EVALUATION OF EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT MODALITIES IN TREATMENT OF FRACTURE METATARSAL
Objectives: This study mainly aims to evaluate the efficacy of three different modalities in treatment of fracture metatarsal.
Methods: A hospital-based prospective comparative study was conducted in Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, Jaipur, from December 2018 to June 2020, involving 50 patients above 16 years of age presented with isolated metatarsal fractures and grade I open fractures were included in the study. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were then allocated to one of three groups. Group A – Conservative management, Group B – K-wire fixation, and Group C – external Fixator. Outcome measurement was done using AOFAS MID FOOT SCALE (100 points total).
Results: Majority of 29 patients belong to 35–60 years of age group followed by 18 patients in 26–35 years. Maximum number of cases is reported in male category that was 45 cases. Majority of the cases falls under the category of road traffic accidents that are 28 cases which is about 56% of the total cases. In 37 cases right foot was involved, whereas 13 cases are on the left side, suggesting the right was the dominant side. About 48% of the second metatarsal and 30% of the third metatarsal showed the maximum involvement. Maximum number of cases were designated as excellent having score between 90 and 100 that was about 38 cases which are 76% of total cases suggesting every treatment modality was good in its own right. There was a significant difference between the different treatment modalities at final follow-up p<0.05.
Conclusion: All treatment modalities equally good, achieving good fracture union, decreased incidence of pain, and achieve a good range of movements, but complications rate was more in the conservative group as compared to other groups.
2. Geyer M, Sander-Beuermann A, Wegner U, Wirth CJ. Stress reactions and stress fractures in the high performance athlete. Causes, diagnosis and therapy. Unfallchirurg 1993;96:66-74.
3. Harrington T, Crichton KJ, Anderson IF. Overuse ballet injury of the base of the second metatarsal. A diagnostic problem. Am J Sports Med 1993;21:591-8.
4. O’Malley MJ, Hamilton WG, Munyak J. Fractures of the distal shaft of the fifth metatarsal. “Dancer’s fracture”. Am J Sports Med 1996;24:240-3.
5. Shuen WM, Boulton C, Batt ME, Moran C. Metatarsal fractures and sports. Surgeon 2009;7:86-8.
6. Brockwell J, Yeung Y, Griffith JF. Stress fractures of the foot and ankle. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2009;17:149-59.
7. Chandran P, Puttaswamaiah R, Dhillon MS, Gill SS. Management of complex open fracture injuries of the midfoot with external fixation. J Foot Ankle Surg 2006;45:308-15.
8. Thompson P, Patel V, Fallat LM, Jarski R. Surgical management of fifth metatarsal diaphyseal fractures: A retrospective outcomes study. J Foot Ankle Surg 2017;56:463-7.
9. Gotha HE, Lareau CR, Fellars TA. Diagnosis and management of lisfranc injuries and metatarsal fractures. R I Med J (2013) 2013;96:33-6.
10. Baumfeld D, Macedo BD, Nery C, Esper LE, Filho MA. Anterograde percutaneous treatment of lesser metatarsal fractures: Technical description and clinical results. Rev Bras Ortop 2015;47:760-4.
11. Sarpong NO, Swindell HW, Trupia EP, Vosseller JT. Metatarsal fractures. J Foot Ankle Orthop 2018;3:2473011418775094.
12. Kim HN, Park YJ, Kim GL, Park YW. Closed antegrade intramedullary pinning for reduction and fixation of metatarsal fractures. J Foot Ankle Surg 2012;51:445-9.
13. Cakir H, Van Vliet-Koppert ST, Van Lieshout EM, De Vries MR, Van Der Elst M, Schepers T. Demographics and outcome of metatarsal fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011;131:241-5.
14. Spector FC, Karlin JM, Scurran BL, Silvani SL. Lesser metatarsal fractures. Incidence, management, and review. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1984;74:259-64.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.