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 anatomy of the support system of the Chopart joint complex to gain insight into the cause of PCFD. Methods. The study was conducted on 40 adult embalmed cadaveric lower limbs. Chopart joint complexes were dissected, and the structures supporting the joint inferiorly were observed and noted. Results. The articulating bones exhibit features like a cuboid shelf and navicular beak, which appear to offer inferior support to the joint. The expanse of the spring ligament complex is more medial than inferior, while the superomedial part is more extensive than the intermediate and inferoplantar parts. The spring ligament is reinforced by the tendons in the superomedial part (the main tendon of tibialis posterior), the inferomedial part (the plantar slip of tibialis posterior), and the master knot of Henry positioned just inferior to the gap between the inferomedial and inferoplantar bundles. Conclusion. This study highlights that the medial aspect of the talonavicular articulation has more extensive reinforcement in the form of superomedial part of spring ligament and tibialis posterior tendon. The findings are expected to prompt further research in weightbearing settings on the pathogenesis of flatfoot. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):335–342

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to present the mid-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared the functional outcome following routine removal (RR) to the outcome following on-demand removal (ODR) of the syndesmotic screw (SS). Methods. All patients included in the ‘ROutine vs on DEmand removal Of the syndesmotic screw’ (RODEO) trial received the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Hindfoot Score (AOFAS), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Out of the 152 patients, 109 (71.7%) completed the mid-term follow-up questionnaire and were included in this study (53 treated with RR and 56 with ODR). Median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range 43.0 to 56.0) since the initial surgical treatment of the acute syndesmotic injury. The primary outcome of this study consisted of the OMAS scores of the two groups. Results. The median OMAS score was 85.0 for patients treated with RR, and 90.0 for patients treated with ODR (p = 0.384), indicating no significant difference between ODR and RR. The secondary outcome measures included the AOFAS (88.0 in the RR group and 90.0 for ODR; p = 0.722), FAOS (87.5 in the RR group and 92.9 for ODR; p = 0.399), and EQ-5D (0.87 in the RR group and 0.96 for ODR; p = 0.092). Conclusion. This study demonstrated no functional difference comparing ODR to RR in syndesmotic injuries at a four year follow-up period, which supports the results of the primary RODEO trial. ODR should be the standard practice after syndesmotic screw fixation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):957–963

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. All pin locations confer a risk of damaging posterior ankle structures, with all posterior ankle structures except the flexor hallucis longus tendon being contacted by at least one pin. Centrally-aligned transcortical pins were more likely to contact posteromedial neurovascular structures. Conclusion. These findings support our hypothesis that tibial guide pins pose a considerable risk of contacting and potentially damaging posterior ankle structures during ankle arthroplasty. This study is the first of its kind to assess this risk in the Infinity total ankle system. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):503–508