Talar Dome Access Through Posteromedial Surgical Intervals for Fracture Care
Standard
Talar Dome Access Through Posteromedial Surgical Intervals for Fracture Care. / DeKeyser, Graham J; O'Neill, Dillon C; Sripanich, Yantarat; Lenz, Amy L; Saltzman, Charles L; Haller, Justin M; Barg, Alexej.
in: FOOT ANKLE INT, Jahrgang 43, Nr. 2, 02.2022, S. 223-232.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Talar Dome Access Through Posteromedial Surgical Intervals for Fracture Care
AU - DeKeyser, Graham J
AU - O'Neill, Dillon C
AU - Sripanich, Yantarat
AU - Lenz, Amy L
AU - Saltzman, Charles L
AU - Haller, Justin M
AU - Barg, Alexej
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - BACKGROUND: Posterior talar body fractures are rare injuries without a consensus surgical approach. This study evaluates the accessible area of the talar dome through 2 posteromedial approach intervals (posteromedial [PM] and modified posteromedial [mPM]) both with and without distraction.METHODS: Ten male cadaveric legs (5 matched pairs) were included. A PM approach, between flexor hallucis longus (FHL) and the tibial neurovascular bundle, and an mPM approach, between FHL and Achilles tendon, was performed on each pair. In total, 4 mm of distraction across the tibiotalar joint was applied with the foot held in neutral position. Accessible dome surface area (DSA) was outlined by drilling with a 1.6-mm Kirschner wire with and without distraction. Specimens were explanted and analyzed by micro-computed tomography with 3-dimensional reconstruction. Primary outcomes were total accessible DSA and sagittal plane access at predetermined intervals.RESULTS: The PM approach allowed access to 19.1% of the talar DSA without distraction and 33.1% of the talar dome with distraction (P < .001). The mPM approach provided access to 20.4% and 35.6% of the talar DSA without and with distraction (P < .001). Both approaches demonstrated similar sagittal plane access at all intervals except the lateral border of the talus, where the mPM approach provided greater access both without distraction (20.5% vs 4.38%, P = .002) and with distraction (34.3% vs 17.8%, P = .02).CONCLUSION: The mPM approach, using an interval between FHL and Achilles tendon, provides similar access to the posterior surface of talar dome and better sagittal plane access to the most lateral portion of the dome. The mPM interval provides the advantage of avoiding direct dissection of the tibial nerve or posterior tibial artery. Using an external fixator for distraction can improve talar dome visualization substantially.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, Cadaveric Study.
AB - BACKGROUND: Posterior talar body fractures are rare injuries without a consensus surgical approach. This study evaluates the accessible area of the talar dome through 2 posteromedial approach intervals (posteromedial [PM] and modified posteromedial [mPM]) both with and without distraction.METHODS: Ten male cadaveric legs (5 matched pairs) were included. A PM approach, between flexor hallucis longus (FHL) and the tibial neurovascular bundle, and an mPM approach, between FHL and Achilles tendon, was performed on each pair. In total, 4 mm of distraction across the tibiotalar joint was applied with the foot held in neutral position. Accessible dome surface area (DSA) was outlined by drilling with a 1.6-mm Kirschner wire with and without distraction. Specimens were explanted and analyzed by micro-computed tomography with 3-dimensional reconstruction. Primary outcomes were total accessible DSA and sagittal plane access at predetermined intervals.RESULTS: The PM approach allowed access to 19.1% of the talar DSA without distraction and 33.1% of the talar dome with distraction (P < .001). The mPM approach provided access to 20.4% and 35.6% of the talar DSA without and with distraction (P < .001). Both approaches demonstrated similar sagittal plane access at all intervals except the lateral border of the talus, where the mPM approach provided greater access both without distraction (20.5% vs 4.38%, P = .002) and with distraction (34.3% vs 17.8%, P = .02).CONCLUSION: The mPM approach, using an interval between FHL and Achilles tendon, provides similar access to the posterior surface of talar dome and better sagittal plane access to the most lateral portion of the dome. The mPM interval provides the advantage of avoiding direct dissection of the tibial nerve or posterior tibial artery. Using an external fixator for distraction can improve talar dome visualization substantially.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, Cadaveric Study.
U2 - 10.1177/10711007211036720
DO - 10.1177/10711007211036720
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 34384278
VL - 43
SP - 223
EP - 232
JO - FOOT ANKLE INT
JF - FOOT ANKLE INT
SN - 1071-1007
IS - 2
ER -