François Chopart (1743–1795) — Inventor of the partial foot amputation at the tarsometatarsal articulation

Wolf, Jörn Henning

doi:10.1007/bf03181113

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lisfranc injuries, also referred to as injuries to the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint, encompass a wide range of trauma, ranging from subtle distensions to open fracture dislocations. 9,15,21,37,38 The incidence of Lisfranc injuries, as determined by computed tomography (CT), falls within the range of 9 to 14 cases per 100 000 person-years. 25,35 Despite the clinical significance of Lisfranc injuries, there remains a lack of a comprehensive, evidence-based consensus regarding their optimal treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Displaced Lisfranc Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Ponkilainen,

Mäenpää,

Laine

et al. 2024

Foot Ankle Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is no consensus whether the primary surgical method should be open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) for Lisfranc injuries. The aim of our randomized controlled trial was to compare ORIF and PA for displaced Lisfranc injuries. Methods: This study was a national multicenter randomized controlled trial. Altogether 43 displaced Lisfranc injuries were enrolled in this trial. The primary outcome measure was Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) at a 24-months follow-up. The secondary outcome measures were VAS-FA pain, function, and other complaints subscales and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Scale. All outcomes were measured at 6, 12, and 24 months. We were unable to reach the planned sample size of 60 patients; thus, the study remains underpowered. Results: The mean VAS-FA Overall score in the ORIF group was 86.5 (95% CI 77.9, 95.1) and 80.1 (95% CI 72.0, 88.1) in the PA group at the 24-month follow-up. We did not find eligible evidence of a difference in VAS-FA Overall scores (mean between-group difference 6.5 [95% CI −5.3, 18.2], Cohen d = 0.100). Conclusion: We did not find evidence of a difference in VAS-FA between ORIF and PA in patients with displaced Lisfranc injuries, and thus both are viable options for the initial surgical method. The trial is underpowered; however, the data may be included in a meta-analysis of similarly designed randomized controlled trials. Trials registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24 October 2016. Level of Evidence: Level I, randomized controlled trial.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Displaced Lisfranc Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Ponkilainen,

Mäenpää,

Laine

et al. 2024

Foot Ankle Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The midtarsal or transverse-tarsal joint, is otherwise known eponymously as the Chopart joint, after French surgeon François Chopart described an amputation through the articulation between the hindfoot and the midfoot [ 1 ]. The Chopart joint is made up of the TNJ and calcaneocuboid joint CCJ.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chopart dislocations: a review of diagnosis, treatment and outcomes

Metcalfe,

Aamir,

Mason

2023

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Chopart injuries can be allocated into 4 broad groups, ligamentous injury with or without dislocation and fracture with or without dislocation, which must occur at the talonavicular joint (TNJ) and/or calcaneocuboid joint (CCJ). Chopart dislocations are comprised of pure-dislocations and fracture-dislocations. We aim to review the literature, to enable evidence-based recommendations. Methods A literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles from the electronic databases, PubMed, Medline and Scopus. The PRISMA flow chart was used to scrutinise the search results. Articles were screened by title, abstract and full text to confirm relevance. Results We identified 58 papers for analysis, 36 case reports, 4 cohort studies, 4 case series and 14 other articles related to the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes of Chopart dislocations. Diagnostic recommendations included routine imaging to contain computed tomography (CT) and routine examination for compartment syndrome. Treatment recommendations included early anatomical reduction, with restoration and maintenance of column length and joint congruency. For both pure-dislocations and fracture-dislocations urgent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) provided the most favourable long-term outcomes. Conclusions Chopart dislocations are a complex heterogenous midfoot injury with historically poor outcomes. There is a relative paucity of research discussing these injuries. We have offered evidence-based recommendations related to the clinical and surgical management of these rare pathologies.

show abstract

Knochen: Frakturen, Stressreaktionen und Fehlverheilungen

Zwipp

Rammelt

2014

Tscherne Unfallchirurgie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

François Chopart (1743–1795) — Inventor of the partial foot amputation at the tarsometatarsal articulation

Cited by 10 publications

References 1 publication

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Displaced Lisfranc Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Displaced Lisfranc Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Chopart dislocations: a review of diagnosis, treatment and outcomes

Knochen: Frakturen, Stressreaktionen und Fehlverheilungen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About