Aims. This study evaluated the effect of treating clinician speciality on management of zone 2 fifth metatarsal fractures. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute zone 2 fifth metatarsal fractures who presented to a single large, urban, academic medical centre between December 2012 and April 2022. Zone 2 was the region of the fifth metatarsal base bordered by the fourth and fifth metatarsal articulation on the oblique radiograph. The proportion of patients allowed to bear weight as tolerated immediately after injury was compared between patients treated by orthopaedic surgeons and podiatrists. The effects of unrestricted weightbearing and foot and/or ankle immobilization on clinical healing were assessed. A total of 487 patients with zone 2 fractures were included (mean age 53.5 years (SD 16.9), mean BMI 27.2 kg/m. 2. (SD 6.0)) with a mean follow-up duration of 2.57 years (SD 2.64). Results. Overall, 281 patients (57.7%) were treated by orthopaedic surgeons, and 206 patients (42.3%) by podiatrists. When controlling for age, sex, and time between symptom onset and presentation, the likelihood of undergoing operative treatment was significantly greater when treated by a podiatrist (odds ratio (OR) 2.9 (95% CI 1.2 to 8.2); p = 0.029). A greater proportion of patients treated by orthopaedic surgeons were allowed to immediately bear weight on the injured foot (70.9% (178/251) vs 47.3% (71/150); p < 0.001). Patients treated by podiatrists were immobilized for significantly longer (mean 8.4 weeks (SD 5.7) vs 6.8 weeks (SD 4.3); p = 0.002) and experienced a significantly longer mean time to clinical healing (12.1 (SD 10.6) vs 9.0 weeks (SD 7.3), p = 0.003). Conclusion. Although there was considerable heterogeneity among zone 2 fracture management, orthopaedic surgeons were less likely to treat patients operatively and more likely to allow early full weightbearing compared to podiatrists. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):942–948

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.

Fifth metatarsal fractures in sport are known to be associated with acceleration and cross cutting movements when running. It is also established that playing surface has an impact on the ground reaction forces through the foot, increasing the strain through the fifth metatarsal. But what impact does boot design have on these forces? Current thought is that boots that utilise a blade stud design resist sideways slipping of the planted foot more than boots with a rounded stud. This study aims to compare ground reaction forces through the fifth metatarsal in 2 two different designs of rugby boot to assess what impact stud design might have. The forces across the foot were measured using Tekscan in-shoe pressure plates in 24 rugby players. Each player was asked to complete an agility course to measure acceleration, cutting and cross-cutting in the two different designs of rugby boot, reproducing true playing conditions. The boots used were the Canterbury Phoenix Club 8 Stud boot and the Canterbury Speed Club Blade boot. The trial was conducted on an 4G artificial pitch at the Cardiff Arms Park rugby ground. Ethical approval was obtained from Bath University and a research grant was provided by British Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. The blade boot had significantly higher contact pressures than the stud boot on the fifth metatarsal in the combined movements (17.909 ± 10.442 N/cm2 Blade Vs 16.888 ± 9.992 N/cm2 Boot; P < .0125; n= 864 steps in each boot group). The blade boot also produced higher pressure during cross-cutting (32.331 ± 13.568 N/cm2 Vs 27.651 ± 15.194 N/cm2 p < 0.007). Pressures were also higher in both acceleration and cutting, although not significantly so. These results will guide clinicians advising athletes in shoe design, especially those predisposed to or rehabilitating from a fifth metatarsal fracture

Introduction. Fifth metatarsal fracture is a common injury. Current practice supports conservative management, with surgery in the event of non-union. Early fracture clinic review is not perceived to improve patient experience or increased detection of non-union. A new protocol standardises treatment to symptom level and discharges patients from ED with advice but without any routine follow-up arranged. A leaflet advises on management, prognosis and helpline details and there is an open-access policy for those whose symptoms persist to investigate potential non-union. Method. A prospective audit evaluated the protocol, surveying patients at 8-weeks and 6-months post-injury. A minor injuries unit continued to refer to fracture clinic and was the control group. During 6-months 46 acute fractures were recorded in the new protocol(group 1) and 47 in the control(group 2). 1 patient in each group was known to experience non-union. 31 of group 1 and 22 of group 2 responded to at least one survey. Results. Satisfaction with information provided at initial presentation was high for both protocols. 87%(27/31) satisfied in group 1 and 90%(20/22) group 2(p=1.0000). At 8-weeks 82%(19/23) were satisfied with their progress following the new protocol compared to 89%(17/19) in the control(p=0.6729). At 6-months 88%(22/25) were satisfied compared to 76%(13/17) respectively(p=0.4133). The new protocol is not associated with a significant symptoms increase. At 8 weeks 22%(5/23) described their pain severity as >5/10 reducing to 8%(2/25) by 6-months. Compared to 10%(2/19) of the control at 8-weeks and 6%(1/17) at 6-months. Patients rating fracture management overall as ‘good or excellent’ were comparable between both new, 67%(21/31) and traditional, 77%(17/22) protocols(p=0.5441). Conclusion. No significant difference in patient satisfaction and symptom levels between the old and new protocol was found. The new protocol reduces unnecessary patient appointments. This reduces demands on fracture clinic while maintaining a safe, resource efficient service

Introduction. Many common fractures are inherently stable, will not displace and do not require plaster casting to achieve union in a good position. Nevertheless, many patients with stable fractures are advised that they need a cast, despite the potential for stiffness, skin problems and thromboembolism. Attempts to challenge this practice often meet the argument that patients prefer a cast for pain relief. We analysed five years of a single consultant's fracture clinic to see how many patients with stable foot and ankle fractures chose a cast after evidence-based counselling. Materials and methods. All patients with stable fractures of the ankle or metatarsals seen between 1st June 2005 and 31st May 2010 were included. Displaced or potentially unstable ankle fractures, Jones fractures and fractures involving the Lisfranc joint were excluded. Patients were advised functional treatment but offered a cast if they wished. Patients were documented prospectively as part of a larger audit, including demographics, diagnosis and treatment in the emergency department and fracture clinic. Results. 93 patients had stable ankle fractures. One (1%) chose a cast, 77 an ankle brace and 14 the RICE regime. One was advised a cast for neurological deformity. 105 patients had fifth metatarsal fractures outside the “non-” zone. 19 (18%) chose casts and 86 followed the RICE regime. 50 patients had other stable metatarsal fractures 15 (30%) chose casts. 86% of patients had casts applied in the emergency department. Discussion. The majority of patients with stable foot and ankle fractures do not wish to wear a cast once they understand it will not affect their outcome. In many cases this decision could have been reached in the emergency department with appropriate guidelines and education, preventing patient inconvenience and possible adverse events. Conclusion. Most patients are happy with evidence-based functional treatment of stable fractures

Injuries to the foot in athletes are often subtle and can lead to a substantial loss of function if not diagnosed and treated appropriately. For these injuries in general, even after a diagnosis is made, treatment options are controversial and become even more so in high level athletes where limiting the time away from training and competition is a significant consideration.

In this review, we cover some of the common and important sporting injuries affecting the foot including updates on their management and outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1299–1311.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare symptomatic treatment of a fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal with immobilisation in a cast.

Our null hypothesis was that immobilisation gave better patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The alternative hypothesis was that symptomatic treatment was not inferior.