Author: Steve

Classic Articles

Posted on August 23, 2023 by - C, Classic Articles

Steve Edwards – Classic Article List (Updated August 2023)

Biomechanics

Hicks, J. H. (1954). The mechanics of the foot: II. The plantar aponeurosis and the arch. Journal of Anatomy, 88(Pt 1), 25.

Kirby, K. A. (2001). Subtalar joint axis location and rotational equilibrium theory of foot function. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 91(9), 465-487.

Thordarson, D. B., Schmotzer, H., Chon, J., & Peters, J. (1995). Dynamic support of the human longitudinal arch: A biomechanical evaluation. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 316, 165-172.

Equinus

Amis, J. (2014). The gastrocnemius: A new paradigm for the human foot and ankle. Foot and Ankle Clinics, 19(4), 637-647.

Amis, J. (2016). The split second effect: The mechanism of how equinus can damage the human foot and ankle. Frontiers in Surgery, 3, 38.

DiGiovanni, C. W., Kuo, R., Tejwani, N., et al. (2002). Isolated gastrocnemius tightness. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – American Volume, 84(6), 962-970.

Patel, A., & DiGiovanni, B. (2011). Association between plantar fasciitis and isolated contracture of the gastrocnemius. Foot and Ankle International, 32(1), 5-8.

First Ray

Johnson, C. H., & Christensen, J. C. (1999). Biomechanics of the first ray part I. The effects of peroneus longus function: A three-dimensional kinematic study on a cadaver model. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 38(5), 313-321.

Rush, S. M., Christensen, J. C., & Johnson, C. H. (2000). Biomechanics of the first ray. Part II: Metatarsus primus varus as a cause of hypermobility. A three-dimensional kinematic analysis in a cadaver model. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 39(2), 68-77.

Bierman, R. A., Christensen, J. C., & Johnson, C. H. (2001). Biomechanics of the first ray. Part III. Consequences of Lapidus arthrodesis on peroneus longus function: A three-dimensional kinematic analysis in a cadaver model. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 40(3), 125-131.

Roling, B. A., Christensen, J. C., & Johnson, C. H. (2002). Biomechanics of the first ray. Part IV: The effect of selected medial column arthrodeses. A three-dimensional kinematic analysis in a cadaver model. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 41(5), 278-285.

Johnson, C. H., & Christensen, J. C. (2005). Biomechanics of the first ray part V: The effect of equinus deformity: A 3-dimensional kinematic study on a cadaver model. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 44(2), 114-120.

Measurements

Lamm, B. M., Stasko, P. A., Gesheff, M. G., & Bhave, A. (2016). Normal foot and ankle radiographic angles, measurements, and reference points. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 55(5), 991-998.

Procedures

Lapidus, P. W. (1934). The operative correction of the metatarsus varus primus in hallux valgus. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, 58, 183-187.

Keller, W. L. (1904). The surgical treatment of bunions and hallux valgus. New York State Medical Journal, 80, 741-742.

Reverdin, J. (1881). Anatomic et operation de l’hallux valgus. International Medical Congress, 2, 408.

Laird, P., Silvers, S., & Somdahl, J. (1988). Two Reverdin-Laird osteotomy modifications for correction of hallux abducto valgus. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 78, 403.

Evans, D. (1975). Calcaneo-valgus. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 57, 270-278.

Fractures

Lauge-Hansen, N. (1954). Fractures of the ankle. III. Genetic roentgenologic diagnosis of fractures of the ankle. American Journal of Roentgenology, Radium Therapy & Nuclear Medicine, 71(3), 456-471.

Lauge-Hansen, N. (1953). Fractures of the ankle. V. Pronation-dorsiflexion fracture. A.M.A. Archives of Surgery, 67(6), 813-820.

Lauge-Hansen, N. (1952). Fractures of the ankle. IV. Clinical use of genetic roentgen diagnosis and genetic reduction. A.M.A. Archives of Surgery, 64(4), 488-500.

Lauge-Hansen, N. (1950). Fractures of the ankle. II. Combined experimental-surgical and experimental-roentgenologic investigations. Archives of Surgery, 60(5), 957-985.

Lauge-Hansen, N. (1949). Ligamentous ankle fractures; diagnosis and treatment. Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica, 97(6), 544-550.

Diabetes

Singh, N., Armstrong, D. G., & Lipsky, B. A. (2005). Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA, 293(2), 217-228.

Boulton, A. J. M., Vileikyte, L., Ragnarson-Tennvall, G., & Apelqvist, J. (2005). The global burden of diabetic foot disease. The Lancet, 366(9498), 1719-1724.

Lavery, L. A., Armstrong, D. G., & Harkless, L. B. (1996). Classification of diabetic foot wounds. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 35(6), 528-531.

Armstrong, D. G., Lavery, L. A., & Harkless, L. B. (1998). Validation of a diabetic wound classification system: The contribution of depth, infection, and ischemia to risk of amputation. Diabetes Care, 21(5), 855-859.

Lipsky, B. A., Berendt, A. R., Deery, H. G., et al. (2004). Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 39(7), 885-910.

Lipsky, B. A. (1997). Osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 25(6), 1318-1326.

Lew, D. P., & Waldvogel, F. A. (2004). Osteomyelitis. The Lancet, 364(9431), 369-379.

Frykberg, R. G., Zgonis, T., Armstrong, D. G., et al. (2006). Diabetic foot disorders: A clinical practice guideline (2006 revision). Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 45(5), S1-S66.

Boulton, A. J. M., Armstrong, D. G., Albert, S. F., et al. (2008). Comprehensive foot examination and risk assessment. Diabetes Care, 31(8), 1679-1685.

Rogers, L. C., & Bevilacqua, N. J. (2010). Organized programs to prevent lower-extremity amputations. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 100(2), 101-104.

Cychosz, C. (2015). Preventive and therapeutic strategies for diabetic foot ulcers: A current concepts review. Foot & Ankle International, 36(8), 1071-1107.

Robbins, J. M., & Dillon, J. (2015). Evidence-based approach to advanced wound care products. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 105(5), 456-467.

Fedorko, L., Bowen, J. M., Jones, W., et al. (2016). Hyperbaric oxygen therapy does not reduce indications for amputation in patients with diabetes with nonhealing ulcers of the lower limb: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial. Diabetes Care, 39(3), 392-399.

Sheehan, P., Jones, P., Caselli, A., et al. (2003). Percent change in wound area of diabetic foot ulcers over a 4-week period is a robust predictor of complete healing in a 12-week prospective trial. Diabetes Care, 26(6), 1879-1882.

Apelqvist, J., Bakker, K., Van Houtum, W. H., Nabuurs-Franssen, M. H., & Schaper, N. C. (1999). International consensus on the diabetic foot. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews, 15(Suppl 1), S6-S8.

Armstrong, D. G., Nguyen, H. C., Lavery, L. A., van Schie, C. H., Boulton, A. J., & Harkless, L. B. (2001). Off-loading the diabetic foot wound: A randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care, 24(6), 1019-1022.

Attinger, C. E., Janis, J. E., Steinberg, J., Schwartz, J., Al-Attar, A., & Couch, K. (2006). Clinical approach to wounds: Debridement and wound bed preparation including the use of dressings and wound healing adjuvants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 117(7 Suppl), 72S-109S.

Jude, E. B., Oyibo, S. O., Chalmers, N., & Boulton, A. J. (2001). Peripheral arterial disease in diabetic and non-diabetic patients: A comparison of severity and outcome. Diabetes Care, 24(8), 1433-1437.

Kalani, M., Drismar, K., Fagrell, B., & Ostergren, J. (1999). Transcutaneous oxygen tension and toe blood pressure as predictors for outcome of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care, 22(1), 147-151.

Lavery, L. A., Armstrong, D. G., Peters, E. J. G., Lipsky, B. A., & Probe to Bone Consensus Group. (2007). Probe-to-bone test for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis: Reliable or relic? Diabetes Care, 30(2), 270-274.

Wagner, F. W. Jr. (1987). The diabetic foot. Orthopedics, 10(1), 163-172.

Wukich, D. K., Lowery, N. J., McMillen, R. L., & Frykberg, R. G. (2010). Postoperative infection rates in foot and ankle surgery: A comparison of patients with and without diabetes mellitus. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 92A(2), 287-295.

Tarsal Tunnel

Lam, S. J. (1967). Tarsal tunnel syndrome. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 49(1), 87-92. DOI: 0301-620X.49B1.87

Keck, C. (1962). The tarsal tunnel syndrome. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 44, 180-182.

Baxter, D. E., & Thigpen, C. M. (1984). Heel pain: Operative results. Foot & Ankle, 5(1), 16-25.

Baba, H., Wada, M., Annen, S., Azuchi, M., Imura, S., & Tomita, K. (1997). The tarsal tunnel syndrome: Evaluation of surgical results using multivariate analysis. International Orthopaedics, 21(2), 67-71.

Carrel, J. M., Davidson, D. M., & Goldstein, K. T. (1994). Observations on 200 surgical cases of tarsal tunnel syndrome. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 11(4), 609-616.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS/RSD)

Anderson, D. J., & Fallat, L. M. (1999). Complex regional pain syndrome of the lower extremity: A retrospective study of 33 patients. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 38(6), 381-387.

Shah, A., & Kirchner, J. S. (2011). Complex regional pain syndrome. Foot and Ankle Clinics, 16(2), 351-366.

Veldman, P. H., Reynen, H. M., Arntz, I. E., Goris, R. J., & Sigtermans, M. J. (1993). Signs and symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy: A prospective study of 829 patients. The Lancet, 342(8878), 1012-1016.

Nerve Topics

Reilly, T. O., & Gerhardt, M. A. (2002). Anesthesia for foot and ankle surgery. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 19(1).

Buxton, W. G., & Dominick, J. E. (2006). Electromyography and nerve conduction studies of the lower extremity: Uses and limitations. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 23, 531-543.

Locke, R. K., & Locke, S. E. (1976). Nerve blocks of the foot. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 5(9), 698-702.

Kofoed, H. (1982). Peripheral nerve blocks at the knee and ankle in operations for common foot disorders. *Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, (168), 97-101.

Ankle Arthroscopy

Drez, D. J., Guhl, J. H., & Gollehon, D. L. (1981). Ankle arthroscopy: Technique and indications. Foot & Ankle, 2, 138-143.

Bauer, M., Jonsson, K., & Linden, B. (1987). Osteochondritis dissecans of the ankle: A 20-year follow-up study. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 69(1), 93-96.

Branca, A., Di Palma, L., Bucca, C., et al. (1997). Arthroscopic treatment of anterior ankle impingement. Foot & Ankle International, 18(7), 418-423.

Glick, J. M., Morgan, C. D., Myerson, M. S., et al. (1996). Ankle arthrodesis using arthroscopic method: Long-term follow-up of 34 cases. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 12(4), 428-434.

Carlson, M. J., & Ferkel, R. D. (2013). Complications in ankle and foot arthroscopy. Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review, 21(2), 135-139.

Ferkel, R. D., & Scranton, P. E. Jr. (1993). Arthroscopy of the ankle and foot. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 75(8), 1233-1242.

Ferkel, R. D., & Fasulo, G. J. (1994). Arthroscopic treatment of ankle injuries. Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 25(1), 17-32.

Jaivin, J. S., & Ferkel, R. D. (1994). Arthroscopy of the foot and ankle. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 13(4), 761-783.

Stetson, W. B., & Ferkel, R. D. (1996). Ankle arthroscopy: I. Technique and complications. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 4(1), 17-23.

Stetson, W. B., & Ferkel, R. D. (1996). Ankle arthroscopy: II. Indications and results. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 4(1), 24-34.

Williams, M. M., & Ferkel, R. D. (1998). Subtalar arthroscopy: Indications, technique, and results. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 14(4), 373-381.

Ferkel, R. D., & Hewitt, M. (2005). Long-term results of arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis. Foot & Ankle International, 26(4), 275-280.

Ferkel, R. D., Zanotti, R. M., Komenda, G. A., Sgaglione, N. A., Cheng, M. S., Applegate, G. R., & Dopirak, R. M. (2008). Arthroscopic treatment of chronic osteochondral lesions of the talus: Long-term results. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 36(9), 1750-1762.

Hindfoot and Ankle Arthritis

Ahmad, J., & Pedowitz, D. (2012). Management of the Rigid Arthritic Flatfoot in Adults: Triple Arthrodesis. Foot & Ankle Clinics, 17(2), 337-349. 

Aronow, M. S., & Hakim-Zargar, M. (2007). Management of Hindfoot Disease in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Foot & Ankle Clinics, 12(3), 455-474. 

Astion, D. J., Deland, J. T., Otis, J. C., & Kenneally, S. (1997). Motion of the Hindfoot after Simulated Arthrodesis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 79(2), 241-246. 

Bibbo, C., Anderson, R. B., & Davis, W. H. (2001). Complications of Midfoot and Hindfoot Arthrodesis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, (391), 45-59. 

Buck, P., Morrey, B. F., & Chao, E. Y. (1987). The Optimum Position of Arthrodesis of the Ankle: A Gait Study of the Knee and Ankle. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 69, 1052-1062. 

Chen, C. H., Huang, P. J., Chen, T. B., et al. (2001). Isolated Talonavicular Arthrodesis for Talonavicular Arthritis. Foot & Ankle International, 22, 633-636.

Chuinard, E., & Peterson, R. (1983). Distraction-Compression Bone-Graft Arthrodesis of the Ankle. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 45, 481-490. 

Coester, L. M., Saltzman, C. L., Leupold, J., & Pontarelli, W. (1989). Long-term Results Following Ankle Arthrodesis for Post-traumatic Arthritis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 83(2), 219-228. 

Cooper, P. S. (2001). Complications of Ankle and Tibiotalocalcaneal Arthrodesis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, (391), 33-44. 

Dalziel, R., Thornhill, T. S., & Thomas, W. H. (1982). Isolated Talonavicular Fusion for Hindfoot Arthritis. Orthopedic Trans., 6, 341. 

Dennis, M. D., & Tullos, H. S. (1980). Blair Tibiotalar Arthrodesis for Injuries to the Talus. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 62, 103-117.

Donatto, K. C. (1998). Arthritis and Arthrodesis of the Hindfoot. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, (349), 81-92.

Fallace, J. J., Leopold, S. S., & Brage, M. E. (2000). Extended Hindfoot Fusions and Pantalar Fusions. History, Biomechanics and Clinical Results. Foot & Ankle Clinics, 5(4), 777-798. 

Greisberg, J., & Sangeorzan, B. (2007). Hindfoot Arthrodesis. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 15, 65-71. 

Glissan, D. J. (1949). The Indications for Inducing Fusion at the Ankle Joint by Operation with Description of Two Successful Techniques. Aust NZ J Surg., 19, 64-71.

Horwitz, T. (1942). The Use of the Transfibular Approach in the Arthrodesis of the Ankle. The American Journal of Surgery, 60, 550-552. 

Joseph, T. N., & Myerson, M. S. (2005). Correction of Multiplanar Hindfoot Deformity with Osteotomy, Arthrodesis, and Internal Fixation. Instr Course Lect., 54, 269-276. 

Khoury, N. J., elKhoury, G. Y., Saltzman, C. L., & Brandser, E. A. (2003). Intraarticular Foot and Ankle Injections to Identify Source of Pain before Arthrodesis. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, 167(3), 669-673. 

Lorthioir, J. (1911). Huit ras d’arthrodese du pied avec extirpation temporaire de l’astragala. Ann Soc Belge Chir., 11, 184-187. 

Lundeen, R. O. (1994). Arthroscopic Fusion of the Ankle and Subtalar Joint. Clinical Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 11(3), 395-406. 

Mandracchia, V. J., Mandi, D. M., Nickles, W. A., et al. (2004). Pantalar Arthrodesis. Clinical Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 21, 461-470.

Moss, M., Radack, J., & Rockett, M. S. (2004). Subtalar Arthrodesis. Clinical Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 21(2), 179-201.

Muir, D. C., Amendola, A., & Saltzman, C. L. (2002). Long-term Outcome of Ankle Arthrodesis. Foot & Ankle Clinics of North America, 7(4), 703-708. 

Myerson, M. S., & Quill, G. (1991). Ankle Arthrodesis: A Comparison of an Arthroscopic and an Open Method of Treatment. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 268, 84-95. 

Nickisch, F., Avilucea, F. R., Beals, T., & Saltzman, C. (2011). Open Posterior Approach for Tibiotalar Arthrodesis. Foot & Ankle Clinics, 16(1), 103-114. 

Nuesch, C., Barg, A., Pagenstert, G. I., & Valderrabano, V. (2013). Biomechanics of Asymmetric Ankle Osteoarthritis and Its Joint-Preserving Surgery. Foot & Ankle Clinics, 18(3), 427-436. 

Rammelt, S., & Zwipp, H. (2013). Corrective Arthrodesis and Osteotomies for Post-Traumatic Hindfoot Malalignment: Indications, Techniques, Results. International Orthopaedics, 37(9), 1707-1717. 

Ryerson, E. W. (1923). Arthrodesing Operations on the Foot. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 5, 453-471.

Saltzman, C. L., Salamon, M. L., Blanchard, G. M., et al. (2005). Epidemiology of Ankle Arthritis: Report of a Consecutive Series of 639 Patients from a Tertiary Orthopaedic Center. Iowa Orthopedic Journal, 25, 444-446. 

Snedeker, J. G., Wirth, S. H., & Espinosa, N. (2012). Biomechanics of the Normal and Arthritic Ankle Joint. Foot & Ankle Clinics, 17(4), 517-528. 

Thomas, R. H., & Daniels, T. R. (2003). Current Concepts Review: Ankle Arthritis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume, 85, 923-936. 

Wapner, K. L. (1998). Triple Arthrodesis in Adults. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 6(3), 188-196. 

Wilson, P. D. (1927). Treatment of the Fractures of OS Calcis by Arthrodesing of the Subtalar Joint: A Report on 26 Cases. Journal of the American Medical Association, 89, 1676-1683. 

Non-Unions Delayed Unions

Bolhofner, B. R., Finnergan, M., & Landy, D. W. (2010). Chapter 14: Nonunions and Malunions. In A. H. Schmidt & D. C. Teague (Eds.), Orthopaedic Knowledge Update: Trauma 4 AAOS.

Chiodo, C. P., Cicchinelli, L., Kadakia, A. R., Schuberth, J., & Weil Jr., L. (2010). Malunion and Nonunion in Foot and Ankle Surgery. Foot & Ankle Specialist, 3(4), 194-200.

Hak, D. J., Fitzpatrick, D., Bishop, J. A., Marsh, J. L., Tilp, S., Schnettler, R., Simpson, H., & Alt, V. (2014). Delayed Union and Nonunions: Epidemiology, Clinical Issues, and Financial Aspects. Injury, 45(Suppl 2), S3-S7.

Mandracchia, V. J., Nickles, W. A., Mandi, D. M., Jaeger, A. J., & Sanders, S. M. (2004). Treatment of Nonunited Hindfoot Fusions. Podiatric Medical and Surgical Journal, 21(3), 417-439.

Marsh, D. (1998). Concepts of Fracture Union, Delayed Union, and Nonunion. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 355(Suppl), S22-S30.

Martone, J., Poel, L. V., & Levy, N. (2012). Complications of Arthrodesis and Nonunion. Clinical Podiatry and Medical Surgery, 29(1), 11-18.

Molloy, A. P., Roche, A., & Narayan, B. (2009). Treatment of Nonunion and Malunion of Trauma of the Foot and Ankle Using External Fixation. Foot and Ankle Clinics, 14(3), 563-587.

Schoelles, K., Snyder, D., Kaczmarek, J., Kuserk, E., Erinoff, E., Turkelson, C., & Coates, V. (2005). The Role of Bone Growth Stimulating Devices and Orthobiologics in Healing Nonunion Fractures. AHRQ Technology Assessments / Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Shibuya, N., Humphers, J. M., Fluhman, B. L., & Jupiter, D. C. (2013). Factors Associated with Nonunion, Delayed Union, and Malunion in Foot and Ankle Surgery in Diabetic Patients. The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery, 52(2), 207-211.

Thevendran, G., Younger, A., & Pinney, S. (2012). Current Concepts Review: Risk Factors for Nonunions in Foot and Ankle Arthrodeses. Foot & Ankle International, 33(11), 1031-1040.

Surgical Site Infections

Akinyoola, A. L., Adegbehingbe, O. O., & Odunsi, A. (2011). Timing of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Tourniquet Surgery. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 50(4), 374-376.

Bibbo, C., Patel, D. V., Gehrmann, R. M., & Lin, S. S. (2005). Chlorhexidine Provides Superior Skin Decontamination in Foot and Ankle Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 438, 204-208.

Deacon, J. S., Wertheimer, S. J., & Washington, J. A. (1996). Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Tourniquet Application in Podiatric Surgery. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 35(4), 344-349.

Kubota, A., Nakamura, T., Miyazaki, Y., Sekiguchi, M., & Suguro, T. (2012). Perioperative Complications in Elective Surgery in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Biologics. Modern Rheumatology, 22(6), 844-848.

Mote, G. A., & Malay, D. S. (2010). Efficacy of Power-Pulsed Lavage in Lower Extremity Wound Infections: A Prospective Observational Study. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 49(2), 135-142.

Rabih, O. D., & Darouiche, R. O. et al. (2010). Chlorhexidine–Alcohol versus Povidone–Iodine for Surgical-Site Antisepsis. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(1), 18-26.

Zgonis, T., Jolly, G. P., & Garbalosa, J. C. (2004). The Efficacy of Prophylactic Intravenous Antibiotics in Elective Foot and Ankle Surgery. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 43(2), 97-103.

Paediatric Flatfoot

Blitz, N. M., Stabile, R. J., Giorgini, R. J., & DiDomenico, L. A. (2010). Flexible Pediatric and Adolescent Pes Planovalgus: Conservative and Surgical Treatment Options. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 27(1), 59-111. 

Cappello, T., & Song, K. M. (1998). Determining Treatment of Flatfeet in Children. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 10, 77-81.

Dare, D. M., & Dodwell, E. R. (2014). Pediatric Flatfoot: Cause, Epidemiology, Assessment and Treatment. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 26(1), 93-100.

Evans, D., & Cardiff, W. (1975). Calcaneo-Valgus Deformity. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British Volume), 57(3), 270-278.

Giannini, S., Ceccarelli, F., Benedetti, M. G., et al. (2001). Surgical Treatment of Flexible Flatfoot in Children: A Four Year Follow Up Study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), 83(Suppl 2, Pt 2), 73-79. 

Grice, D. S. (1952). An Extra-Articular Arthrodesis of the Subastragalar Joint for Correction of Paralytic Flat Feet in Children. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), 34, 972-940. 

Harris, E. J., Vanore, J. V., Thomas, J. L., Kravitz, S. R., Mendelson, S. A., Mendicino, R. W., Silvani, S. H., & Couture Gassen, S. (2004). Diagnosis and Treatment of Pediatric Flatfoot (Clinical Practice Guideline). Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 43(6), 341-370. 

Herndon, C. H., & Heyman, C. H. (1963). Problems in the Recognition and Treatment of Congenital Convex Pes Valgus. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), 45, 413-429.

Labovitz, J. M. (2006). The Algorithmic Approach to Pediatric Flexible Pes Planovalgus. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 23(1), 57-76. 

Mahan, K. T., & McGlamry, E. D. (1987). Evans Calcaneal Osteotomy for Flexible Pes Valgus Deformity. A Preliminary Study. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 4, 137–151.

Mosca, V. S. (1995). Flexible Flatfoot and Skewfoot. An Instructional Course Lecture. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), 77, 1937-1945.

Patterson, W. R., Fritz, D. A., & Smith, W. S. (1968). The Pathologic Anatomy of Congenital Convex Pes Valgus. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), 50, 458. 

Pavone, V., et al. (2013). Calcaneo-Stop Procedure in the Treatment of Juvenile Symptomatic Flatfoot. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 52, 444–447. 

Rodriguez, N., & Volpe, R. G. (2010). Clinical Diagnosis and Assessment of the Pediatric Pes Planovalgus Deformity. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 27(1), 43-58. 

Roye, D. P., & Raimondo, R. A. (2000). Surgical Treatment of the Child’s and Adolescent’s Flexible Flatfoot. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 17(3), 515-530.

Scranton, P. E. (1987). Treatment of Symptomatic Talocalcaneal Coalition. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), 69, 533–539. 

Silvani, S. H. (1987). Congenital Convex Pes Valgus. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 4, 163-173.

Sullivan, J. A. (1999). Pediatric Flatfoot: Evaluation and Management. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 7, 445-453. 

Tachdjian, M. O. (1972). Congenital Convex Pes Valgus. Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 3, 131–148.

Total Ankle Arthroplasty

Bibbo, C. (2012). Controversies in Total Ankle Replacement. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 30, 21-34. 

Conti, S. F., & Wong, Y. S. (2002). Complications of Total Ankle Replacement. Foot and Ankle Clinics of North America, 7, 791-807.

DiDomenico, L., & Anania, M. (2011). Total Ankle Replacements: An Overview. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 28(4), 727-744. 

Esparragoza, L., Vidal, C., & Vaquero, J. (2011). Comparative Study of the Quality of Life Between Arthrodesis and Total Arthroplasty Substitution of the Ankle. Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery, 50, 383-387. 

Gougoulias, N., Khanna, A., & Maffulli, N. (2009). History and Evolution in Total Ankle Arthroplasty. British Medical Bulletin, 89(1), 111-151.

Gougoulias, N., & Maffulli, N. (2012). History of Total Ankle Replacement. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 30, 1-20. 

Guyer, A., & Richardson, E. (2008). Current Concepts Review: Total Ankle Arthroplasty. Foot & Ankle International, 29, 256.

Henne, T., & Anderson, J. (2002). Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Historical Perspective. Foot and Ankle Clinics of North America, 7, 695-702.

Lagaay, P., & Schuberth, J. (2010). Analysis of Ankle Range of Motion and Functional Outcome Following Total Ankle Arthroplasty. Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery, 49, 147-151. 

Overly, B. (2012). Total Ankle Replacement: A Historical Perspective. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 29(4), 547-570. 

Roukis, T., & Prissel, M. (2013). Registry Data Trends of Total Ankle Replacement Use. Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery, 52, 728-735. 

Valderrabano, V., Nigg, B., von Tscharner, V., Frank, C., & Hintermann, B. (2007). Total Ankle Replacement in Ankle Osteoarthritis: An Analysis of Muscle Rehabilitation. Foot & Ankle International, 28(2), 282-291.

Valderrabano, V., Pagenstert, G., Muller, A., Paul, J., Henninger, H., & Barg, A. (2012). Mobile- and Fixed-Bearing Total Ankle Prostheses. Is There Really a Difference? Foot & Ankle Clinics, 17(4), 565-585. 

Zaidi, R., Cro, S., Gurusamy, K., Siva, N., Macgregor, A., Henricson, A., & Goldberg, A. (2013). The Outcome of Total Ankle Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The Bone & Joint Journal, 95-B(11), 1500-1507.

The Fenton classification system for cuboid fractures

Posted on August 12, 2023 by - Classification systems, F, Fractures, Midfoot


The Fenton Classification System offers a structured framework to categorize cuboid fractures, enabling healthcare professionals to make informed decisions. Fenton fractures are separated into three distinct types:

Type I: Undisplaced Fractures At the less severe end of the spectrum, Type I cuboid fractures involve minimal or no displacement of the fractured segments. While these fractures may still cause discomfort, their relative stability allows for more conservative treatment approaches.

Type II: Displaced Fractures Type II fractures are characterized by noticeable displacement of the fractured pieces within the cuboid bone. This classification helps healthcare practitioners gauge the extent of displacement and tailor treatment plans accordingly.

Type III: Fracture with Associated Injuries The Type III classification accounts for cuboid fractures that occur in conjunction with injuries to nearby structures, such as the lateral column of the foot or the calcaneocuboid joint. Understanding these associated injuries is vital for comprehensive treatment strategies.

The Herscovici classification for medial malleolar fractures

Posted on August 12, 2023 by - Ankle, Classification systems, Fractures, H

The Herscovici Classification for medial malleolar fractures takes expands from the classifications proposed by Müller et al and Pankovich and Shivaram, with a refined approach that groups fractures into four distinct patterns:

Type-A Fractures: At the simplest end of the spectrum, Type-A fractures involve avulsions of the malleolus tip. While these fractures may seem straightforward, their proper classification aids in tailoring appropriate treatment approaches.

Type-B Fractures: Type-B fractures occur between the tip of the malleolus and the level of the plafond. This pattern introduces a slightly more complex fracture location, necessitating careful consideration during diagnosis and treatment planning.

Type-C Fractures: The Type-C classification involves fractures occurring at the level of the plafond. This represents a pivotal point in the complexity of the fracture pattern and guides healthcare practitioners in devising effective management strategies.

Type-D Fractures: At the upper echelon of complexity, Type-D fractures extend vertically above the level of the plafond. These fractures demand meticulous attention due to their potential implications for treatment and healing.

The Gustilo-Anderson classification for open fractures

Posted on August 12, 2023 by - Classification systems, Fractures, G

The Gustilo-Anderson Classification is a widely used and respected system for categorizing open fractures based on their severity and the extent of soft tissue damage. This classification system was developed by orthopedic surgeons Ramón Gustilo and John Anderson and has become a fundamental tool for guiding treatment decisions and predicting outcomes for open fractures.

The classification is divided into three main types, each with subcategories, to describe the nature of the wound and the associated soft tissue injury:

Type I: Type I open fractures involve a clean wound with minimal soft tissue damage. The wound is typically small, and there is minimal contamination or damage to surrounding tissues.

Type II: Type II fractures are characterized by a larger wound without extensive soft tissue damage. There may be moderate contamination, but the soft tissue injury is generally manageable. Type II fractures are further subdivided into three categories:

  • Type II A: The wound is larger and may have moderate contamination, but it is still manageable.
  • Type II B: There is significant soft tissue damage, including periosteal stripping and a larger wound size.
  • Type II C: These fractures involve extensive soft tissue damage requiring flaps, grafts, or other soft tissue procedures to manage.

Type III: Type III open fractures are the most severe and involve extensive soft tissue damage, often with high-energy trauma. The wound is typically large and contaminated, and there may be significant crushing of the surrounding tissues. Type III fractures are also subdivided into three categories:

  • Type III A: Despite the severity of the wound, there is adequate soft tissue coverage over the fracture site.
  • Type III B: These fractures have extensive soft tissue loss and require significant reconstructive procedures.
  • Type III C: These fractures involve arterial injury, necessitating prompt vascular repair.

The Gustilo-Anderson Classification is crucial for determining the appropriate treatment approach for open fractures. It helps guide decisions ranging from wound management and antibiotic administration to fracture reduction, stabilization, and soft tissue reconstruction.

The Oestern & Tscherne classification for closed fracture soft tissue injuries

Posted on August 12, 2023 by - Classification systems, Fractures, O

The Oestern and Tscherne Classification is a system used to assess and categorize the extent of soft tissue injuries associated with closed fractures. Developed by German orthopedic surgeons Klaus-Dieter Oestern and Christoph Tscherne, this classification provides valuable insights into the severity of soft tissue damage that accompanies fractures, helping healthcare professionals make informed decisions about treatment approaches.

The classification system is divided into four major grades, each reflecting the degree of soft tissue injury:

Grade 0 (Subclinical): In Grade 0 injuries, there is minimal or no soft tissue involvement. The skin remains intact, and there is no evidence of injury to the surrounding tissues.

Grade I (Superficial): Grade I injuries involve superficial abrasions, bruises, or hematomas around the fracture site. The skin may show signs of contusion or minor abrasions, but there is no extensive damage to deeper tissues.

Grade II (Deep Contusion): In Grade II injuries, there is evidence of deep contusion or crush injury to the soft tissues. Swelling, bruising, and significant pain are often present. Although the skin remains intact, the underlying tissues may be seriously affected.

Grade III (Open Wound): Grade III injuries are characterized by open wounds or lacerations near the fracture site. These wounds can vary in size and severity and may expose bone, muscle, or other tissues. In Grade IIIA injuries, the wound is clean, while in Grade IIIB injuries, the wound is associated with significant contamination. Grade IIIC injuries involve major vascular damage requiring repair.

The Ruedi & Allgower classification system for tibial plafond fractures

Posted on August 12, 2023 by - Ankle, Classification systems, Fractures, R

The Ruedi and Allgower Classification is a renowned system utilized for categorizing fractures of the tibial plafond, which is the distal articular surface of the tibia forming the upper part of the ankle joint. Developed by Swiss orthopedic surgeons Maurice E. Müller, Martin Allgöwer, and Robert Schneider, this classification framework is instrumental in assessing and describing various types of tibial plafond fractures. These fractures typically result from high-energy trauma such as falls, sports injuries, or motor vehicle accidents.

The Ruedi and Allgower Classification for tibial plafond fractures is grouped into three major types, each with specific subtypes that provide insights into the severity and characteristics of the fracture:

Type A: Type A fractures involve a simple split in the tibial plafond without displacement of the fracture fragments. This type is further divided into three subtypes: Type A1 indicates a simple split pattern, Type A2 involves a split with marginal impaction of the fragments, and Type A3 signifies a split with compression of the articular surface.

Type B: Type B fractures are characterized by a depression of the tibial plafond. Like Type A, this category is divided into three subtypes: Type B1 involves a single central depression, Type B2 includes a central depression with marginal impaction, and Type B3 features a central depression with fragmentation of the articular surface.

Type C: Type C fractures are more complex, involving a combination of split and depression patterns. This category is further divided into three subtypes: Type C1 indicates a split with central depression, Type C2 involves a split with central and posterior depression, and Type C3 signifies a split with central depression and fragmentation of the articular surface.

Smillie’s classification for Freiberg’s infarction

Posted on August 12, 2023 by - Classification systems, Forefoot, S

Smillie’s classification for Freiberg’s infarction involves five distinct stages:

Stage 1: Early Fissure and Sclerosis At the onset of Freiberg’s infarction, Stage 1 showcases a fissure in the epiphysis—this is the area of developing bone tissue—and an observable sclerosis between cancellous surfaces. Although symptoms may not be evident, this stage marks the beginning of the condition’s journey.

Stage 2: Absorption and Cartilage Sinking As the condition advances to Stage 2, there’s an absorption of cancellous tissue on the proximal side of the metatarsal head. This absorption prompts the sinking of the articular cartilage dorsally. At this point, patients may begin to experience limited motion and discomfort.

Stage 3: Further Absorption and Bony Projections Progressing to Stage 3, the absorption and sinking of the articular surface intensify. Bony projections emerge both medially and laterally, with the dorsal proximal metatarsal head developing exostosis—a bony outgrowth. This stage underscores the complexity of the condition.

Stage 4: Altered Anatomy and Fractures In Stage 4, the articular surface has sunken significantly, surpassing the point of easy restoration to normal anatomy. It’s important to note that fractures of the medial and lateral projections may occur, accentuating the severity of this stage.

Stage 5: Advanced Arthrosis The final frontier, Stage 5, witnesses the culmination of Freiberg’s infarction. Arthrosis takes center stage, leading to flattening and deformity of the metatarsal head. Interestingly, the plantar aspect retains the original cartilage contour, while the metatarsal shaft thickens and assumes a denser form.

Sangeorzan classification of navicular body fractures

Posted on August 12, 2023 by - Classification systems, Fractures, Midfoot, S

The Sangeorzan classification of navicular body fractures provides a comprehensive categorisation of navicular body fractures, segmenting them into three distinct types:

Type 1 – Coronal Fracture with No Dislocation: In this classification, Type 1 navicular fractures occur in a coronal pattern, involving a break without any accompanying joint dislocation. While the injury itself can be painful and debilitating, the absence of dislocation suggests a relatively more favorable prognosis. Medical intervention and treatment are essential, but the outcome might be less severe compared to other types.

Type 2 – Dorsolateral to Plantomedial Fracture with Medial Forefoot Displacement: Type 2 fractures present a more complex scenario. Here, the fracture extends from dorsolateral to plantomedial, leading to a displacement of the medial forefoot. This misalignment can cause significant discomfort and hinder mobility. Medical attention is crucial, as proper treatment can play a pivotal role in minimizing the impact of displacement and promoting proper healing.

Type 3 – Comminuted Fracture with Lateral Forefoot Displacement: Among the three types, Type 3 carries the most challenging prognosis. A comminuted fracture involving the navicular body leads to a fragmented pattern, often accompanied by lateral forefoot displacement. This type poses the highest risk of complications, demanding prompt and thorough medical intervention. Specialists may need to devise comprehensive treatment plans to address both the comminution and displacement.

Hepple MRI staging classification for osteochondral lesions of the talus

Posted on August 12, 2023 by - Ankle, Classification systems, H, Radiology

The Hepple MRI Staging Classification is a significant framework used to categorize osteochondral lesions of the talus. These lesions involve damage to the cartilage and underlying bone of the ankle joint, often caused by trauma or repetitive stress. The Hepple classification assists in evaluating the severity of such lesions based on MRI findings, aiding in treatment planning and patient management.

The Hepple MRI Staging Classification is divided into four distinct stages:

Stage I: This initial stage is characterized by a subchondral fracture, which appears as a signal change on MRI. The overlying cartilage may remain intact, and there might not be any noticeable separation between the cartilage and the bone. This stage indicates early damage, highlighting the importance of prompt diagnosis and intervention.

Stage II: In Stage II, there is evidence of cartilage separation from the underlying bone, often referred to as a “flap lesion.” This separation can be observed on MRI, and it indicates more significant damage to the osteochondral unit. Timely intervention at this stage can potentially prevent further deterioration.

Stage III: Continuing the progression, Stage III involves a partially detached cartilage fragment within the joint. This fragment is visible on MRI and is indicative of more advanced osteochondral damage. Treatment strategies at this stage may involve addressing the detached fragment to alleviate symptoms and prevent further complications.

Stage IV: The final stage of the Hepple classification represents complete detachment of the cartilage fragment within the joint. The detached fragment can be visualized on MRI and may even displace into the joint space. This stage underscores the urgency of appropriate management, which might include surgical options to restore joint function and prevent long-term consequences.

Takakura classification for ankle arthritis

Posted on August 12, 2023 by - Ankle, Classification systems, T

The Takakura Classification is a tool developed to aid surgeons and physicians in diagnosing and managing ankle arthritis. This condition can lead to discomfort and restricted mobility, particularly among individuals with ankle joint wear and tear or injury. By categorising the different stages of ankle arthritis, the Takakura Classification offers insights into its progression, facilitating the creation of personalised treatment approaches to address the specific needs of each patient.

The Takakura Classification is a widely used system for categorizing different stages of ankle arthritis based on radiographic findings. Let’s take a closer look at the stages outlined by this classification:

Stage I: Early Signs In this initial stage, X-rays show the presence of early sclerosis and the formation of osteophytes (small bony outgrowths). Importantly, the joint space remains intact without any noticeable narrowing. This suggests that the condition is in its early phases and intervention at this stage could help prevent further progression.

Stage II: Medial Joint Narrowing As ankle arthritis advances to Stage II, we observe the narrowing of the medial joint space. Despite this narrowing, there is no direct contact between the subchondral bone (the bone just beneath the joint cartilage). This stage indicates moderate progression and signals the need for closer monitoring and potential interventions to manage symptoms.

Stage IIIA: Medial Malleolus Affected In Stage IIIA, the joint space at the medial malleolus (the inner part of the ankle) is completely obliterated, and the subchondral bone is now in contact. This indicates a significant loss of joint space and potential discomfort. Treatment strategies may need to become more focused and proactive at this point.

Stage IIIB: Roof of Talar Dome Involvement Continuing the progression, Stage IIIB involves the obliteration of the joint space over the roof of the talar dome (the top part of the talus bone in the foot). Subchondral bone contact is observed, further highlighting the severity of the condition. Prompt and targeted intervention becomes increasingly important to manage pain and prevent further damage.

Stage IV: Complete Tibiotalar Contact In the final stage of the Takakura Classification, the joint space is completely obliterated, and there is direct tibiotalar contact. This suggests advanced arthritis with significant joint degeneration. Treatment options at this stage might include more aggressive interventions to alleviate pain and improve quality of life.

The Takakura Classification is a valuable tool that assists surgeons in understanding the progression of ankle arthritis. By identifying distinct stages of the condition based on radiographic findings, medical experts can tailor treatments to address specific needs. Whether through conservative measures or surgical interventions, the goal is to manage pain, restore function, and enhance the overall well-being of individuals with ankle arthritis. If you suspect you may have ankle arthritis, consulting a medical professional is crucial to receive an accurate diagnosis and appropriate management.