Foot metastasis are rare and often overlooked due to non-specifical symptoms. This often leads to misdiagnosis delaying the right diagnosis. Metastatic disease of the foot is rare. Foot pain and swelling may be the presenting symptom of an occult malignancy. If metastatic disease is not kept in the differential diagnosis of foot pain, diagnosis and treatment will be delayed. The purpose of this study was to analyze articles presenting cases of foot metastasis to provide a more accurate incidence of symptomatic foot acrometastasis as well as to review the clinical course and outcomes. Studies were searched on PubMed/Medline from the inception to February 2020. All studies included in the review presented foot metastasis either with or without a known primary tumor. Most of the articles were case reports, to which we added two case reports of foot acrometastasis produced by our Institute. Forty-three studies with a total of 45 patients were included in this review. The literature published mostly concerning case reports about old patients (average age: 63,2), in a late phase of their disease. Lung cancer appeared to be the most common primary tumor, followed by endometrial and breast cancer. In the 36% of the cases foot metastasis were found when the primary site was still unknown. Calcaneus and metatarsal bones were the most common bones involved. Surgical solution is rare, the chosen treatments are often of palliative care. Prognosis was often poor, death occurred within 2 years since the discovery of foot metastasis in about 50% of cases.
The Charcot foot is a condition characterized by a progressive derangement of the foot. The type of deformity and patient clinical conditions will lead to the proper surgical approach among exostectomy, arthrodesis (through external and/or internal fixation) and amputation. Many authors report good clinical outcomes performing the arthrodesis in Charcot foot; however, the choice of the most appropriate hardware is still an issue. The aim of this study is to analyze the outcomes of different hardware in midfoot and hindfoot Charcot arthrodesis.
Implant-associated infections remain one of the main problems in the treatment of open tibia fractures. The role of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is now agreed and accepted; nevertheless, recent literature also seems to emphasize the importance of local antibiotic therapy at the fracture site. Several therapeutic strategies have been proposed to overcome this new need. Antibiotic-coated nails play crucial role in this, allowing both infection prevention and favoring the fracture stabilization. We describe the outcome of patients with open diaphyseal tibia fracture treated either with a standard uncoated nail or a gentamicin-coated nail from January 2016 to December 2018 at our second level emergency-urgency department. Primary outcomes were infection rate and bone union rate. Other outcomes reported are reoperation rate, time between injury and nailing, and safety of antibiotic nail. Numerical variables were tabulated using mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and number of observations. Categorical variables were tabulated using number of observations. 23 patients treated with uncoated nail and 23 patients treated with antibiotic-coated tibia nail were included in the study and were evaluated for a minimum follow-up of 18 months. Among the 46 patients, 9 were Gustilo-Anderson type I, 21 type II, and 16 type III open fracture. Regarding the bone healing rate at 12 months, 16 fractures in the first group and 18 in the second were completely healed. 4 infections were found in the first group (3 superficial surgical site infection and 1 osteomyelitis) and 3 superficial infections in the second one. No adverse events have been recorded with antibiotic-coated nails. In this unicentric retrospective study observed no deep wound infections and good fracture healing in the use of antibiotic-coated nails. Antibiotic nails have been shown to play a role in the treatment of fractures in critically ill patients with severe soft tissue damage.
Implant-associated infections still represent one of the main problems in treatment of open fracture. The role of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is now agreed and accepted; however, recent literature seems to underline the importance of local antibiotic therapy at the fracture site, and antibiotic nails have been shown to play a role in the treatment of open fractures in terms of fracture healing and lower risk of infection. We retrospectively analyzed our results, from January 2016 to March 2020, with the use of coated nails in the treatment of open tibial fractures, evaluating the rates of infection and fracture healing as primary outcomes and the rate of reoperations, time from trauma to nailing and hospital stay as secondary outcomes. Thirty-eight patients treated with coated nail (ETN ProtectTM, Synthes) were included in the study. Minimum follow-up was of 18 months. Thirty-four of 38 patients achieved bone union and 2 patients underwent septic non-union. In our series, no systemic toxicity or local hypersensitivity to antibiotics were recorded. From this study, use of antibiotic-coated nails appears to be a valid and safe option for treatment of open tibial fractures and prevention of implant-related infections, particularly in tibial fractures with severe soft tissue exposure and impairment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.