. The osteotomies used are commonly fixed with one or two variable pitch compression screws. Recurrence of the deformity or inadequate correction in the primary surgery may require revision osteotomy which necessitates removal of previous screws. Revision rates for scarf osteotomy have been reported at 5%. Removal of screws can be challenging as they are often buried in bone and/or the screw heads can get damaged even despite meticulous preparation. Various techniques for removal of damaged screws are described, which require additional equipment and may result in significant loss of the host bone. We describe another technique where a standard Stryker TPS sagittal saw and saw blade (Kalamazoo, USA) are used to cut through the shaft of the compression screws in line with the planned revision osteotomy. We have successfully performed this on two occasions with good results, and describe our experience of using this technique which eliminates the need for complex over drilling procedures often required for removing stripped and retained screws

  • Musculoskeletal and joint disorders
  • Orthopaedics
  • Orthopaedic and trauma surgery

Statistics from


  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published Online. The author's name has been corrected from "Ali Abbassian" to "Ali Abbasian".

  • Contributors RF and AA contributed equally to the substantial contribution to the conception and design of the work and the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. They drafted the work and revised it critically for important intellectual content. They agree to the final approval of the version published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.