| Literature DB >> 26535399 |
Kohei Fujitaka1, Akira Taniguchi2, Shinji Isomoto3, Tsukasa Kumai4, Shingo Otuki5, Mamoru Okubo6, Yasuhito Tanaka2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pathogenesis of fifth metatarsal stress fractures remains uncertain. HYPOTHESIS: Physical characteristics and environmental factors, which have received limited attention in the literature thus far, might be involved in the development of fifth metatarsal stress fractures. STUDYEntities:
Keywords: fifth metatarsal bone; medical checkup; soccer; stress fracture
Year: 2015 PMID: 26535399 PMCID: PMC4622298 DOI: 10.1177/2325967115603654
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop J Sports Med ISSN: 2325-9671
Figure 1.Toe-grip strength. The digital dynamometer was fixed to a wooden foundation plate, and a 4-mm–diameter stainless wire was attached to the area of the dynamometer, to which force would be applied. This served as a bar to be gripped with the toes. Measurements were conducted while both the ankles and feet were in a neutral position. The position of the toes was checked to ensure that the toes (from the first to the fifth toe) were applied against the toe-grasping bar, and the measurements were carried out while the lower leg was attached to a fixing board at the anterior surface of the leg.
Figure 2.In the between-group comparison of foot injury, comparisons were carried out between the dominant and nondominant leg and the presence or absence of a history of sports injuries to the foot or ankle sprain (χ2 test, P < .05). *Comparison between the dominant leg and nondominant leg showed that injuries were significantly more frequent in the nondominant leg (χ2 = 5.22, P < .05).
Figure 3.Comparison of the injured and the noninjured person group regarding stud shape and the number of studs on spiked cleats (χ2 test). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for stud shape and the number of studs.
Incidence of Fifth Metatarsal Stress Fracture by University Year and Playing Surface
| No. of Injuries | IR per 1000 AEs (95% CI) | RR (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injury during university year | 1.20 (0.51-1.89) | .72 | ||
| Juniors | 11 | 0.12 (0.00-2.20) | ||
| Seniors | 5 | 0.10 (0.00-2.18) | ||
| Playing surface | 0.53 (0.00-1.22) | .30 | ||
| Natural turf | 3 | 0.09 (0.00-1.90) | ||
| Artificial turf | 13 | 0.17 (0.00-1.98) |
Juniors were first- and second-year students; seniors were third- and fourth-year students. AE, athete-exposure; IR, injury rate; RR, rate ratio.
There were no statistically significant differences for university year or ground environment.
Comparison of Measurement Items in the Injury and Noninjury Groups
| Injury Group (n = 16) | Noninjury Group (n = 257) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height, cm | 172.2 ± 4.9 | 171.7 ± 11.3 | .83 |
| Body weight, kg | 66.1 ± 4.1 | 64.7 ± 6.4 | .24 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 22.3 ± 1.8 | 22.8 ± 12.6 | .18 |
| Foot–arch height ratio, % | 17.4 ± 2.0 | 17.7 ± 2.1 | .53 |
| Toe-grip strength, kg | 16.7 ± 1.8 | 18.0 ± 2.4 | .01 |
| Q-angle, deg | 13.9 ± 2.0 | 15.1 ± 2.3 | .07 |
| Leg-heel angle, deg | 6.4 ± 2.2 | 7.1 ± 1.9 | .28 |
| Functional reach test, cm | 45.9 ± 2.5 | 44.7 ± 5.0 | .18 |
| Single-leg standing time with eyes closed, s | 90.5 ± 22.6 | 97.0 ± 18.7 | .28 |
| SLR angle, deg | 90.3 ± 6.4 | 88.8 ± 7.7 | .54 |
| FFD, cm | 7.1 ± 8.0 | 8.4 ± 6.6 | .64 |
| HBD, cm | 0.2 ± 0.8 | 0.1 ± 0.6 | .87 |
| Ankle dorsiflexion, deg | 19.1 ± 3.8 | 19.5 ± 4.2 | .80 |
| Ankle plantar flexion, deg | 39.1 ± 4.6 | 39.7 ± 4.2 | .44 |
| Generalized joint laxity test, score | 0.6 ± 1.1 | 0.5 ± 1.0 | .97 |
Results are reported as mean ± SD. BMI, body mass index; FFD, finger-floor distance; HBD, heel-buttock distance; Q-angle, quadriceps angle; SLR angle, straight-leg raising angle.
Mann-Whitney U test. Comparison between the injury and noninjury groups showed that the toe-grip strength was significantly lower in participants who sustained a fracture (P < .05). The Q-angle also tended to be lower in those who had sustained a fracture (P < .07). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any other items assessed.
Logistic Regression Analysis of the Physical Factors of Fifth Metatarsal Stress Fracture
| Item |
| Odds Ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Height | .76 | 1.01 (0.96-1.06) |
| Body weight | .47 | 0.97 (0.89-1.06) |
| Foot–arch height ratio | .61 | 1.07 (0.83-1.37) |
| Toe-grip strength | .04 | 1.21 (1.01-1.45) |
| Q-angle | .06 | 1.27 (0.99-1.62) |
| Leg-heel angle | .44 | 1.12 (0.84-1.48) |
| Functional reach test | .34 | 0.94 (0.84-1.06) |
| Single-leg standing time with eyes closed | .32 | 1.01 (0.99-1.04) |
| SLR angle | .38 | 0.97 (0.90-1.04) |
| FFD | .51 | 1.03 (0.95-1.10) |
| HBD | .58 | 0.80 (0.36-1.78) |
| Ankle dorsiflexion range | .84 | 1.01 (0.88-1.16) |
| Ankle plantar flexion range | .35 | 1.07 (0.93-1.23) |
| Generalized joint laxity test | .66 | 0.89 (0.52-1.51) |
FFD, finger-floor distance; HBD, heel-buttock distance; Q-angle, quadriceps angle; SLR angle; straight-leg raising angle.