Journal of Korean Foot and Ankle Society (대한족부족관절학회지)

Korean Foot & Ankle Society (대한족부족관절학회)
권호 표지

Result of Midfoot Fusion with Locking Plate

잠김 금속판을 이용한 중족부 관절 유합술의 결과

  • Cha, Seong Mu (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University, Ilsan Paik Hospital) ;
  • Kang, Kyung Woon (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University, Ilsan Paik Hospital) ;
  • Suh, Jin Soo (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University, Ilsan Paik Hospital)
  • 차성무 (인제대학교 의과대학 일산백병원 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 강경운 (인제대학교 의과대학 일산백병원 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 서진수 (인제대학교 의과대학 일산백병원 정형외과학교실)
  • Received : 2013.01.18
  • Accepted : 2013.02.14
  • Published : 2013.03.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the results of midfoot arthrodesis with locking plate fixation and the other instruments. Materials and Methods: Twenty one patients, a total of 22 feet who underwent midfoot arthrodesis at our institution were reviewed retrospectively from January 2006 to December 2011. Locking plates were used in 9 cases, and the other instruments such as K-wires, screws, staples were used in 13 cases. Radiologic union time was evaluated and compared between both groups. Preoperative & postoperative AOFAS midfoot scores were evaluated and compared as clinical results. Results: The average AOFAS score was rising from 69.7 to 89.4 in locking plate group and from 67.6 to 80.7 in the other instrument group. There was no statistically significant difference in two groups (p=0.179). The mean radiologic union time was 10.2 weeks in locking plate group, 12.6 weeks in the other instrument group with no significant difference (p=0.062). One case of peroneal nerve irritation was detected as a complication in locking plate group. One case of peroneal nerve irritation and 1 case of superficial wound infection with skin sloughing were detected in the other instrument group. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference for union time and clinical results in both groups. A locking plate can be one of the useful option for midfoot arthrodesis.

Keywords

References

  1. Sayeed SA, Khan FA, Turner III NS, Kitaoka HB. Midfoot Arthritis: A review. Am J Orthop. 2008;37:251-6.
  2. Peicha G, Labovitz J, Seibert FJ, et al. The anatomy of the joint as a risk factor for Lisfranc dislocation and fracture dislocation: An anatomical and radiological case control study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:981-5. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.84B7.12587
  3. Patel A, Rao S, Nawoczenski D, Flemister AS, DiGiovanni B, Baumhauer JF. Midfoot arthritis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18:417-25. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-201007000-00004
  4. Sack K. Monarthritis: Differential diagnosis. Am J Med 1997;102:30-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00414-2
  5. Richter M, Wippermann B, Krettek C, Schratt HE, Hufner T, Therman H. Fractures and fracture dislocations of the midfoot: Occurrence, causes and longterm results. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:392-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070102200506
  6. Myerson MS, Fisher RT, Burgess AR, Kenzora JE. Fracture dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joints: End results correlated with pathology and treatment. Foot Ankle 1986;6:225-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110078600600504
  7. Kuo RS, Tejwani NC, Digiovanni CW, et al. Outcome after open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc joint injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82):1609-18. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200011000-00015
  8. Rao SN, Baumhauer J. Midfoot arthritis: Nonoperative options and decision making for fusion. Tech Foot Ankle Surg. 2008;7:188-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/BTF.0b013e3181758713
  9. Nemec SA, Habbu RA, Anderson JG, Bohay DR. Outcomes following midfoot arthrodesis for primary arthritis. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32:355-61. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2011.0355
  10. Kilmartin TE, O'Kane C. Fusion of the second metatarsocuneiform joint for the painful osteoarthrosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29:1079-87. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2008.1079
  11. Mann RA, Prieskorn D, Sobel M. Midtarsal and tarsometatarsal arthrodesis for primary degenerative osteoarthrosis or osteoarthrosis after trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1376-85. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199609000-00013
  12. Jung HG, Myerson MS, Schon LC. Spectrum of operative treatments and clinical outcomes for atraumatic osteoarthritis of the tarsometatarsal joints. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28:482-9. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2007.0482
  13. Ferris LR, Vargo R, Alexander IJ. Late reconstruction of the midfoot and tarsometatarsal region after trauma. Orthop Clin N Am. 1995;26:393-406.
  14. Jarrell SE 3rd, Owen JR, Wayne JS, Adelaar RS. Biomechanical comparison of screw versus plate/screw construct for talonavicular fusion. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30: 150-6. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2009.0150
  15. Suh JS, Amendola A, Lee KB, Wasserman L, Saltzman CL. Dorsal modified calcaneal plate for extensive midfoot arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26:503-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070502600701
  16. Marks RM, Parks BG, Schon LC. Midfoot fusion technique for neuroarthropathic feet: Biomechanical analysis and rationale. Foot Ankle Int. 1998;19:507-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079801900801
  17. DeVries JG, Granata JD, Hyer CF. Fixation of first tarsometatarsal arthrodesis: a retrospective comparative cohort of two techniques. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32:158-62. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2011.0158
  18. Ruchelsman DE, Mudgal CS, Jupiter JB. The role of locking technology in the hand. Hand Clin. 2010;26:307-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2010.04.001