advertising
-
1
Albert E: Einige Falle von kunstlicher ankylosenbildung an paraltischen gliedmaben. .Wein Med Presse 23::726. ,1882. .
-
2
Soren A, Waugh TR: The historical evolution of arthrodesis of the foot. .Int Orthop 4::3. ,1980. .
-
3
Boyd HB: Indications for fusion of the ankle. .Orthop Clin North Am 5::191. ,1974. .
-
4
Hoke M: An operation for the correction of extremely relaxed flat feet. .J Bone Joint Surg 13::773. ,1931. .
-
5
Jack EA: Naviculo-cuneiform fusion in the treatment of flat foot. .J Bone Joint Surg Br 35::75. ,1953. .
-
6
McElvenny RT, Caldwell GD: A new operation for correction of cavus foot: fusion of first metatarsocuneiform navicular joints. .Clin Orthop 4::85. ,1958. .
-
7
Carr JB, Hansen ST, Benirschke SK: Subtalar distraction bone block fusion for late complications of os calcis fractures. .Foot Ankle 9::81. ,1988. .
-
8
Goossens M, De Stoop N: Lisfranc’s fracture-dislocations: etiology, radiology, and results of treatment: a review of 20 cases. .Clin Orthop 176::154. ,1983. .
-
9
Goldman F: Fractures of the midfoot. .Clin Podiatry 2::259. ,1985. .
-
10
Treadwell JR, Kahn MD: Lisfranc arthrodesis for chronic pain: a cannulated screw technique. .J Foot Ankle Surg 37::28. ,1998. .
-
11
Schuberth JM: Pedal fusions in the rheumatoid patient. .Clin Podiatr Med Surg 5::227. ,1988. .
-
12
Catanzariti AR: Medial column stabilization. .Clin Podiatr Med Surg 8::667. ,1991. .
-
13
Chang TJ, Ruch JA: Lapidus arthrodesis: a different perspective. .JAPMA 84::281. ,1994. .
-
14
Raikin SM, Schon LC: Arthrodesis of the fourth and fifth tarsometatarsal joints of the midfoot. .Foot Ankle Int 24::584. ,2003. .
-
15
Coetzee JC, Castro MD: The indications and biomechanical rationale for various ankle hindfoot procedures in the treatment of posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction. .Foot Clin 8::453. ,2003. .
-
16
Stephens HM, Walling AK, Solmen JD, et al: Subtalar repositional arthrodesis for adult acquired flatfoot. .Clin Orthop 365::69. ,1999. .
-
17
Potter TA: Talonavicular fusion with bone graft for spastic arthritic flat foot. .Surg Clin North Am 49::883. ,1969. .
-
18
Kaplan EG, Kaplan GS: Triple arthrodesis. .J Foot Surg 15::93. ,1976. .
-
19
Patel S, Ford LA, Etcheverry J, et al: Modified Lapidus arthrodesis: rate of nonunion in 227 cases. .J Foot Ankle Surg 43::37. ,2004. .
-
20
Ryerson EW: Arthrodesing operations on the feet. .J Bone Joint Surg 5::453. ,1923. .
-
21
Yu GV, Shook JE: “Rearfoot Arthrodesis: Selected Arthrodesis,” in McGlamry’s Comprehensive Textbook of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 3rd Ed, ed by AS Banks, MS Downey, DE Martin, et al, p 1206, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia. ,2001. .
-
22
Oppenheim JR, Early JS: Use of the lamina spreader for reduction of the subtalar joint during hindfoot surgery. .Foot Ankle Int 20::538. ,1999. .
-
23
Cloward RB: The cervical vertebra spreader: evolution of a surgical instrument. .Int Surg 55::1. ,1971. .
Comparison of Two Methods of Joint Distraction for Arthrodesis of the Foot
Orthovation LLC, Sealy, TX.
Search for other papers by Christopher P. Segler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Spencer Heninger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by David C. Seegmiller in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
A study was conducted to compare the efficacy of two methods of obtaining the joint exposure needed to perform arthrodesis or exploration of various joints of the foot. The investigation was performed by means of simulated arthrodesis in a cadaveric model. On each specimen, a single investigator performed standard incisions and dissection as typically performed for surgical arthrodesis of the first metatarsocuneiform, naviculocuneiform, medial intercuneiform, talonavicular, calcaneocuboid, and subtalar joints. Each joint was exposed and distracted once using the Tarsal Joint Distractor (Orthovation LLC, Sealy, Texas) and once using the Inge Laminar Spreader (K-Medic, Northvale, New Jersey). While a given joint was distracted, a calibrated digital photograph of the exposed joint was taken from an angle best representing the surgeon’s view of the articular space. Digital images were analyzed to calculate the maximum distance between articular surfaces and the total area of articular surfaces exposed while distracted. Thirty-six joints involving six feet were distracted using each device. The mean area of articular exposure was 178.3 mm2 for the Tarsal Joint Distractor and 116.4 mm2 for the Inge Laminar Spreader (P = .0001). The mean distance of distraction was 8.1 mm for the Tarsal Joint Distractor and 6.5 mm for the Inge Laminar Spreader (P = .0001). An average of 53.1% more exposure and 25.2% more distance between distracted surfaces was achieved when using the Tarsal Joint Distractor. The Tarsal Joint Distractor provides significantly better visualization of articular spaces typical of midfoot and rearfoot arthrodesis procedures than the Inge Laminar Spreader. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 96(5): 423–427, 2006)
advertising
