• 1.

    Strudwick K , McPhee M & Bell A et al.: Review article: best practice management of common ankle and foot injuries in the emergency department (part 2 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series). Emerg Med Australas 30: 152, 2018.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Dischinger PC , Read KM & Kufera JA et al.: Consequences and costs of lower extremity injuries. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med 48: 339, 2004.

  • 3.

    De Boer AS , Schepers T & Panneman MJ et al.: Health care consumption and costs due to foot and ankle injuries in the Netherlands, 1986-2010. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15: 128, 2014.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Grimm DJ & Fallat L: Injuries of the foot and ankle in occupational medicine: a 1-year study. J Foot Ankle Surg 38: 102, 1999.

  • 5.

    Bielska IA , Wang X & Lee R et al.: The health economics of ankle and foot sprains and fractures: a systematic review of English-language published papers: part 2. The direct and indirect costs of injury. Foot (Edinburgh, Scotland) 39: 115, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    McGlamry ED , Banks AS & Downey MS: Comprehensive Textbook of Foot Surgery, 2nd Ed, Vol 2, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1992.

  • 7.

    Shah K & Odgaard A: Fracture of the lateral cuneiform only: a rare foot injury. JAPMA 97: 483, 2007.

  • 8.

    Wilson PD: Fractures and dislocations of the tarsal bones. South Med J 26: 833, 1933.

  • 9.

    Bancroft LW , Kransdorf MJ & Adler R et al.: ACR Appropriateness Criteria acute trauma to the foot. J Am Coll Radiol 12: 575, 2015.

  • 10.

    MacLellan J , Smith T & Baserman J et al.: Accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle Rules applied by non-physician providers in a pediatric emergency department. CJEM 20: 746, 2018.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Li N , Liu YS & Xin JY et al.: Efficiency of the Modified Ottawa Ankle Rules for the differential diagnosis of fracture in acute foot and ankle injury [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 97: 2742, 2017.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Bachmann LM , Kolb E & Koller MT et al.: Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic review. BMJ 326: 417, 2003.

  • 13.

    Pires R , Pereira A & Abreu ESG et al.: Ottawa ankle rules and subjective surgeon perception to evaluate radiograph necessity following foot and ankle sprain. Ann Med Health Sci Res 4: 432, 2014.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Markert RJ , Walley ME & Guttman TG et al.: A pooled analysis of the Ottawa ankle rules used on adults in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 16: 564, 1998.

  • 15.

    Jonckheer P , Willems T & De Ridder R et al.: Evaluating fracture risk in acute ankle sprains: any news since the Ottawa Ankle Rules? a systematic review. Eur J Gen Pract 22: 31, 2016.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Angoules AG , Angoules NA & Georgoudis M et al.: Update on diagnosis and management of cuboid fractures. World J Orthop 10: 71, 2019.

  • 17.

    Almeida RR , Mansouri M & Tso DK et al.: The added value of cross-sectional imaging in the detection of additional radiographically occult fractures in the setting of a Chopart fracture. Emerg Radiol 25: 513, 2018.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Aitken SA & Shortt N: Dorsomedial fracture dislocation of the first ray and medial cuneiform: a case report. J Foot Ankle Surg 51: 795, 2012.

  • 19.

    Burge AJ , Gold SL & Potter HG: Imaging of sports-related midfoot and forefoot injuries. Sports Health 4: 518, 2012.

  • 20.

    Siddiqui NA , Galizia MS & Almusa E et al.: Evaluation of the tarsometatarsal joint using conventional radiography, CT, and MR imaging. Radiographics 34: 514, 2014.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Baquie P , Fooks L & Pope J et al.: The challenge of managing mid-foot pain. Aust Fam Physician 44: 106, 2015.

  • 22.

    Olson RC , Mendicino SS & Rockett MS: Isolated medial cuneiform fracture: review of the literature and report of two cases. Foot Ankle Int 21: 150, 2000.

  • 23.

    Mabry LM , Patti TN & Bleakley CM: Radiographically occult medial cuneiform impaction fracture. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 49: 675, 2019.

  • 24.

    Babu NS , Gambardella GV & Bowlby MA: Isolated fracture of the medial cuneiform: a case report. JAPMA 107: 436, 2017.

  • 25.

    Murad MH , Sultan S & Haffar S et al.: Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ Evid Based Med 23: 60, 2018.

  • 26.

    Azurza K & Sakellariou A: 'Ostoesynthesis' of a symptomatic bipartite medial cuneiform. Foot Ankle Int 22: 499, 2001.

  • 27.

    Paisan G , Magister S & Bridgforth A et al.: Non-traumatic isolated medial cuneiform fracture: a unique mechanism of a rare injury. SAGE Open Med Case Rep 5: 2050313x17744483, 2017.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Warren ET , Armen JH & Booher MA: Unusual cause of midfoot pain in a pole vaulter. Clin J Sport Med 14: 360, 2004.

  • 29.

    Preidler KW , Brossmann J & Daenen B et al.: MR imaging of the tarsometatarsal joint: analysis of injuries in 11 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167: 1217, 1996.

  • 30.

    O'Neal ML , Ganey TM & Ogden JA: Fracture of a bipartite medial cuneiform synchondrosis. Foot Ankle Int 16: 37, 1995.

  • 31.

    Choi JY , Lee DJ & Ngissah R et al.: Categorization of single cuneiform fractures and investigation of related injuries: a 10-year retrospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 27: 2309499019866394, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Alemdar C , Ucar BY & Yildirim A et al.: Nonunion of the medial cuneiform: a rare case. Case Rep Med 2013: 215756, 2013.

  • 33.

    Eraslan A , Ozyurek S & Erol B et al.: Isolated medial cuneiform fracture: a commonly missed fracture. BMJ Case Rep 2013: bcr2013010093, 2013.

  • 34.

    Guler F , Baz AB & Turan A et al.: Isolated medial cuneiform fractures: report of two cases and review of the literature. Foot Ankle Spec 4: 306, 2011.

  • 35.

    Taylor SF & Heidenreich D: Isolated medial cuneiform fracture: a special forces soldier with a rare injury. South Med J 101: 848, 2008.

  • 36.

    Bryant MJ & Baird DS: A case of non-union of the medial cuneiform. Injury 24: 207, 1993.

  • 37.

    Patterson RH , Petersen D & Cunningham R: Isolated fracture of the medial cuneiform. J Orthop Trauma 7: 94, 1993.

  • 38.

    Barelds I , Krijnen WP & van de Leur JP et al.: Diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision rules to exclude fractures in acute ankle injuries: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Emerg Med 53: 353, 2017.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    David S , Gray K & Russell JA et al.: Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules for acute foot and ankle injuries. J Sport Rehabil 25: 48, 2016.

  • 40.

    Ellenbogen AL , Rice AL & Vyas P: Retrospective comparison of the low risk ankle rules and the Ottawa Ankle Rules in a pediatric population. Am J Emerg Med 35: 1262, 2017.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Derksen RJ , Knijnenberg LM & Fransen G et al.: Diagnostic performance of the Bernese versus Ottawa ankle rules: results of a randomised controlled trial. Injury 46: 1645, 2015.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Das M , Temiz A & Cevik Y: Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules by general practitioners in the emergency department of a Turkish district hospital. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 22: 361, 2016.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Beckenkamp PR , Lin CC & Macaskill P et al.: Diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Midfoot Rules: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 51: 504, 2017.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Crosswell S , Leaman A & Phung W: Minimising negative ankle and foot X-rays in the Emergency Department: are the Ottawa ankle rules good enough? Injury 45: 2002, 2014.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Greenberg ET & Queller HR: Tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) joint injury in an athlete with persistent foot pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 46: 494, 2016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    Patillo D , Rudzki JR & Johnson JE et al.: Lisfranc injury in a national hockey league player: a case report. Int J Sports Med 28: 980, 2007.

  • 47.

    Wright MP & Michelson JD: Lisfranc injuries. BMJ 347: f4561, 2013.

  • 48.

    Tzatzairis T , Firth G & Parker L: Adolescent Lisfranc injury treated with TightRope(TM): a case report and review of literature. World J Orthop 10: 115, 2019.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Kaplan JD , Karlin JM & Scurran BL et al.: Lisfranc's fracture-dislocation: a review of the literature and case reports. JAPMA 81: 531, 1991.

  • 50.

    Rankine JJ , Nicholas CM & Wells G et al.: The diagnostic accuracy of radiographs in Lisfranc injury and the potential value of a craniocaudal projection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198: W365, 2012.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51.

    Uppal HS: Open reduction internal fixation of the Lisfranc complex. J Orthop Trauma 32 (suppl 1) : S42, 2018.

  • 52.

    Lesko G , Altman K & Hogue G: Midfoot degenerative arthritis and partial fusion after pediatric lisfranc fracture-dislocation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2: e004, 2018.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53.

    Dalal D , Curry C & Carter R et al.: Surgical treatment of Lisfranc injury with plantar plate approach. J Foot Ankle Surg 57: 794, 2018.

  • 54.

    Podolnick JD , Donovan DS & DeBellis N et al.: Is pes cavus alignment associated with Lisfranc injuries of the foot? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475: 1463, 2017.

  • 55.

    Ross G , Cronin R & Hauzenblas J et al.: Plantar ecchymosis sign: a clinical aid to diagnosis of occult Lisfranc tarsometatarsal injuries. J Orthop Trauma 10: 119, 1996.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56.

    Davies MS & Saxby TS: Intercuneiform instability and the “gap” sign. Foot Ankle Int 20: 606, 1999.

  • 57.

    Baker JC , Hoover EG & Hillen TJ et al.: Subradiographic foot and ankle fractures and bone contusions detected by MRI in elite ice hockey players. Am J Sports Med 44: 1317, 2016.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58.

    Preidler KW , Peicha G & Lajtai G et al.: Conventional radiography, CT, and MR imaging in patients with hyperflexion injuries of the foot: diagnostic accuracy in the detection of bony and ligamentous changes. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173: 1673, 1999.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59.

    Leaver T , Johnson B & Lampard J et al.: The risks following the exposure to radiation associated with the surgical correction of limb deformities in children are minimal. Bone Joint J 101-B: 241, 2019.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60.

    Manning BT , Bohl DD & Idarraga AJP et al.: Patient knowledge regarding radiation exposure from foot and ankle imaging. Foot Ankle Spec 13: 324, 2020.

  • 61.

    Kennelly H , Klaassen K & Heitman D et al.: Utility of weight-bearing radiographs compared to computed tomography scan for the diagnosis of subtle Lisfranc injuries in the emergency setting. Emerg Med Australas 31: 741, 2019.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62.

    Mulcahy H: Lisfranc injury: current concepts. Radiol Clin North Am 56: 859, 2018.

  • 63.

    Wynter S & Grigg C: Lisfranc injuries. Aust Fam Physician 46: 116, 2017.

  • 64.

    Raikin SM , Elias I & Dheer S et al.: Prediction of midfoot instability in the subtle Lisfranc injury: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with intraoperative findings. J Bone Joint Surg Ser Am 91: 892, 2009.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65.

    Ablimit A , Ding HY & Liu LG: Magnetic resonance imaging of the Lisfranc ligament. J Orthop Surg Res 13: 282, 2018.

  • 66.

    Kitsukawa K , Hirano T & Niki H et al.: MR imaging evaluation of the Lisfranc ligament in cadaveric feet and patients with acute to chronic Lisfranc injury. Foot Ankle Int 36: 1483, 2015.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 67.

    Hensley CP & Dirschl DR: Diagnosis and rehabilitation of a middle cuneiform fracture in a hockey player. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 95: e98, 2016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68.

    Pereda C , Traves V & Requena C et al.: Clinical presentation of acral lentiginous melanoma: a descriptive study. Actas Dermosifiliogr 104: 220, 2013.

  • 69.

    Pakarinen TK , Laine HJ & Honkonen SE et al.: Charcot arthropathy of the diabetic foot: current concepts and review of 36 cases. Scand J Surg 91: 195, 2002.

  • 70.

    Haroon M , Gallagher P & FitzGerald O: Diagnostic delay of more than 6 months contributes to poor radiographic and functional outcome in psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 74: 1045, 2015.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Isolated Medial Cuneiform Fractures: A Systematic Search and Qualitative Analysis of Case Studies

Lance M. Mabry
Search for other papers by Lance M. Mabry in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PT, DPT
,
Taylor N. Patti
Search for other papers by Taylor N. Patti in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PT, DPT
,
Michael D. Ross
Search for other papers by Michael D. Ross in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PT, DHSc
,
Chris M. Bleakley
Search for other papers by Chris M. Bleakley in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PT, PhD
, and
Angela S. Gisselman
Search for other papers by Angela S. Gisselman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PT, PhD
Restricted access

Background

Isolated medial cuneiform fracture is a rare but diagnostically challenging condition. Diagnostic delay in these cases may lead to delays in ideal treatment approaches and prolonged symptoms. An understanding of clinical presentation is needed to expedite diagnosis, facilitate decision making, and guide treatment approach.

Methods

Case studies/series were searched in four databases until September 2019. Included studies had participants with a history of traumatic closed medial cuneiform fracture. Studies were excluded if the medial cuneiform fractures were open fractures, associated with multitrauma, or associated with dislocation/Lisfranc injury. Three blinded reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies, and a qualitative synthesis was performed.

Results

Ten studies comprising 15 patients were identified. Mean ± SD patient age was 38.0 ± 12.8 years, with 86.7% of reported participants being men. The overall methodological quality was moderate to high, and reporting of the patient selection criteria was poor overall. The most commonly reported clinical symptoms were localized tenderness (60.0%) and edema (53.3%). Direct blow was the most common inciting trauma (46.2%), followed by axial load (30.8%) and avulsion injuries (23.1%). Baseline radiographs were occult in 72.7% of patients; magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography were the most common diagnostic modalities. Mean ± SD diagnostic delay was 64.7 ± 89.6 days. Conservative management was pursued in 54.5% of patients, with reported resolution of symptoms in 3 to 6 months. Surgical intervention occurred in 45.5% of patients and resulted in functional restoration in 3 to 6 months in all but one patient.

Conclusions

Initial radiographs for isolated medial cuneiform fractures are frequently occult. Due to expedience and relatively low cost, radiographs are still a viable first-line imaging modality. If clinical concern remains, magnetic resonance imaging may be pursued to minimize diagnostic delay. Conservative management is a viable treatment method, with expected return to full function in 3 to 6 months.

Department of Physical Therapy, High Point University, High Point, NC.

Department of Physical Therapy, Daemen College, Amherst, NY.

School of Health Sciences, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, Ireland.

Corresponding author: Lance M. Mabry, PT, DPT, Department of Physical Therapy, High Point University, One University Parkway, High Point, NC 27268. (E-mail: LMabry@highpoint.edu)