Aims. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of
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 April 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360. looks at: Outcomes following a two-stage revision total ankle arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection; Temporary bridge plate fixation and joint motion after an unstable
The December 2015 Foot &
Ankle Roundup. 360 . looks at: The midfoot fusion bolt: has it had its day?; Ankle arthroplasty: only for the old?; A return to the Keller’s osteotomy for diabetic feet?; Joint sparing surgery for ankle arthritis in the context of deformity?; Beware the subtalar fusion in the ankle arthrodesis patient?; Nonunion in the foot and ankle a predictive score; Cast versus early weight bearing following Achilles tendon repair; Should we plate
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 August 2015 Foot &
Ankle Roundup. 360 . looks at: Is orthosis more important than physio in tibialis posterior deficiency?; Radiographic evaluation of ankle injury; Sciatic catheter quite enough!; A fresh look at avascular necrosis of the talus; Total ankle and VTE; Outcomes of posterior malleolar fracture; Absorbable sutures in the Achilles tendon;
The April 2023 Trauma Roundup360 looks at: Displaced femoral neck fractures in patients aged 55 to 70 years: internal fixation or total hip arthroplasty?; Tibial plateau fractures: continuous passive motion approves range of motion; Lisfranc fractures: to fuse or not to fuse, that is the question; Is hardware removal after clavicle fracture plate fixation beneficial?; Fixation to coverage in Grade IIIB open fractures – what’s the time window?; Nonoperative versus locking plate fixation in the proximal humerus; Retrograde knee nailing or lateral plate for distal femur fractures?
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates. PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and Scopus (Elsevier) databases were searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported incidence rate (or count with population at risk), contained data on adult population, and were written in English language. The number of cases and population at risk were collected, and the pooled incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using either a fixed or random effects model.Aims
Methods
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