Fixation of a tarsal navicular stress fracture. A case report

Management of tarsal navicular stress fractures: conservative versus surgical treatment: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to provide a statistical analysis of previously reported tarsal navicular stress fracture studies regarding the outcomes and effectiveness of conservative and surgical management.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review of the published literature was conducted utilizing MEDLINE through Ovid, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost. Reports of studies that provided the type of tarsal navicular stress fracture (ie, complete or incomplete), type of treatment, result of that treatment, and the time required to return to full activity were selected for analysis. Using a mixed generalized linear model with study as a random effect and treatment as a fixed effect, cases were separated and compared based on 3 different types of treatment: conservative, weightbearing permitted (WBR); conservative, non-weightbearing (NWB); and surgical treatment. The outcome of the treatment was recorded as either successful or unsuccessful based on radiographic and/or clinical healing of the fracture and time from onset of treatment to return to activity.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between NWB conservative treatment and surgical treatment regarding outcome (P = .6441). However, there is a statistical trend favoring NWB management (96% successful outcomes) over surgery (82% successful outcomes). Weightbearing as a conservative treatment was shown to be significantly less effective than either NWB (P = .0001) or surgical treatment (P <.0003).

CONCLUSION

Non-weightbearing conservative management should be considered the standard of care for tarsal navicular stress fractures. The authors could find no advantage for surgical treatment compared with NWB immobilization. However, there is a statistical trend favoring NWB over surgery. Rest or immobilization with weightbearing was inferior to both other treatments analyzed. The authors concluded that conservative NWB management is the standard of care for initial treatment of both partial and complete stress fractures of the tarsal navicular.

Tarsal navicular stress injury: long-term outcome and clinicoradiological correlation using both computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

Tarsal navicular stress fracture is a condition that has curtailed many athletic careers. Management protocols remain varied and somewhat controversial.

HYPOTHESES

(1) Clinical practice does not mirror the recommendations reported from previous case series. (2) Clinical outcome is poor when navicular stress fracture is managed in a variety of ways. (3) Imaging does not correlate strongly with clinical status at long-term follow-up after navicular stress fracture.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series (prognosis); Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

From a computer registry, we identified patients who had attended a university sports medicine center between 1996 and 2002 and whose final diagnosis was navicular stress fracture (n = 11) or navicular stress reaction (n = 9). All patients had provided demographic and clinical data at their original evaluation, and all had undergone bone scans and computed tomographic imaging. These data were extracted by chart review. Follow-up clinical and imaging assessments took place a median of 3.7 years later (range, 1-15.7 years). At these assessments, we administered a questionnaire, performed a structured physician examination (blinded to other data), scanned both feet with computed tomography, and obtained magnetic resonance images of the affected foot.

RESULTS

Only 2 of 11 patients (18%) with navicular stress fractures received the literature-recommended treatment of at least 6 weeks' nonweightbearing cast immobilization. Of these 11 patients, only 6 (55%) returned to sports at their previous level. Only 3 patients with navicular stress fractures regained normal imaging appearance at follow-up. Pain score, stiffness, sporting success, current sporting involvement, and recurrence/time to recurrence were not statistically associated with computed tomographic or magnetic resonance imaging parameters. Of 9 patients with navicular stress reactions, 7 developed clinical and radiological features of navicular stress fracture, but 6 of 9 patients (67%) returned successfully to sports.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary management of navicular stress fracture differs from that recommended in the literature. This stress fracture prevented almost half of the participants in this study from returning to sports at their previous level. Imaging parameters do not correlate with the clinical assessment of a patient at long-term follow-up of navicular stress fracture.

Tarsal navicular stress fracture in athletes

Stress fracture of the tarsal navicular bone is now frequently recognised. The majority of navicular stress fractures are partial fractures in the sagittal plane. They occur mainly in track and field athletes. A number of theories regarding the aetiology of this fracture have been proposed. Athletes with a history of vague, activity-related midfoot pain, with associated tenderness over the dorsal proximal navicular ('N' spot) should be suspected of having a navicular stress fracture. Plain radiography frequently fails to demonstrate the fracture, thus radionuclide scanning is the investigation of choice to detect navicular stress injury. A computed tomography (CT) scan should be performed to confirm the presence of the fracture. Various methods of treatment have been employed. A minimum of 6 weeks of strict non-weightbearing cast immobilisation is the treatment of choice. After removal of the cast, a further 6 week programme of rehabilitation with a graduated return to activity, joint mobilisation and soft tissue massage is required. Surgery for nonunion or delayed union is rarely required if initial treatment is appropriate.

Outcome of conservative and surgical management of navicular stress fracture in athletes. Eighty-six cases proven with computerized tomography

Eighty-two athletes with 86 clinical navicular stress fractures, all imaged with computerized tomography, were followed for an average of 33 months (range, 6 to 108) after diagnosis. Initial treatment consisted of at least 6 weeks of nonweightbearing cast immobilization for 22 fractures, at least 6 weeks of limitation of activity with continued weightbearing for 34 fractures, and a period of less than 6 weeks of conservative treatment for another 19 fractures. Five patients attempted to continue playing sports. Six patients had immediate surgery. Nineteen of 22 patients (86%) who had initial non-weightbearing cast immobilization treatment returned to sports, compared with only 9 of 34 patients (26%) who initially continued weightbearing with limited activity (P < 0.001). After failure of the latter treatment, successful outcomes were seen for 6 of 7 patients (86%) treated with nonweightbearing cast immobilization, while 11 of 15 patients (73%) who had one surgical procedure were able to return to sports. These results indicate that nonweightbearing cast immobilization is the treatment of choice for navicular stress fractures. Also, this treatment compares favorably with surgical treatment for patients who present after failed weightbearing treatments. Computerized tomographic appearances of healing fractures do not necessarily mirror clinical union, and postimmobilization management should be monitored clinically.