Comparison Different Method Treatment in Tuberosity Fractures of the Proximal Fifth Metatarsal

November 17, 2019 updated by: Serkan Bayram, Istanbul University

A Prospective Comparison of Clinical, Functional, and Isokinetic Outcomes Between Short Leg Cast Immobilization and Symptomatic Treatment in Tuberosity Fractures of the Proximal Fifth Metatarsal

Fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal is one of the most common injuries in ankle trauma. There are many conservative treatment protocols for fifth metatarsal base fractures which have up to 99% success. Short leg cast and walking boot are conservative treatment methods that aim to prevent weight-bearing. There are many different conservative treatment methods that allow weight-bearing such as an elastic bandage. There was no significant difference between cast and symptomatic treatment in the previous studies. Muscle atrophy developing after immobilization with cast may adversely affect the daily activities of the patient in the first few months. However, there was no study comparing the effect of these two treatment methods on ankle muscle strength.

In this study, the investigators compared the strength of the ınjured and healthy ankle muscle when symptomatic and cast treatment methods are applied to patients with tuberosity fractures of proximal fifty metatars. In addition, patients' functional, clinic and radiological outcomes were also compared.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

We prospectively treated 73 patients with 5th metatarsal base fractures (Zone 1) who came to the emergency department. Patients were allocated to a treatment group using an electronic random number generator. The generation of an even number randomized the participant to a below-knee cast, and an odd number to a double-layered elasticated bandage. In all, patients were allocated to wear a double layered elasticated bandage (group 1) applied by S.B and patients were given a below-knee cast (group 2) applied by D.K. Duration of both treatments were for four weeks and the cast removed in that time in our clinic. This reference form of treatment was the same as in previous reports.

The non-injured extremity was measured with isokinetic test at initial injury time for evaluation of side effect of immobilization after treatment. At that time, patients were asked for height, weight and pain scores. Body muscle index was calculated for all patients. Tobacco using was also asked.To measure clinical outcomes, using the validated Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) score [7] and The EuroQol-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS) score were used [8]. The VAS-FA score ranges from 0 to 100 points: higher scores indicate a better functional outcome. EQ-5D VAS score was used as a secondary outcome measure: this ranges from 0 to 100. Baseline functional scores were collected at the time of consult in the clinic.

Both ankle plantar-dorsiflexors and inversion-eversion'strength (peak torque %BW (Body Weight)) were measured with an isokinetic dynamometer (Cybex Humac Norm, CA, USA) at Isokinetic Test Laboratory of Sports Medicine in the Istanbul Medical Faculty. Test procedure was performed by the same investigator (T.Ş) in all cases for ensuring standardization. The muscle strength can be defined as the capacity of a muscle to withstand great force.

Injured extremity values were compared with non-injured extremity. The non-injured extremity was measured at initial injury time for evaluation of side effect of both treatment methods. The tests were started with non-injured sides of the patients and measurements at low angular velocity. The dynamometer was calibrated at the beginning of each testing session. Subjects were tested in prone position and stabilized in the exercise chair as per the manufacturer's recommendation. The anatomical axis of the ankle was aligned with the axis of the dynamometer while the foot was secured to the foot plate with velcros. Proximal stabilization was achieved with the straps at the thigh and calf. In the test, dorsiflexion-plantarflexion and inversion-eversion peak torque force (strength) measurements were performed in 3 trials and 3 tests repetitions at 30 degrees/sec angular speed for both side of the patient.

All of the patients were given follow-up appointments at 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 week interval at our clinic. Radiographs were similarly scheduled for 4, 8, and 12 week intervals to assess bony healing. However, functional outcomes and isokinetic test was applied also at 24 week control. At second visit, isokinetic test was not applied. These studies were started on fixed ground and then continued on moving boards. Standard rehabilitation program was given for all patients each group included joint mobilizations, passive stretching, electrotherapy-ice compression for pain relieving and ankle proprioceptive exercises, as considered necessary by same author (T.Ş).

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

64

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Fatih
      • Istanbul, Fatih, Turkey, 34093
        • Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

21 years to 64 years (ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Aged over 18 years
  • Acute (presented within one week of injury) Zone 1 fractures of fifth metatarsi

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Zone 2-3 fractures
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Osteoporotic bone (T score<-2.5),
  • History of osteoporotic drug therapy,
  • Other lower extremity any fracture,
  • Previous foot surgery or fracture in both lower extremity,
  • Chronic fracture, pathological fracture,
  • Aged over 65 years (congruity of muscle strength test)
  • Open fracture

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: Symptomatic treatment group
The patients were allocated to wear a double layered elasticated bandage for treatment 5th metatarsal base fractures (Zone 1).
Conservative treatment methods of tuberosity fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Cast group
The patients were given a below-knee cast for treatment 5th metatarsal base fractures (Zone 1).
Conservative treatment methods of tuberosity fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Changed of Baseline Isokinetic Muscle Strength at 6 months
Time Frame: Isokinetic Muscle Strength test was scheduled for baseline, 4, 8,12 and 24 week intervals to assess ankle muscle strength
Both ankle plantar-dorsiflexion muscle strength and inversion-eversion muscle strength (peak torque %BW (Body Weight)) were measured with an isokinetic dynamometer (Cybex Humac Norm, CA, USA) at Isokinetic Test Laboratory of Sports Medicine in the Istanbul Medical Faculty. Test procedure was performed by the same investigator in all cases for ensuring standardization. The muscle strength can be defined as the capacity of a muscle to withstand great force. Injured extremity values were compared with healthy extremity. he healthy extremity was measured at initial injury time for evaluation of side effect of both treatment methods.
Isokinetic Muscle Strength test was scheduled for baseline, 4, 8,12 and 24 week intervals to assess ankle muscle strength

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Changed of Baseline VAS-FA Scores at 6 months
Time Frame: baseline, 2, 4, 8,12 and 24 weeks follow-up visit
The investigators was measured clinical outcomes, using the validated "Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) Score". VAS-FA score is numbered from 0 to 100. 100 is the best health and 0 is the worst health.
baseline, 2, 4, 8,12 and 24 weeks follow-up visit
Changed of Baseline EuroQol-5D VAS Scores at 6 months
Time Frame: baseline, 2nd, 4th, 8th,12th and 24th week follow-up visit
The investigators was measured clinical outcomes using The EuroQol-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS). (EQ-5D VAS is numbered from 0 to 100. 100 is the best health and 0 is the worst health.
baseline, 2nd, 4th, 8th,12th and 24th week follow-up visit

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of Days with using an assistive device
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
Patients use the Canadian sticks while walking for decrease their pain level. The time of the using assistive device was investigated and compared between both groups.
through study completion, an average of 6 months
Number of Days with a take of analgesia
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
Patients take the pills for their pain. Our drug choose is paracetamol for patients. The time of take of drug was investigated and compared between both groups.
through study completion, an average of 6 months
Number of Days with unable to work
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
The time taken of unable to work was investigated and compared between both groups.
through study completion, an average of 6 months
Rates of Complications
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months
Every treatment method has got a lot of complications. The complications of both treatment methods were investigated and noted. The complication rates of the treatment methods were compared between the two groups.
through study completion, an average of 6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

April 15, 2018

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

June 20, 2019

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

September 9, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

November 13, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 17, 2019

First Posted (ACTUAL)

November 19, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

November 19, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 17, 2019

Last Verified

November 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Muscle Weakness

Clinical Trials on Symptomatic Treatment

3
Subscribe