A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Temporary Bridge Plating vs Primary Arthrodesis of the First Tarsometatarsal Joint in Lisfranc Injuries: Randomized Controlled Trial. | LitMetric

Background: Unstable Lisfranc injuries are best treated with anatomic reduction and stable fixation. There are controversies regarding which type of stabilization is best. In the present study, we compared primary arthrodesis of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint to temporary bridge plating in unstable Lisfranc injuries.

Methods: Forty-eight patients with Lisfranc injuries were included and followed for 2 years. Twenty-four patients were randomized to primary arthrodesis (PA) of the medial 3 TMT joints, whereas 24 patients were randomized to temporary bridge plate (BP) over the first TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the second and third TMT joints. The main outcome parameter was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale and the secondary outcome parameters were the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain). Computed tomography (CT) scans pre- and postoperatively were obtained. Radiographs were obtained at follow-ups. Pedobarographic examination was performed at the 2-year follow-up. Twenty-two of 24 patients in the PA and 23/24 in the BP group completed the 2-year follow-up.

Results: The mean AOFAS midfoot score 2 years postoperatively was 89 (SD 9) in the PA group and 85 (SD 15) in the BP group ( = .32). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to SF-36 or VAS pain scores. The alignment of the first metatarsal was better in the BP group than in the PA group measured by the anteroposterior Meary angle ( = .04). The PA group had a reduced peak pressure under the fifth metatarsal ( = .047). In the BP group, 11/24 patients had radiologic signs of osteoarthritis in the first TMT joint.

Conclusion: Both treatment groups had good outcome scores. The first metatarsal was better aligned in the BP group; however, there was a high incidence of radiographic osteoarthritis in this group.

Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic level I, prospective randomized controlled study.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7406968PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1071100720925815DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

primary arthrodesis
16
temporary bridge
12
lisfranc injuries
12
bridge plating
8
arthrodesis tarsometatarsal
8
randomized controlled
8
unstable lisfranc
8
tmt joint
8
patients randomized
8
tmt joints
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!