Introduction. Treatment pathways of 5. th. metatarsal fractures are commonly directed based on fracture classification, with Jones types for example, requiring closer observation and possibly more aggressive management. Primary objective. To investigate the reliability of assessment of subtypes of 5. th. metatarsal fractures by different observers. Methods. Patients were identified from our prospectively collected database. We included all patient referred to our virtual fracture clinic with a suspected or confirmed 5. th. metatarsal fracture. Plain AP radiographs were reviewed by two observers, who were initially trained on the 5. th. metatarsal classification identification. Zones were defined as Zone 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 3, diaphyseal shaft (DS), distal metaphysis (DM) and head. An inter-observer reliability analysis using Cohen's Kappa coefficient was carried out, and degree of observer agreement described using Landis & Koch's description. All data was analysed using IBM SPSS v.27. Results. 878 patients were identified. The two observers had moderate agreement when identifying fractures in all zones, apart from metatarsal head fractures, which scored substantial agreement (K=.614). Zones 1.1 (K=.582), 2 (K=.536), 3 (K=.601) and DS (K=.544) all tended towards but did not achieve substantial agreement. Whilst DS fractures achieved moderate agreement, there was an apparent difficulty with distal DS, resulting in a lot of cross over with DM (DS 210 vs 109; DM 76 vs 161). Slight agreement with the next highest adjacent zone was found when injuries were thought to be in zones 1.2, 1.3 and 2 (K=0.17, 0.115 and 0.152 respectively). Conclusions. Reliability of sub-categorising 5. th. metatarsal fractures using standardised instructions conveys moderate to substantial agreement in most cases. If the region of the fracture is going to be used in an algorithm to guide a management plan and clinical follow up during a virtual clinic review, defining fractures of zones 1–3 needs careful consideration

Lisfranc injuries were previously described as fracture-dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joints. With advancements in modern imaging, subtle Lisfranc injuries are now more frequently recognized, revealing that their true incidence is much higher than previously thought. Injury patterns can vary widely in severity and anatomy. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to achieve good outcomes. The original classification systems were anatomy-based, and limited as tools for guiding treatment. The current review, using the best available evidence, instead introduces a stability-based classification system, with weightbearing radiographs and CT serving as key diagnostic tools. Stable injuries generally have good outcomes with nonoperative management, most reliably treated with immobilization and non-weightbearing for six weeks. Displaced or comminuted injuries require surgical intervention, with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) being the most common approach, with a consensus towards bridge plating. While ORIF generally achieves satisfactory results, its effectiveness can vary, particularly in high-energy injuries. Primary arthrodesis remains niche for the treatment of acute injuries, but may offer benefits such as lower rates of post-traumatic arthritis and hardware removal. Novel fixation techniques, including suture button fixation, aim to provide flexible stabilization, which theoretically could improve midfoot biomechanics and reduce complications. Early findings suggest promising functional outcomes, but further studies are required to validate this method compared with established techniques. Future research should focus on refining stability-based classification systems, validation of weightbearing CT, improving rehabilitation protocols, and optimizing surgical techniques for various injury patterns to ultimately enhance patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1431–1442.

Aims

Functional rehabilitation has become an increasingly popular treatment for Achilles tendon rupture (ATR), providing comparably low re-rupture rates to surgery, while avoiding risks of surgical complications. Limited evidence exists on whether gap size should affect patient selection for this treatment option. The aim of this study was to assess if size of gap between ruptured tendon ends affects patient-reported outcome following ATR treated with functional rehabilitation.