Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 131, Issue 2, pp 241–245 | Cite as

Demographics and outcome of metatarsal fractures

  • H. Cakir
  • S. T. Van Vliet-Koppert
  • E. M. M. Van Lieshout
  • M. R. De Vries
  • M. Van Der Elst
  • T. SchepersEmail author
Orthopaedic Outcome Assessment



Although metatarsal fractures are amongst the most common injuries of the foot, this is the first study on outcome after metatarsal fractures.


All consecutive patients with metatarsal fractures treated between January 2006 and September 2008 were re-evaluated. Patients aged 16 to 75 were sent a questionnaire consisting of the American Orthopaedic Foot Ankle Society midfoot score and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for patient satisfaction.


Four-hundred metatarsal fractures were identified in 322 patients. The fifth metatarsal was involved in more than 50% of patients. Most fractures were caused by an inversion injury or fall from height (75%). Out of 247 patients between 16 and 75 years, a total of 166 patients (67.2%) returned the questionnaire with a median follow-up of 33 months. All patients were treated conservatively. The median AOFAS score was 100 points (P25–P75, 87–100), the median VAS was 9 points (P25–P75, 8–10). The AOFAS and VAS scores correlated negatively with the body mass index (BMI) (R s = −0.409 and −0.305; p < 0.001). Patients with diabetes reported lower VAS (p = 0.010) and AOFAS scores (p = 0.020). Females reported a lower AOFAS score (p = 0.034). An increase in dislocation (>2 mm) resulted in a decrease in VAS score (p = 0.017). Multivariable analysis indicated that the VAS score was significantly affected by BMI and dislocation >2 mm (p = 0.013). The AOFAS score was affected by BMI (p = 0.011).


This is the first investigation using two validated outcome scoring systems to determine functional outcome in metatarsal fractures. Overall outcome in metatarsal fractures is high, as almost all fractures healed without complaints at 33 months. Outcome is dependent on BMI, diabetes, gender, and dislocation at the fracture site.


Metatarsal Foot Injury Fracture Epidemiology Outcome 



This study was financially supported by the WAC (Wetenschappelijke Activiteiten Commissie) of the Reinier de Graaf Groep Delft.


  1. 1.
    (1996) Fracture and dislocation compendium. Orthopaedic Trauma Association Committee for Coding and Classification. J Orthop Trauma 10(Suppl 1):v–ix, 1–154Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergkvist D, Hekmat K, Svensson T, Dahlberg L (2009) Obesity in orthopedic patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis 5(6):670–672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chuckpaiwong B, Queen RM, Easley ME, Nunley JA (2008) Distinguishing Jones and proximal diaphyseal fractures of the fifth metatarsal. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(8):1966–1970Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Court-Brown CM, Caesar B (2006) Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury 37(8):691–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dameron TB Jr (1995) Fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal: selecting the best treatment option. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 3(2):110–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dobson R (2002) The metatarsal finds stardom at last. BMJ 324(7343):933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R (2007) Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:MR000008Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Egol K, Walsh M, Rosenblatt K, Capla E, Koval KJ (2007) Avulsion fractures of the fifth metatarsal base: a prospective outcome study. Foot Ankle Int 28(5):581–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Egol KA, Tejwani NC, Walsh MG, Capla EL, Koval KJ (2006) Predictors of short-term functional outcome following ankle fracture surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(5):974–979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emmett JE, Breck LW (1958) A review and analysis of 11,000 fractures seen in a private practice of orthopaedic surgery, 1937–1956. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A(5):1169–1175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gray AC, Rooney BP, Ingram R (2008) A prospective comparison of two treatment options for tuberosity fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Foot (Edinb) 18(3):156–158Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hasselman CT, Vogt MT, Stone KL, Cauley JA, Conti SF (2003) Foot and ankle fractures in elderly white women. Incidence and risk factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(5):820–824PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hatch RL, Alsobrook JA, Clugston JR (2007) Diagnosis and management of metatarsal fractures. Am Fam Physician 76(6):817–826PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeffers RF, Tan HB, Nicolopoulos C, Kamath R, Giannoudis PV (2004) Prevalence and patterns of foot injuries following motorcycle trauma. J Orthop Trauma 18(2):87–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones R (1902) I. Fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal bone by indirect violence. Ann Surg 35(6):697–700.2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M (1994) Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 15(7):349–353Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee E, Donatto D (1999) Fractures of the midfoot and forefoot. Curr Opin Orthop 10:224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lehman RC, Torg JS, Pavlov H, DeLee JC (1987) Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal distal to the tuberosity: a review. Foot Ankle 7(4):245–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morrissey E (1946) Metatarsal fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 28:594–602PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen T, Lindblad B, Faun P (1998) Long-term results after fracture of the fifth metatarsal. Foot Ankle Surg 4:227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nunley JA (2001) Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal: the Jones fracture. Orthop Clin North Am 32(1):171–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Owen RJ, Hickey FG, Finlay DB (1995) A study of metatarsal fractures in children. Injury 26(8):537–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pao DG, Keats TE, Dussault RG (2000) Avulsion fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal not seen on conventional radiography of the foot: the need for an additional projection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(2):549–552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petrisor BA, Ekrol I, Court-Brown C (2006) The epidemiology of metatarsal fractures. Foot Ankle Int 27(3):172–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quill GE Jr (1995) Fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Orthop Clin North Am 26(2):353–361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rammelt S, Heineck J, Zwipp H (2004) Metatarsal fractures. Injury 35(Suppl 2):SB77–SB86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sanchez Alepuz E, Vicent Carsi V, Alcantara P, Llabres AJ (1996) Fractures of the central metatarsal. Foot Ankle Int 17(4):200–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schepers T, Schipper IB, Vogels LM, Ginai AZ, Mulder PG, Heetveld MJ, Patka P (2007) Percutaneous treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. J Orthop Sci 12(1):22–27Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singer G, Cichocki M, Schalamon J, Eberl R, Hollwarth ME (2008) A study of metatarsal fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(4):772–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Still GP, Atwood TC (2009) Operative outcome of 41 ankle fractures: a retrospective analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg 48(3):330–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Strauss EJ, Egol KA (2007) The management of ankle fractures in the elderly. Injury 38(Suppl 3):S2–S9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Torg JS, Balduini FC, Zelko RR, Pavlov H, Peff TC, Das M (1984) Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal distal to the tuberosity. Classification and guidelines for non-surgical and surgical management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66(2):209–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vorlat P, Achtergael W, Haentjens P (2007) Predictors of outcome of non-displaced fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal. Int Orthop 31(1):5–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wiener BD, Linder JF, Giattini JF (1997) Treatment of fractures of the fifth metatarsal: a prospective study. Foot Ankle Int 18(5):267–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zenios M, Kim WY, Sampath J, Muddu BN (2005) Functional treatment of acute metatarsal fractures: a prospective randomised comparison of management in a cast versus elasticated support bandage. Injury 36(7):832–835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Cakir
    • 1
  • S. T. Van Vliet-Koppert
    • 1
  • E. M. M. Van Lieshout
    • 2
  • M. R. De Vries
    • 1
  • M. Van Der Elst
    • 1
  • T. Schepers
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Surgery and TraumatologyReinier de Graaf Groep DelftDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Surgery-Traumatology, Erasmus MCUniversity Medical Center RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations