Results of Functional Treatment of Epi-Metaphyseal Fractures of the Base of the Fifth Metatarsal.
Lawrence and Botte
fifth metatarsal fracture
fracture characteristics
functional treatment
outcome
Journal
Foot & ankle international
ISSN: 1944-7876
Titre abrégé: Foot Ankle Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9433869
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
27
2
2020
medline:
1
9
2021
entrez:
27
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Fractures of the fifth metatarsal base (5th MT) are common foot injuries, but their treatment remains a subject of debate. The aim was to assess the midterm outcome of functionally treated epi-metaphyseal fractures (Lawrence and Botte types I and II) of the 5th MT. This study was a longitudinal retrospective database study with prospective follow-up. Included were all patients with an acute, isolated fracture to the 5th MT base (types I and II). All patients were treated functionally: weightbearing as tolerated without immobilization. Fracture types and fracture characteristics (displacement <2 mm/>2 mm, articular involvement, number of fragments) were assessed retrospectively. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the visual analog scale for foot and ankle (VAS FA) and the quality-of-life score (QoL) SF-12 were collected prospectively at 2- and 5-year follow-up. Out of 95 patients, 43 patients (45%) were included with a median follow-up of 5.7 (1.5) years. For both the VAS FA and SF-12, excellent scores were observed. For 30 patients (77%), longitudinal 2- and 5-year follow-up was available. No significant longitudinal changes could be observed for the VAS FA and SF-12. For both time points, neither fracture type nor characteristics significantly influenced any outcome parameter assessed. Functional treatment by full weightbearing and free range of motion led to excellent 5-year results for both type I and II fractures. Neither fracture location nor characteristics had a significant influence on the 5-year PROMs. Level III, comparative study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fractures of the fifth metatarsal base (5th MT) are common foot injuries, but their treatment remains a subject of debate. The aim was to assess the midterm outcome of functionally treated epi-metaphyseal fractures (Lawrence and Botte types I and II) of the 5th MT.
METHODS
This study was a longitudinal retrospective database study with prospective follow-up. Included were all patients with an acute, isolated fracture to the 5th MT base (types I and II). All patients were treated functionally: weightbearing as tolerated without immobilization. Fracture types and fracture characteristics (displacement <2 mm/>2 mm, articular involvement, number of fragments) were assessed retrospectively. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the visual analog scale for foot and ankle (VAS FA) and the quality-of-life score (QoL) SF-12 were collected prospectively at 2- and 5-year follow-up. Out of 95 patients, 43 patients (45%) were included with a median follow-up of 5.7 (1.5) years.
RESULTS
For both the VAS FA and SF-12, excellent scores were observed. For 30 patients (77%), longitudinal 2- and 5-year follow-up was available. No significant longitudinal changes could be observed for the VAS FA and SF-12. For both time points, neither fracture type nor characteristics significantly influenced any outcome parameter assessed.
CONCLUSION
Functional treatment by full weightbearing and free range of motion led to excellent 5-year results for both type I and II fractures. Neither fracture location nor characteristics had a significant influence on the 5-year PROMs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, comparative study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32100555
doi: 10.1177/1071100720907391
pmc: PMC7294529
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
666-673Références
Bone Joint J. 2016 Jun;98-B(6):806-11
pubmed: 27235524
Foot Ankle Spec. 2015 Oct;8(5):354-9
pubmed: 25666689
Injury. 2015 Aug;46(8):1664-8
pubmed: 26052051
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2018 Jan-Apr;26(1):2309499017747128
pubmed: 29228848
Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Sep;26(9):704-7
pubmed: 16174500
Unfallchirurg. 2018 Sep;121(9):723-729
pubmed: 29777283
Swiss Surg. 1997;3(2):81-4
pubmed: 9190283
Injury. 2010 Jun;41(6):555-62
pubmed: 19570536
Foot Ankle Int. 2007 May;28(5):581-3
pubmed: 17559765
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Jul;33(7):970-5
pubmed: 15888715
Iran J Med Sci. 2015 Mar;40(2):104-9
pubmed: 25821289
Rev Med Suisse. 2007 Aug 2;3(120):1792-4
pubmed: 17850008
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2018 Sep - Oct;57(5):982-986
pubmed: 30149851
Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2018 Apr;10(4):91-103
pubmed: 29619094
Skeletal Radiol. 2014 Apr;43(4):467-74
pubmed: 24442562
Foot Ankle Int. 1997 May;18(5):267-9
pubmed: 9167925
Foot Ankle Int. 2013 Jan;34(1):75-9
pubmed: 23386764
Foot Ankle Int. 2016 May;37(5):488-500
pubmed: 26781131
Unfallchirurg. 2008 Oct;111(10):829-39; quiz 840
pubmed: 18820889
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011 Feb;131(2):241-5
pubmed: 20714904
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Oct;100(4):353-61
pubmed: 27393601
Arch Trauma Res. 2016 Jun 13;5(4):e33298
pubmed: 28144601
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Dec 16;18(1):534
pubmed: 29246170
Foot Ankle. 1993 Jul-Aug;14(6):358-65
pubmed: 8406253
Injury. 2014 Dec;45(12):2009-12
pubmed: 25150752
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018 Oct;44(5):727-734
pubmed: 29026929
Int Orthop. 2007 Feb;31(1):5-10
pubmed: 16721621
Foot Ankle Int. 2002 May;23(5):440-6
pubmed: 12043990
Clin Sports Med. 2006 Jan;25(1):139-50, x
pubmed: 16324980
Foot Ankle Surg. 2013 Dec;19(4):207-11
pubmed: 24095225
Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 Dec;17(4):300-7
pubmed: 22017907
Injury. 2012 Oct;43(10):1626-32
pubmed: 22465516
Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 Sep;17(3):166-72
pubmed: 21783078