BOFAS Abstracts Archive

You can search for abstracts by using the search bar below.
Alternatively you can browse through podium and poster presentations by selecting the year and / or type below. You can further refine your search using tags or use the search bar.


Categories: Abstracts, 2023, Poster

5th metatarsal fractures; who do we actually need to see? A single centre experience

J. Chapman, Z. Choudhury, S. Gupta, G. Airey, T. Davies, L. Mason

1Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool Orthopaedic & Trauma Service, Liverpool, United Kingdom

2University of Liverpool, School of Medicine, Department of Health and Life Sciences, Liverpool, United Kingdom

Introduction: 5th metatarsal fractures are a common injury of the foot, however the literature on how to manage them is conflicting. Our department protocol states Zone 3 fractures should have face-to-face review, with other zones planned for discharged following virtual review. We sought to investigate whether our practice was consistent and the burden of 5th metatarsal fractures on our clinics.

Methods: Patients referred to our virtual fracture clinic (VFC) with a suspected or confirmed 5th metatarsal fracture were identified from our electronic database. Data was collected on VFC outcomes including telephone review, clinic reviews and requirement of surgery. Plain AP radiographs were reviewed for fracture morphology. Fractures were defined as Zone 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 3, diaphyseal shaft, distal metaphysis and head. A univariate linear regression model was used (SPSS v.27).

Results: 1391 patients were identified. 447 (32.1%) were planned for clinical review following VFC, however 568 (40.8%) were sent clinic appointments (McNemar p1 clinic appointment and requiring surgery (OR 3.895, p=.037). Surgery was required in only 1.1% of patients, with 60% of these for non-union.

Conclusions: Fractures of Z2 and 3 require the most face-to-face input. Whilst rare, Z3 is the most likely to require surgery, often for non-union. Based on these results, all Z2 and 3 fractures should be considered for at least one face-to-face review and it may be appropriate for this to be delayed.

Previous Article 3D automated vs manual assessment of alignment in normal and cavus feet using weight-bearing CT scans – does it differ?
Next Article A ‘STRONG regime’ for safe ankles: a prospective study to validate an early mobilization programme after a lateral ankle ligament repair with suture tape augmentation

Documents to download

Click thumbnail below to view poster / thumbnail:

Archive of Abstracts

2023   -   Prize Winners  |  All Abstracts
2022   -   Prize Winners  |  All Abstracts
2021   -   Prize Winners  
2019   -   Podium  |  Poster
2018   -   Podium  |  Poster
2017   -   Podium  |  Poster
2016   -   Podium  |  Poster
2015   -   Podium  |  Poster
2014   -   Podium  |  Poster
2013   -   Podium  |  Poster
2011   -   All Abstracts
2009   -   All Abstracts
2008   -   All Abstracts
2007   -   All Abstracts
2006   -   All Abstracts
2005   -   All Abstracts
2004   -   All Abstracts
2002   -   All Abstracts
2001   -   All Abstracts
2000   -   All Abstracts
1999   -   All Abstracts
1998   -   All Abstracts
1997   -   All Abstracts
1996   -   All Abstracts
1995   -   All Abstracts
1994   -   All Abstracts
1993   -   All Abstracts
1991   -   All Abstracts
1990   -   All Abstracts
1989   -   All Abstracts
1987   -   All Abstracts
1985   -   All Abstracts
1983   -   All Abstracts