Midfoot fusion: a biomechanical comparison of plantar planting vs intramedullary screws.

BACKGROUND

Numerous reconstructive techniques for midfoot collapse secondary to Charcot neuroarthropathy have been described, but few have been studied biomechanically. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare 2 of the most common techniques.

METHODS

Seven paired below-knee specimens were amputated through the talonavicular and calcaneocuboid joints. The nonligamentous soft tissue was stripped proximal to the metatarsal heads and disarticulated through the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joints. For each paired specimen, the TMT joints were fused by plantar plating or intramedullary screw fixation for the contralateral side. The specimens were mounted, loaded, and cycled, and fixation stiffness was determined. Load versus displacement graphs were used to calculate overall construct stiffness, and data were analyzed by Student t tests.

RESULTS

There was no failure of hardware. All failures were at the bone-implant interface. Failure was either by screw pull-out, bone fracture, or a combination of the two. There were no notable differences between the 2 fixation techniques with respect to stiffness or loads to failure. There was a trend toward a stiffer first TMT construct using the plantar plating method. Five of the 7 screw fixations failed by pullout of the base of the first metatarsal and the other 2 by pullout of screws from all MT bases. Seven of the 7 plantar plate fixations failed by separation of the fifth to third MT bases originating at the fifth, and 3 showed fracture of the fifth metatarsal base.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no notable biomechanical difference between the 2 techniques. There was a trend toward a stiffer construct at the first TMT with plantar plating.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study biomechanically analyzes two common Charcot midfoot reconstruction techniques and highlights the need for further study of both techniques and combinations of these techniques.