Author(s): Davitt JS, Kadel N, Sangeorzan BJ, Hansen ST Jr, Holt SK, et al.
Background:Primary tarsometatarsal arthrosis is relatively uncommon. The etiology of osteoarthritis in the foot is poorly understood, and it is possible that mechanical or anatomic factors play a role.
Methods:We compared the relative length of the metatarsals in patients with idiopathic arthrosis of the midfoot with that in a group of controls without arthrosis. We analyzed the radiographs of all patients who had had an arthrodesis of the first, second, and third tarsometatarsal joints to treat arthrosis during a three-year period at a tertiary teaching hospital. We excluded patients with a history of inflammatory arthritis, trauma, or Charcot arthropathy. Nine patients (fifteen feet), seven women and two men with an average age of 64.2 years, met the inclusion criteria. We compared them with a control group consisting of the uninjured feet of patients with an acute traumatic injury to the hindfoot and the feet of volunteers with no foot problems. We measured the first, second, and fourth metatarsal lengths and the intermetatarsal angles on weight-bearing anteroposterior radiographs. We also measured the length of the first metatarsal relative to the long axis of the second metatarsal to define the functional first metatarsal length. The ratios of metatarsal lengths and the ratios of functional lengths were used for analysis to minimize differences in foot size and differences caused by radiographic magnification. Statistical comparisons between groups were then carried out.
Results:In the study group, the length of the first metatarsal was, on the average, 77.0% of the length of the second metatarsal, whereas, in the control group, the first metatarsal length was an average of 82.0% of the second metatarsal length. The functional length of the second metatarsal was, on the average, 18.6% greater than that of the first metatarsal in the study group and only an average of 4.1% greater than that of the first metatarsal in the control group. Both differences were significant (p < 0.0004 and p < 0.0001, respectively).
Conclusions:Patients with midfoot arthrosis had a different ratio of the first to the second metatarsal length than did a similarly aged cohort without midfoot arthrosis. The patients had a relatively short first metatarsal or a relatively long second metatarsal, or both. Midfoot arthrosis may have a mechanical etiology. Recognition of risk factors is the first step in developing prevention strategies.
Referred From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15805209
Author(s): Den Hartog BD, Kay DB
Author(s): Sangeorzan BJ, Veith RG, Hansen ST Jr
Author(s): DiDomenico LA, Cross D
Author(s): de Palma L, Santucci A, Sabetta SP, Rapali S
Author(s): Peicha G, Labovitz J, Seibert FJ, Grechenig W, Weiglein A, et al.
Author(s): van der Werf GJ, Tonino AJ
Author(s): Ryan JD, Timpano ED, Brosky TA 2nd
Author(s): Philbin T, Rosenberg G, Sferra JJ
Author(s): Liu GT, Lavery LA, Schenck RC Jr, Lanctot DR, Zhu CF, et al.
Author(s): Hardcastle PH, Reschauer R, Kutscha-Lissberg E, Schoffmann W
Author(s): Armstrong CG, Mow VC
Author(s): Jung HG, Myerson MS, Schon LC
Author(s): Withey CJ, Murphy AL, Horner R
Author(s): Gilheany MF, Amir OT
Author(s): Johnson JT, Schuberth JM, Thornton SD, Christensen JC
Author(s): Hyer CF, Berlet GC, Bussewitz BW, Hankins T, Ziegler HL, et al.
Author(s): DeOrio JK, Farber DC
Author(s): Feeney S, Rees S, Tagoe M
Author(s): Daigre JL, DeMill SL, Hyer CF
Author(s): Filiatrault AD, Banks AS
Author(s): Cizek GR, Boyd LM
Author(s): Smith SE, Camasta CA, Cass AD