Aims. The Chopart joint complex is a joint between the midfoot and hindfoot. The static and dynamic support system of the joint is critical for maintaining the medial longitudinal arch of the foot. Any dysfunction leads to progressive collapsing flatfoot deformity (PCFD). Often, the tibialis posterior is the primary cause; however, contrary views have also been expressed. The present investigation intends to explore the comprehensive
Aims. The rationale for exacting restoration of skeletal
Introduction. The aetiology of hallux valgus is almost certainly multifactoral.
The biomechanics of the first ray is a common factor to most. There
is very little literature examining the
Arthroplasty has become increasingly popular to treat end-stage ankle arthritis. Iatrogenic posterior neurovascular and tendinous injury have been described from saw cuts. However, it is hypothesized that posterior ankle structures could be damaged by inserting tibial guide pins too deeply and be a potential cause of residual hindfoot pain. The preparation steps for ankle arthroplasty were performed using the Infinity total ankle system in five right-sided cadaveric ankles. All tibial guide pins were intentionally inserted past the posterior tibial cortex for assessment. All posterior ankles were subsequently dissected, with the primary endpoint being the presence of direct contact between the structure and pin.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability and clinical outcome of external fixator combined with limited internal fixation (EFLIF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treating Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures. Two types of fixation systems were selected for finite element analysis and a dual cohort study. Two fixation systems were simulated to fix the fracture in a finite element model. The relative displacement and stress distribution were analysed and compared. A total of 71 consecutive patients with closed Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the treatment to which they chose: the EFLIF group and the ORIF group. The radiological and clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared.Objectives
Methods