ABSTRACT
Objective To analyze the related risk factors for Lisfranc injury resulting from low energy violence.Methods A retrospective study was performed for 61 cases (35 males,26 females) with low-energy foot injury hospitalized from June 2008 to June 2014.Mean age was 36.7 years (range,16-57 years).Fall injuries were noted in 24 cases,sports injuries in 21 cases,and twist injuries in 16 cases.The cases were divided into Lisfranc injury group(n =23) and non-Lisfranc injury group (n =38) according to the different diagnosis.Univariate analysis and multi-factor logistic regression analysis were used to identify the factors that may lead to the occurrence of Lisfranc injury including age,gender,body mass index,operation history,smoking,alcohol abuse,injury reason,medial depth of the mortise/ second metatarsal length (b/a),lateral depth of the mortise/ second metatarsal length (c/a),first metatarsal-to-talus angle,first intermetatarsal angle,second metatarsal length/foot length(a/g),calcaneal inclination angle and cuboid-navicular overlap/cuboid vertical height (e/e + f).Results Univariate analysis showed between-group differences were significant in age (x2 =7.385,P ＜0.05),injury reason (x2 =8.663,P ＜ 0.05),calcaneal inclination angle (t =3.958,P ＜ 0.05),b/a (t =5.051,P ＜ 0.05) and a/g(t =4.618,P ＜ 0.05).Logistic regression analysis identified b/a(OR =1.036,95 ％ CI 0.018-0.450,P ＜ 0.01) and a/g(OR =1.013,95％ CI 0.005-0.374,P ＜ 0.01) as independent risk factors for low-energy Lisfranc injury.Conclusion Low-energy Lisfranc injury is independently associated with b/a and a/g,and may relate to the decreased medial depth of the mortise and increased foot length.
ABSTRACT
Objective To explore the reconstructive methods of benign bone tumor defects in proximal joint. Methods Operative treatment was performed in 11 cases with benign bone tumor defects in proximal joint, a-mong whom 4 cases were treated by curettage,cauterization of wall and bone grafting,3 cases were treated by filling branch through segment fibula transplantation with vascular,2 cases were treated by fibula head transplantation with vascular to reconstruct the glenohumeral joint and rediocarpal joint, and 2 cases were treated by artificial joint re-placement. Results The follow-up ranged from 1.5 to 6 years. All of cases got excellent bone unioned without re-lapse and 2 cases of them developed with little limitation in joint function. Conclusion The importance and recon-structive achievement of fibula transplantation in treating the benign bone tumor defects in proximal joint should be thought fully. The indication of artificial tumor prosthesis replacement should be strictly mastered.