The results of treatment of
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:
The anatomy of the mortise of the Lisfranc joint between the medial and lateral cuneiforms was studied in detail, with particular reference to features which may predispose to injury. In 33 consecutive patients with
The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the functional
and radiological outcomes of bridge plating, screw fixation, and
a combination of both methods for the treatment of Lisfranc fracture
dislocations. A total of 108 patients were treated for a Lisfranc fracture
dislocation over a period of nine years. Of these, 38 underwent
transarticular screw fixation, 45 dorsal bridge plating, and 25
a combination technique. Injuries were assessed preoperatively according
to the Myerson classification system. The outcome measures included
the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, the
validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) functional
tool, and the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical
reduction.Aims
Patients and Methods
The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome in patients undergoing implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation below the level of the knee. All adult patients (18 to 75 years) undergoing IR after fracture fixation below the level of the knee between November 2014 and September 2016 were included as part of the WIFI (Wound Infections Following Implant Removal Below the Knee) trial, performed in 17 teaching hospitals and two university hospitals in The Netherlands. In this multicentre prospective cohort, the primary outcome was the difference in functional status before and after IR, measured by the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), with a minimal clinically important difference of nine points.Aims
Patients and Methods
Fracture clinics are often characterised by the referral of large
numbers of unselected patients with minor injuries not requiring
investigation or intervention, long waiting times and recurrent
unnecessary reviews. Our experience had been of an unsustainable
system and we implemented a ‘Trauma Triage Clinic’ (TTC) in order
to rationalise and regulate access to our fracture service. The
British Orthopaedic Association’s guidelines have required a prospective evaluation
of this change of practice, and we report our experience and results. We review the management of all 12 069 patients referred to our
service in the calendar year 2014, with a minimum of one year follow-up
during the calendar year 2015. Aims
Patients and Methods
Fractures of the navicular can occur in isolation but, owing
to the intimate anatomical and biomechanical relationships, are
often associated with other injuries to the neighbouring bones and
joints in the foot. As a result, they can lead to long-term morbidity
and poor function. Our aim in this study was to identify patterns
of injury in a new classification system of traumatic fractures
of the navicular, with consideration being given to the commonly associated
injuries to the midfoot. We undertook a retrospective review of 285 consecutive patients
presenting over an eight- year period with a fracture of the navicular.
Five common patterns of injury were identified and classified according
to the radiological features. Type 1 fractures are dorsal avulsion
injuries related to the capsule of the talonavicular joint. Type
2 fractures are isolated avulsion injuries to the tuberosity of
the navicular. Type 3 fractures are a variant of tarsometatarsal
fracture/dislocations creating instability of the medial ray. Type
4 fractures involve the body of the navicular with no associated
injury to the lateral column and type 5 fractures occur in conjunction
with disruption of the midtarsal joint with crushing of the medial
or lateral, or both, columns of the foot.Aims
Patients and Methods
We present a review of litigation claims relating
to foot and ankle surgery in the NHS in England during the 17-year period
between 1995 and 2012. A freedom of information request was made to obtain data from
the NHS litigation authority (NHSLA) relating to orthopaedic claims,
and the foot and ankle claims were reviewed. During this period of time, a total of 10 273 orthopaedic claims
were made, of which 1294 (12.6%) were related to the foot and ankle.
1036 were closed, which comprised of 1104 specific complaints. Analysis
was performed using the complaints as the denominator. The cost
of settling these claims was more than £36 million. There were 372 complaints (33.7%) involving the ankle, of which
273 (73.4%) were related to trauma. Conditions affecting the first
ray accounted for 236 (21.4%), of which 232 (98.3%) concerned elective
practice. Overall, claims due to diagnostic errors accounted for
210 (19.0%) complaints, 208 (18.8%) from alleged incompetent surgery
and 149 (13.5%) from alleged mismanagement. Our findings show that the incorrect, delayed or missed diagnosis
of conditions affecting the foot and ankle is a key area for improvement,
especially in trauma practice. Cite this article:
We assessed the long-term (20 years) outcome
of closed reduction and immobilisation in 19 patients with an isolated
fracture of the posterior malleolus of the ankle treated at a single
hospital between 1985 and 1990. The assessments used were an Olerud
functional questionnaire score, physical examination using a loaded
dorsal and plantar range of movement measurement, radiological analysis
of medial joint space widening, the Cedell score for anatomical
alignment of all three malleoli, and the radiological presence of
osteoarthritic change. There were excellent or good results in 14 patients (74%) according
to the Olerud score, in 18 patients (95%) according to loaded dorsal
and plantar range of movement assessment, in 16 patients (84%) as
judged by the Cedell score, and for osteoarthritis 18 patients (95%)
had an excellent or good score. There were no poor outcomes. There was
no correlation between the size of the fracture gap and the proportion
of the tibiotalar contact area when compared with the clinical results
(gap size: rho values -0.16 to 0.04, p ≥ 0.51; tibiotalar contact
area: rho values -0.20 to -0.03, p ≥ 0.4). Conservative treatment
of ‘isolated’ posterior malleolar fractures resulted in good clinical
and radiological outcome in this series at long-term follow-up.
