Fifth metatarsal fractures: an update on management, complications, and outcomes

in EFORT Open Reviews
Authors:
George D Chloros Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Orthopaedic Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece

Search for other papers by George D Chloros in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Christos D Kakos Orthopaedic Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece

Search for other papers by Christos D Kakos in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ioannis K Tastsidis Orthopaedic Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece
University of Patras, School of Medicine, Patras, Greece

Search for other papers by Ioannis K Tastsidis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Vasileios P Giannoudis Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Search for other papers by Vasileios P Giannoudis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Michalis Panteli Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Search for other papers by Michalis Panteli in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Peter V Giannoudis Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Center, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK

Search for other papers by Peter V Giannoudis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

Correspondence should be addressed to P V Giannoudis; Email: pgiannoudi@aol.com
Open access

  • Even though fifth metatarsal fractures represent one of the most common injuries of the lower limb, there is no consensus regarding their classification and treatment, while the term ‘Jones’ fracture has been used inconsistently in the literature.

  • In the vast majority of patients, Zone 1 fractures are treated non-operatively with good outcomes.

  • Treatment of Zone 2 and 3 fractures remains controversial and should be individualized according to the patient’s needs and the ‘personality’ of the fracture.

  • If treated operatively, anatomic reduction and intramedullary fixation with a single screw, with or without biologic augmentation, remains the ‘gold standard’ of management; recent reports however report good outcomes with open reduction and internal fixation with specifically designed plating systems.

  • Common surgical complications include hardware failure or irritation of the soft tissues, refracture, non-union, sural nerve injury, and chronic pain.

  • Patients should be informed of the different treatment options and be part of the decision process, especially where time for recovery and returning to previous activities is of essence, such as in the case of high-performance, elite athletes.

Abstract

  • Even though fifth metatarsal fractures represent one of the most common injuries of the lower limb, there is no consensus regarding their classification and treatment, while the term ‘Jones’ fracture has been used inconsistently in the literature.

  • In the vast majority of patients, Zone 1 fractures are treated non-operatively with good outcomes.

  • Treatment of Zone 2 and 3 fractures remains controversial and should be individualized according to the patient’s needs and the ‘personality’ of the fracture.

  • If treated operatively, anatomic reduction and intramedullary fixation with a single screw, with or without biologic augmentation, remains the ‘gold standard’ of management; recent reports however report good outcomes with open reduction and internal fixation with specifically designed plating systems.

  • Common surgical complications include hardware failure or irritation of the soft tissues, refracture, non-union, sural nerve injury, and chronic pain.

  • Patients should be informed of the different treatment options and be part of the decision process, especially where time for recovery and returning to previous activities is of essence, such as in the case of high-performance, elite athletes.

Introduction

Metatarsal fractures represent the most common injury of the foot, accounting for approximately 5–6% of all the fractures encountered in the primary care setting, with about 45–70% of these injuries involving the fifth metatarsal (1). Their incidence has been reported as high as 1.8 per 1000 person-years, with patients most frequently presenting between 20 and 50 years of age (2). Noteworthy, the majority of young patients are males, whereas older patients are females (3). In elite athletes (4), a 5-year review from a single National Football League (NFL) team demonstrated an incidence of 3.42% (5). Besides football, other sports with an increased risk of suffering these fractures include soccer, basketball, and track and field athletes (4, 6). Sir Robert Jones was the first who described the metaphyseal–diaphyseal (within 0.75 inches from the base) fifth metatarsal fracture in four patients in Liverpool in 1902, with himself sustaining the same injury while dancing (7). Nowadays, the term ‘Jones fracture’ defines just one type of the fifth metatarsal fracture, that is a ‘Zone 2’ injury, and there are several misconceptions and controversies regarding the terminology and treatment of these injuries. The purpose of the herein study is to provide an update in regard to the evaluation, management, and outcomes of these important and frequent injuries.

Relevant anatomy

Several specific anatomical considerations are crucial in assessing the healing potential and therefore the management of these injuries. Four structures attach on the fifth metatarsal base, dorsally; peroneus brevis attaches at the tubercle, peroneus tertius at the metaphyseal–diaphyseal junction, and abductor digiti minimi and the lateral band of the plantar fascia on the plantar-lateral aspect (8) (Fig. 1). In addition, the proximal part of the fifth metatarsal is relatively fixed by strong ligaments attaching to the cuboid and other metatarsals, whereas its shaft remains mobile. It is these features that account for the increased propensity of delayed union/non-union in the metaphyseal–diaphyseal junction, and additionally, the stresses exerted at the mobile metatarsal head, which are directed to the base, using the metaphyseal–diaphyseal junction as a fulcrum (8). Additionally, two sesamoid bones, the os peroneum (inside the peroneus longus tendon) and os vesalianum (just proximal to the fifth metatarsal base), should be differentiated from fractures, having a smooth contour (9). Most importantly, there is a watershed area at the metaphysis–diaphysis junction between the proximal metaphyseal blood supply and the diaphyseal part of the bone supplied by the nutrient artery which is greatly responsible for the highest risk of delayed union/non-union of these fractures (10, 11) (Fig. 2). Finally, the sural nerve is very close to the entry point for intramedullary screw fixation and should be identified and protected during reconstructive procedures (12).

Figure 1
Figure 1

Schematic drawing showing the pertinent anatomy of the fifth metatarsal including Zones 1, 2, and 3. Zone 1 involves the tuberosity, Zone 2 the 4–5 intermetatarsal articulation (arrows), and Zone 3 is within 1.5 cm of the proximal metaphysis. (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD.)

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 7, 1; 10.1530/EOR-21-0025

Figure 2
Figure 2

Vascular supply of the fifth metatarsal showing the watershed area in Zone 2 (gray). (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD.)

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 7, 1; 10.1530/EOR-21-0025

Biomechanics and predisposing factors

Kavanagh et al. in a force platform analysis demonstrated that a vertical or medial lateral force is often required for a fracture to occur (13). Inversion injuries are responsible for tuberosity avulsion fractures (14), where peroneus brevis is already contracted during stance phase and has the potential of pulling the tuberosity fragment when the plantarly flexed foot is subjected to an inversion stress; the firm attachment of the lateral band of plantar aponeurosis, on the other hand, is implicated for fractures distally to the tuberosity (15, 16, 17, 18). Furthermore, Gu used a three-dimensional model to study stress loads on the metatarsals during landing, reporting that one of the peak stress points was in the proximal fifth metatarsal. When he changed the angle of landing, he noticed that the lateral metatarsal stress surged during inversion (19). A weak toe-grip strength may also predispose a fifth metatarsal fracture by decreasing the dynamic balance ability which may lead to overloading of the lateral side of the foot (20). Athletes who encounter a Jones fracture apply increased forces at the base of the fifth metatarsal during common sports activities (21).

There are many predisposing biomechanical factors which can shift weight to the lateral foot and cause a Zone 2 or Zone 3 fifth metatarsal fracture. In a cadaveric study, Aronow et al. demonstrated that isolated gastrocnemius or triceps surae contractures transmit weight-bearing forces from the hindfoot to the midfoot and forefoot (22). Congenital bone malstructure such as plantar malunion of fifth metatarsal or dorsal malunion of any of the first four metatarsals can also provoke relative plantarflexion of fifth metatarsal’s head and cause a shear force carried by the fifth metatarsal. Obese patients are more prone to Zone 3 fractures due to secondary biomechanical and metabolic consequences of excessive adipose tissue (23). A recent radiographic analysis of 51 NFL players showed that a long, straight, narrow fifth metatarsal possesses a greater risk for Jones fracture (24). Tibia vara, varus hindfoot (25), forefoot adduction (26), genu varum heel (14), and metatarsus adductus (27) have also been associated with increased load to the lateral column.

Classification

Over the years, numerous classification schemes have been created, the first one reported by Stewart in 1960 based on the fracture location and morphology (28). Type I is an extra-articular fracture between the metatarsal base and the diaphysis, type II an intra-articular fracture of the metatarsal base, type III an avulsion fracture of the base, type IV a comminuted fracture with intra-articular extension, and type V a partial avulsion of the metatarsal bone with or without a fracture. Fifteen years later, Dameron et al. observed differences in healing between fractures of fifth metatarsal tuberosity and fractures distal to the insertion of the peroneus brevis (29). Based on these findings, Lawrence and Botte later divided proximal fractures into three anatomic zones (14, 29, 30) (Fig. 1):

  • Zone 1: Tuberosity avulsion fractures with or without involvement of the tarsometatarsal articulation (’pseudojones‘ or ‘tennis’ fractures) – most common, accounting for more than 90% of the fifth metatarsal fractures (31). They usually occur as inversion injuries, secondary to the pull of the lateral band of plantar fascia and peroneus brevis tendon.

  • Zone 2: Fractures of the metaphyseal–/diaphyseal junction, which extend into the fourth–fifth intermetatarsal facet, distal to the articulation between cuboid and fifth metatarsal base (‘Jones’ fractures). They occur after indirect adduction force to the fifth metatarsal, distal to the tuberosity and along with ankle plantarflexion. This foot twisting creates a pulling force on the lateral band of the plantar fascia, with tension and strain on peroneus brevis tendon.

  • Zone 3: Proximal diaphyseal stress fractures, typically located distal to the Lisfranc joint and distal to the fourth–fifth intermetatarsal facet, that is in the proximal 1.5 cm of the metatarsal shaft. They occur from chronic repetitive stress in sports like running, soccer, and basketball or from certain biomechanical abnormalities such as the case of a cavovarus foot, varus tibia, and recent augmentation of weight-bearing activity. Microfractures of the lateral cortex are initiated by tensile forces; subsequently, the fracture propagates medially. Possible explanations for this process have been described, such as that muscle creates a localized force which prevails stress-bearing capacity of bone (32).

Fractures occurring at the regions distal to Zone 3 are termed as ‘Dancer’s fractures‘. They are typically spiral fractures occurring from rotational forces to the axially loaded, plantarflexed foot. In addition, fractures of fifth metatarsal’s head can be intra-articular or extra-articular. The injury comes after a direct force to the plantar, dorsal, or lateral foot, and the result is usually an extra-articular fracture which involves also the neck.

For delayed patient presentations, the classification which is most widely used nowadays was developed by Torg, who subdivided Dameron’s Zones 2 and 3 (former Jones’ and proximal diaphysis fracture) into three categories, according to radiological appearances and healing status (33, 34, 35). These three types need adjusted management strategies and help the physician to determine the age of the fracture at presentation:

  • Type I (acute): Fractures characterized by a narrow fracture line, no intramedullary sclerosis, minimal cortical hypertrophy, or periosteal reaction with no history of previous fracture (previous discomfort or even pain may be present).

  • Type II (delayed union): Increased fracture line width, involving both cortices, associated periosteal bone and intramedullary sclerosis, with a history of previous injury or fracture.

  • Type III (non-union): Eradication of the medullary canal by sclerotic bone, evidence of periosteal reaction and radiolucency, typically associated with a history of repetitive trauma and recurrent symptoms.

Clinical presentation

The patient’s history and physical examination is extremely important to differentiate between an acute vs a stress fracture. Patients with acute fifth metatarsal fractures present with pain, localized swelling and tenderness, difficulty in walking or weight-bearing, and in some cases, ecchymosis. On the contrary, patients presenting with stress reactions or fractures complain about pain only during activity in the prodromal phase, with these symptoms commonly being present for several weeks (29, 36). Generally, patients are able to localize the pain to the area of the fracture, while foot inversion from 30 to 50° results in maximal strain and increased symptoms. Note that there is very limited mobility at the fracture site and therefore absence of crepitus or palpable gap.

Predisposing factors for stress fractures such as previous history of a stress fracture, recent intense (or change in) activity, osteopenia, and endocrinopathies (diabetes mellitus, hyperparathyroidism, nutrient deficiencies, amenorrhea, etc.) should be identified. Serum calcium, vitamin D, nutritional deficiencies, and history of menstrual cycle irregularity in females should be evaluated, as these can unveil metabolic bone pathologies. Finally, a comprehensive foot and ankle examination is of paramount importance, with the entire lower limb being evaluated for the presence of axial deformity, such as pes cavus or genu varum.

Investigations

For reducing radiation exposure, the Ottawa Foot Rules have been introduced, as an extension of the Ottawa Ankle Rules and indicate that the clinical assessment of every subtle ankle injury should encompass palpation of both malleoli, navicular bone, and base of the fifth metatarsal (37). A foot injury requires radiographic evaluation if the patient has pain in the midfoot and if any of the following is present, bony tenderness at the base of the fifth metatarsal, bony tenderness at the navicular, and inability to bear weight taking four steps both immediately and in the emergency room. The reported sensitivity and specificity of these rules are 100 and 70%, respectively (38).

Three standard, weight-bearing views are necessary, anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and 30- or 45-degree oblique view, with the latter being the most helpful for the anatomic classification. If the patient cannot tolerate pain with weight-bearing, mild supination can be added to the lateral view in order to minimize osseous overlap. Yet, as much as 77% of avulsion fractures (particularly those at the tip of the tuberosity) may be missed on standard foot radiographs (39), and a supplementary AP view of the ankle including the base of the proximal fifth metatarsal should be obtained (40).

It must be stressed that radiographic features of stress fractures are usually absent in the early stages. Well-differentiated linear lucencies usually appear 2–6 weeks after the original insult, with variable degree of periosteal reaction (41). MRI and technetium bone scan may guide the physician in equivocal cases in the early stages (42, 43). CT may be used to evaluate delayed union/non-union, confirm healing, or refracture. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (44) may be useful in cases of multiple refractures or recurring non-unions. Finally, a metabolic workup may be warranted, including screening of vitamin D levels (45, 46).

Management

Conservative or surgical treatment is decided based on the fracture type, associated injuries, and individual patient characteristics. There is a plethora of non-operative treatment modalities, including elastic bandage support, non-weight-bearing casting, a hard-soled shoe, short-leg walking casts, and a cam walker boot (47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52). Various surgical techniques exist, with intramedullary screw fixation (6, 13, 36, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59) with or without bone grafting, tension band constructs (60), and low-profile plates (61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67).

In general, surgery is contraindicated in neuropathic feet, presence of vascular insufficiency, and local infection (68). However, diabetic patients with intact sensation and vascular supply are eligible for surgical management (69). When there is a secondary predisposing factor such as a limb axial deformity, for example pes cavovarus, this should also be addressed otherwise it will eventually lead to therapeutic failure (70).

Zone 1 – Non-displaced and displaced tuberosity avulsion fractures

Dameron (71) was the first to report clinical healing as high as 97% of tuberosity fractures, within weeks from injury; other teams have also reported equivalent results (30, 35, 72). There is a general agreement that all non-displaced or minimally displaced tuberosity avulsion fractures should be treated conservatively; a systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in union and refracture rates between different conservative methods (73). Elastic wrapping and weight-bearing as tolerated for a period of 3 weeks is adequate (74) and a hard-sole shoe, short-leg cast, or cam walker boot can also be other options (51, 52, 75).

Historically, surgery was recommended for a displacement greater than 2 mm, or comminution in Zone 1 fractures and various operative interventions have been described (76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81). A prospective study showed no benefit of immobilization vs symptomatic treatment for avulsion fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal (48), while a recent systematic review opted for non-operative treatment, regardless of technique (82). Involvement of more than one-third of the cubometatarsal joint may require open reduction and screw fixation using tension band wiring or a small fragment screw (2.0–2.7 mm) (40, 83, 84); however, the latter is found to be superior (83). A distal ulna hook plate was used with good results for displaced tuberosity avulsion fractures (85). A recent study showed that clinical and radiologic outcomes of operative vs non-operative management of Zone 1 fractures are equivalent (78). In cases of delayed symptomatic presentation, excision of the involved proximal fragment is indicated (86). In our practice, it is very rare that we operatively treat Zone 1 fractures, either displaced or undisplaced. Even if the fracture does not ‘heal’ radiographically, a pain-free fibrous union may develop, hence making an operation unnecessary (Fig. 3). Poor outcomes are rare and may be attributed to either a painful fibrous union, joint incongruity, or entrapment of the sural nerve branch inside the callus (86).

Figure 3
Figure 3

Conservatively managed Zone 1 injury. (A) Injury anteroposterior, oblique, and lateral radiographs showing a Zone 1 injury. (B) At 6 weeks, the patient went into a fibrous painless union. (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD.)

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 7, 1; 10.1530/EOR-21-0025

Zone 2 – ‘Jones’ fractures

Optimal management of these fractures is controversial and treatment is individualized to patient’s needs and expectations. One of the problems is that the term ‘Jones fracture’ has been inconsistently used to include both Zone 2 and Zone 3 fractures (49, 87). In general, the ‘true Jones’ fractures should be treated with non-weight-bearing, as weight-bearing has been implicated in increased incidence of non-union (54), although there has also been a trend toward ‘functional treatment’ consisting of full weight-bearing accompanied by full range of motion (49, 50). Several authors have reported successful conservative treatment (50, 88, 89). However, because of the watershed area of the region, non-union rates of Zones 2 and 3 have been reported to be up to 21% after non-operative management (84, 90, 91, 92). Healing starts from a medial to lateral direction and callus is seen by 6–8 weeks. Where there is absence of callus within this period, a trial of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy may be used with a reported healing union time of 3 months, range 2–4 months (93). Portland recorded a 100% success in union after prompt screw fixation in 22 patients (94), while a randomized trial reported 44% of failure after cast treatment of acute Jones fracture vs operative treatment (95). Porter after utilizing a 4.5-mm (96) cannulated screw fixation in athletes showed a 100% union rate and no refractures, with a 7.5 week mean time for return to sports (97). Low et al. studied 86 athletes of NFL, showing a union rate of 94 vs 80% for operative and non-operative treatments, respectively (98). Several systematic reviews conclude that surgery results in shorter union times and lower number of delayed union or non-unions (80, 99, 100, 101).

Intramedullary screw fixation with or without grafting is being widely performed (6, 13, 36, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59) (Fig. 4). To avoid complications such as hardware failure (Fig. 5) and refracture (102), several studies have been conducted to assess the properties a screw should have to achieve reduction and compression at the fracture site. The diameter of the screw should be no less than 4.5 mm in order to obtain adequate compression across the fracture line, and the largest screw possible which will achieve maximal contact interface with the dense cortical bone should always be used (97, 103, 104, 105, 106). Radiographic studies confirmed that excessive screw length should be avoided by keeping screw length less than 68% of length of fifth metatarsal (104). Interestingly, there was no correlation between age, straight segment length, and canal diameter. There were differences noted (not statistically significant) between male and female coronal canal diameter (5.2–4.8 mm) and at the curvature of the fifth metatarsal (104). The surgeon should take this into consideration with their K-wire insertion.

Figure 4
Figure 4

(A) Pre-operative anteroposterior and oblique radiographs showing a Zone 3 injury. (B) Intra-operative fluoroscopic images showing placement of an intramedullary screw. (C) Post-operative anteroposterior and oblique radiographs at 3 months showing complete healing. (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD)

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 7, 1; 10.1530/EOR-21-0025

Figure 5
Figure 5

(A) Post-operative view of a relatively small, thin intramedullary screw. (B) A 2-month post-operative radiograph demonstrates hardware failure. (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD)

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 7, 1; 10.1530/EOR-21-0025

Regarding the surgical technique for fresh fractures, the patient is placed supine on a radiolucent table with a bolster under the ipsilateral hip and a tourniquet is applied. The alignment of the fifth metatarsal is drawn with a marking pen and a 1 cm incision is made at the proximal aspect about 2–3 cm proximal to the base and parallel to the fifth metatarsal canal. Any small sural nerve branches are identified and retracted, and the interval between the peroneus brevis and the lateral band of the plantar fascia is identified and bluntly dissected down to the fifth metatarsal base. The entry point is crucial and is classically described as being ‘high and inside’, that is on the dorsal and medial aspect just medial and superior to the edge of the tuberosity. A guidewire is inserted and advanced into the canal past the fracture and thereafter the cannulated drill was passed over the guidewire to be on the fracture site several times in an attempt to break up the intramedullary sclerosis if present. Depending on the pre-operatively templated size, a smaller, for example a 5.5-mm, cannulated tap is initially used over the guidewire and based upon its clearance on fluoroscopy the appropriate size cannulated tap for example a 6.5 mm is finally used. The tap is removed, and finally an appropriate length solid screw is advanced into the canal to achieve excellent fracture compression, prevent bowing and plantar/lateral gapping. Cannulated screws are not preferred because of their lesser strength (107) and association with refractures and non-unions (108).

In cases of surgery on delayed/non-unions (Torg II and III types), the incision is from 0.5 cm proximal tuberosity to just distal to the fracture site, usually about 3 cm in total length. At the distal aspect of the incision the fracture site is exposed, cleared of all tissue, and the sclerosis taken down with a high-speed bur and 2.0 mm guidewires are used to make multiple drill holes in its proximal and distal aspect. The cannulated drill is passed several times at the fracture site in an attempt to break up the intramedullary sclerosis. Bone marrow aspirate concentrate, as well as autograft, is packed to the non-union site, and subsequently, a solid screw is passed as previously described. Final fluoroscopic images are obtained in multiple planes. Possible complications include refracture (102), sural nerve injury (12), malunion, delayed union/non-union, prominence of the screwhead, or chronic low level pain (109). Proper surgical technique and appropriate post-operative protocols are the keys to minimizing those complications. In athletes, relatively high refracture rates have been reported, up to 30% (6), and therefore alternative approaches may be adopted such as plate fixation (61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67). A cadaveric study from Duplantier showed promising results of plantar-lateral plate fixation, as plates could resist more the tension forces from fifth metatarsal and tolerate greater peak load to failure than intramedullary screws (110). In a recent study of plantar plate fixation in 38 athletes, there was a 10.5% rate of refracture and symptomatic hardware (111), however previous studies had shown no problems as far as union or refractures (63, 64, 67). This technique may be preferred in cases of a laterally bowed fifth metatarsal or comminuted fractures (112), however further clinical research is needed to better define its role.

In our practice, the treatment is individualized according to the patient’s needs and expectations through an informed consent process. If non-operative treatment is decided, the patient is placed in a short-leg cast, non-weight-bearing for 6 weeks and thereafter they are transitioned to a cam walker boot with weight-bearing as pain allows. As soon as the patient is asymptomatic, physical therapy is initiated with gradual return to activity within 12 weeks is the typical scenario. In cases of stress fractures/reactions, non-weight-bearing is typically prolonged for 12 weeks, and the patient is followed-up closely both clinically and radiographically to determine whether the reaction has subsided, that is diminished sclerosis and re-establishment of the medullary cavity. In case the patient is an operative candidate, an intramedullary screw fixation is our usual standard of care as described above. Post-operatively, the patient is placed in a non-weight-bearing splint after 1 week and transitioned to a non-weight-bearing cast for another 3 weeks, and then progressively transitioned to partial weight-bearing in a removable boot with crutches for another 2 weeks as pain allows. At this point, the patient is allowed to do some level of activity, for example stationary bicycle or swimming. At 6 weeks, the healing is evaluated clinically and radiographically and if the fracture has healed then full weight-bearing is allowed with a gradual return to full activity. If the fracture has not healed, then a bone stimulator is recommended, and the patient will revert back to non-weight-bearing and the healing closely followed clinically and radiographically. In cases of delayed union or non-union, the patient routinely undergoes metabolic workup to correct any deficiencies and is subsequently treated operatively with a primary or revision intramedullary screw and bone grafting ± bone marrow aspirate concentrate as described above. For the competitive athlete, CT confirmation of union is warranted prior to return to full play.

Zone 3 – Proximal diaphyseal stress fractures

These fractures usually present late, as ‘stress fractures’. If they are acute, a trial of non-weight-bearing cast vs operative treatment (87, 113) is discussed with the patient. However, the latter may be favored in a high-demand individual such as an elite athlete (87, 113). The treatment is similar to Zone 2 injuries (114) as described above.

Dancer’s fracture – Diaphyseal spiral fracture

In general, non-operative treatment is preferred for these fractures and is quite effective leaving no sequela even in competitive athletes (115, 116). In a recent study, 33 patients were treated with a boot or a hard-sole shoe with a minimum of 10 months follow-up and showed excellent outcomes regardless of the degree of displacement, shortening, or rotation. There were 9% delayed unions, however, all patients ultimately united with an average time to union of 8.3 weeks. The hard-sole shoe showed superior outcomes compared to the boot. Of note, despite classically being associated with high-performance athletes, hence the name ‘Dancer’s fracture’, a recent study showed increased incidence in females over the age of 40 and when low energy trauma is involved in that group they should be considered as early fragility fractures and warrant metabolic workup (3).

Complications

Although surgical outcomes are widely successful (6, 13, 36, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 80, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 106), possible complications include hardware failure (Fig. 5) and refracture (102), sural nerve injury (12), malunion, delayed union/non-union, prominence of the screwhead, chronic low level pain (109), and iatrogenic fractures (12, 36). Table 1 summarizes the causes of non-union following fifth Metatarsal fractures.

Table 1

Non-union causes fifth metatarsal fractures (74, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124).

Patient specific Injury specific Surgeon-specific factors Medications
Smoking status Zone 2/Zone 3 fractures Small diameter screws (<4.5 mm) NSAIDs
Diabetic Open fractures Synthetic glucocorticoids
Peripheral vascular disease Chemotherapy agents
Vitamin D/calcium deficiency
Hormonal deficiency (e.g. hypothyroidism)
Increased age

NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Refractures or non-unions may occur up to 12% of the intramedullary screw fixation cases (59, 100). However, the rate of refracture in elite athletes may be as high as 30% for intramedullary screw fixation (6) vs 10.5% for plate fixation (111), in recent studies. Table 2 summarizes the literature assessing the incidence of non-union and subsequent treatment strategy. Possible causes of failure may be technically related, for example inappropriate screw size/biology, failure to simultaneously address causative factors such as pes cavus, as well as secondary to inadequate post-operative protocols. In the past, symptomatic hardware has been reported in up to 30% of intramedullary screw fixation patients with a traditional screw, which is now rare with the use of fracture-specific screws (106) and the authors use them routinely (Fig. 4B). Headless screws are not recommended because of difficulty in removal (108). Plate removal has been reported in up to 31% of cases (111). It is important to note that removal of hardware may create stress risers and extreme caution is warranted especially in the case of athletes in which case it is recommended to occur only after retirement and in the meantime managed by shoe modification (117).

Table 2

Failed non-union treatment causes and rates.

Reference Patients, n Patients (n) with non-unions (M:F) Type of study Injury pattern sustained Treatment modality Type of failure Time to failure Other comments (treatment of non-union)
Rettig et al. (84) 8 8 RCS Jones fracture (not further classified) Conservative management Non-union Unknown Five non-unions shelled through lateral incision of peroneus brevis;

One non union fragment was large and articulated cuboid;

2 non-unions healed with screw fixation
Holmes Jr et al. (93) 9 (5:4) 4 (1:3) RCS Jones fracture acute type (narrow fracture line) as per Torg Treated conservatively in walking cast Non-union Mean duration of use of PEMF was 2.8 months. Pulsed electromagnetic fields
Glasgow et al. (125) 11 3 (2:1) CS Jones fracture (not further classified) Local bone graft Refracture 10 months Local graft, persistent canal stenosis
Corticocancellous graft Refracture 31 months Short bone graft persistent canal sclerosis
4.5 mm malleolar screw Delayed union, screw deformation 10 weeks None
Wright et al. (108) 6 6 (6:0) RCS Jones fracture acute type narrow fracture line) as per Torg 4.5 mm cannulated screw Refracture 7 weeks Limited activity
5.0 mm cannulated screw Refracture 11 weeks 6.0 mm solid screw
4.5 mm cannulated screw Refracture 8 weeks 6.5 mm Herbert screw
4.5 mm cannulated screw Refracture 12 weeks Limited activity
4.0 mm cannulated screw Refracture 5.5 weeks Bone grafting
4.5 mm cannulated screw Refracture 6 weeks Limited activity
Larson et al. (126) 15 6 RCS Jones fracture acute type (narrow fracture line) as per Torg 5.0 mm cannulated screw Refracture 14 weeks Inlay graft
4.0 mm cannulated screw Refracture 18 weeks 5.0 mm screw ICBG
4.0 mm cannulated screw Refracture 44 weeks ICBG
6.5 mm cannulated screw Refracture 16 weeks Sliding BG
6.5 mm cannulated screw Non-union 48 weeks None
4.5 mm cannulated screw Non-union 20 weeks Antibiotics 5.0 mm screw & ICBG
Mologne et al. (95) 37 (35:2) 6 RCT Jones fracture acute type (narrow fracture line) as per Torg 18 patients cast

19 surgical group (4.5 mm malleolar screw)
Five non-unions and two refractures N/A Non-union group

Three patients underwent fixation with 4.5 mm screw. Remaining two declined operation.

Refracture

One patient underwent fixation with 4.5 mm screw.

One treated conservatively with walking cast boot.
One non-union Bone graft and repeat fixation
Hunt et al. (91) 21 21 (16:5) RCS Jones fracture (Zone II Dameron) 5 patients non-operative treatment

16 patients previous surgical fixation
5 patients symptomatic non-unions

16 patients non-unions/refracture
N/A Eight patients, iliac crest cancellous bone graft.

Eight patients, bone marrow aspirate and DBM.

Four patients bone graft harvested from calcaneus.

One patient, DBM alone

One patient, no bone graft.
Ritchie et al. (127) 6 6 RCS Jones fracture (Not further Classified Six patients Treated non-operatively Six patients symptomatic non-unions Mean 12.2 months Excision of avulsed fragment.
Panteli et al. (128) 41 7 RCS (abstract) Isolated fifth metatarsal fracture (Lawrence classification)

7 (Type I)

22 (Type II)

12 (Type III)
26 Cannulated screws Seven non-unions N/A Nine patients there was a residual gap following reduction and autologous bone graft
12 ORIF
Three fragment Excision
Granata et al. (102) 149 4 (4:0) RCS Jones fracture (not further classified) 4.5 mm cannulated stainless steel screw Refracture, bent screw 6 months Three were revised to a bigger size screw, while orthobiologics and external bone stimulators were also used to augment healing. Fourth patient was revised to the same screw, but also required a second revision surgery for non-union.
5.0 mm cannulated stainless steel screw Refracture, bent screw 7 months
5.0 mm cannulated stainless steel screw Refracture, bent screw 2.5 months
3.5 mm solid stainless steel screw Refracture, bent screw 15 months
Grant et al. (54) 30 30 (10:20) PCS The fracture pattern was categorized using the Dameron classification Zone 1 injuries- Weight bear in walking boot.

Zones 2 and Three non-weight-bearing cast for 6 weeks.
30 nonon-union Average time 5.9 months Zone 1 injuries

1 mm guidewire 90° to fracture. 3 mm compression screw

Zone 2/3 Injuries

1.6 mm guidewire

Predrilled 4-mm headed screw is then placed intramedullary

CS, case series; DBM, demineralised bone matrix; RCS, retrospective case series; RCT, randomized controlled trial; PCS, prospective case series; ICBG, Iliac crest bone graft.

Conclusion

Fractures of the fifth metatarsal remain a challenging problem to treat, especially in competitive athletes. In recent years, these injuries have been more clearly reported as the ‘true’ Jones fractures have been better differentiated from the rest as far as treatment and outcomes are concerned.

The intra-osseous blood supply to the fifth metatarsals’ greater tuberosity and proximal diaphysis differs. Fractures of the greater tuberosity both at a proximal and distal level have the propensity to heal given the numerous randomly distributed metaphyseal arteries. In contrast, fractures at the proximal metaphysis disrupt the nutrient artery, and hence create the so-called ‘avascular region’ (10). Considerations of fracture location and potential vascular compromise should therefore always be taken into account and considered in the treatment strategy.

The classification systems have evolved since the first described ‘Jones’ fractures in 1902 but despite this their remains a discrepancy in what is defined as a Jones fracture with some authors defining it as a fracture at the metaphyseal–diaphyseal junction and others at the proximal diaphysis. Therefore, we propose using a combination of Lawrence and Botte’s classification (14) in conjunction with Torg’s classification (35) to avoid any discrepancies when describing these fractures.

Conservative vs surgical treatment is decided based on the fracture type, associated injuries, and individual patient characteristics. Controversies remain regarding surgical treatment options for fifth metatarsal fractures intramedullary screw fixation with or without bone grafting, tension band constructs (60), and low-profile plates (61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67) being the most popular, especially in the general population. Nevertheless, depending on the zone of fracture, several of these may be treated non-operatively; however operative fixation (6, 13, 36) with intramedullary screw and possible biologic augmentation especially for the elite athletes with Zone 2 and 3 injuries remains the standard of care. In contrast, patients who are deemed ‘high risk’ for surgery with a predisposition to complications, for example vasculopaths or patients with diabetic neuropathy, should be treated non-operatively. Plantar plating may also provide an alternative option for treatment with some promising results to date (63, 64, 67). However, further high-quality studies are required to assess its efficacy and long-term complications (111).

The future for managing fifth metatarsal fractures leaves open several areas of research. First, cadaveric studies should be conducted assessing differences in medullary cavity geometry. Discrepancies affecting surgical management have been identified in other fields such as hip arthroplasty (118). Novel surgical techniques have also been proposed through fixation with an intramedullary screw combined with a high-resistance suture (Fibrewire suture no. 2 cerclage). This proof-of-concept cadaveric study provides an interesting option; however, it is awaiting biomechanical evaluation and comparison in trials to other accepted surgical options (119).

In this review, we have provided a framework of thought; however, the optimal strategy should be individualized to accommodate for both fracture and patient factors. Input from the multidisciplinary team should be sought, and the patient should be thoroughly educated and be actively involved in the decision process.

ICMJE Conflict of Interest Statement

P V G declares having received grants from ZimmerBiomed, GrerenBone, and Hereaus. All remaining authors have received no grants and all authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the work reported here.

Funding Statement

This work did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.

References

  • 1

    Petrisor BA, Ekrol I, Court-Brown C. The epidemiology of metatarsal fractures. Foot and Ankle International 2006 27 172174. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602700303)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Hasselman CT, Vogt MT, Stone KL, Cauley JA, Conti SF. Foot and ankle fractures in elderly white women. Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 2003 85 820824. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200305000-00008)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Schwagten K, Gill J, Thorisdottir V. Epidemiology of dancers fracture. Foot and Ankle Surgery 2021 27 677680. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2020.09.001)

  • 4

    Shuen WM, Boulton C, Batt ME, Moran C. Metatarsal fractures and sports. Surgeon 2009 7 8688. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s1479-666x(0980022-x)

  • 5

    Carreira DS, Sandilands SM. Radiographic factors and effect of fifth metatarsal Jones and diaphyseal stress fractures on participation in the NFL. Foot and Ankle International 2013 34 518522. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100713477616)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    O’Malley M, DeSandis B, Allen A, Levitsky M, O’Malley Q, Williams R. Operative treatment of fifth metatarsal Jones fractures (Zones II and III) in the NBA. Foot and Ankle International 2016 37 488500. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715625290)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Jones RI I. Fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal bone by indirect violence. Annals of Surgery 1902 35 697700.2.

  • 8

    DeVries JG, Taefi E, Bussewitz BW, Hyer CF, Lee TH. The fifth metatarsal base: anatomic evaluation regarding fracture mechanism and treatment algorithms. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2015 54 9498. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2014.08.019)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Keles-Celik N, Kose O, Sekerci R, Aytac G, Turan A, Güler F. Accessory ossicles of the foot and ankle: disorders and a review of the literature. Cureus 2017 9 e1881. (https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1881)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Smith JW, Arnoczky SP, Hersh A. The intraosseous blood supply of the fifth metatarsal: implications for proximal fracture healing. Foot and Ankle 1992 13 143152. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079201300306)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Shereff MJ, Yang QM, Kummer FJ, Frey CC, Greenidge N. Vascular anatomy of the fifth metatarsal. Foot and Ankle 1991 11 350353. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079101100602)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Donley BG, McCollum MJ, Murphy GA, Richardson EG. Risk of sural nerve injury with intramedullary screw fixation of fifth metatarsal fractures: a cadaver study. Foot and Ankle International 1999 20 182184. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079902000308)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Kavanaugh JH, Brower TD, Mann RV. The Jones fracture revisited. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 1978 60 776782. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197860060-00008)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Lawrence SJ, Botte MJ. Jones’ fractures and related fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Foot and Ankle 1993 14 358365. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079301400610)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Pritsch M, Heim M, Tauber H, Horoszowski H. An unusual fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal bone. Journal of Trauma 1980 20 530531. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-198006000-00018)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Richli WR, Rosenthal DI. Avulsion fracture of the fifth metatarsal: experimental study of pathomechanics. American Journal of Roentgenology 1984 143 889891. (https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.143.4.889)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Seyidova N, Hirtler L, Windhager R, Schuh R, Willegger M. Peroneus brevis tendon in proximal 5th metatarsal fractures: anatomical considerations for safe hook plate placement. Injury 2018 49 720725. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.01.008)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Kaneko F, Edama M, Ikezu M, Matsuzawa K, Hirabayashi R, Kageyama I. Anatomic characteristics of tissues attached to the fifth metatarsal bone. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2020 8 2325967120947725. (https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967120947725)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Gu YD, Ren XJ, Li JS, Lake MJ, Zhang QY, Zeng YJ. Computer simulation of stress distribution in the metatarsals at different inversion landing angles using the finite element method. International Orthopaedics 2010 34 669676. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0856-4)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Fujitaka K, Taniguchi A, Isomoto S, Kumai T, Otuki S, Okubo M, Tanaka Y. Pathogenesis of fifth metatarsal fractures in college soccer players. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2015 3 2325967115603654. (https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967115603654)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Hunt KJ, Goeb Y, Bartolomei J. Dynamic loading assessment at the fifth metatarsal in elite athletes with a history of Jones fracture. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 2021 31 e321e326. (https://doi.org/10.1097/JSM.0000000000000830)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Aronow MS, Diaz-Doran V, Sullivan RJ, Adams DJ. The effect of triceps surae contracture force on plantar foot pressure distribution. Foot and Ankle International 2006 27 4352. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602700108)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Pugliese M, De Meo D, Sinno E, Pambianco V, Cavallo AU, Persiani P, Villani C. Can body mass index influence the fracture zone in the fifth metatarsal base? A retrospective review. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2020 13 9. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-020-0374-6)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Karnovsky SC, Rosenbaum AJ, DeSandis B, Johnson C, Murphy CI, Warren RF, Taylor SA, Drakos MC. Radiographic analysis of National Football League players’ fifth metatarsal morphology relationship to proximal fifth metatarsal fracture risk. Foot and Ankle International 2019 40 318322. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718809357)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Jones CP Cavovarus: fifth metatarsal fractures and revision open reduction internal fixation. Clinics in Sports Medicine 2020 39 793799. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2020.07.006)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Fleischer AE, Stack R, Klein EE, Baker JR, Weil Jr L, Weil Sr LS. Forefoot adduction is a risk factor for Jones fracture. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2017 56 917921. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2017.04.017)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Yoho RM, Carrington S, Dix B, Vardaxis V. The association of metatarsus adductus to the proximal fifth metatarsal Jones fracture. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2012 51 739742. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2012.08.008)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Stewart IM Jones’s fracture: fracture of base of fifth metatarsal. Clinical Orthopaedics 1960 16 190198.

  • 29

    Dameron Jr TB Fractures and anatomical variations of the proximal portion of the fifth metatarsal. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 1975 57 788792. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197557060-00010)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Quill Jr GE Fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Orthopedic Clinics of North America 1995 26 353361. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(2031997-0)

  • 31

    Kane JM, Sandrowski K, Saffel H, Albanese A, Raikin SM, Pedowitz DI. The epidemiology of fifth metatarsal fracture. Foot and Ankle Specialist 2015 8 354359. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640015569768)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Fetzer GB, Wright RW. Metatarsal shaft fractures and fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Clinics in Sports Medicine 2006 25 13915 0 , x. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2005.08.014)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Lehman RC, Torg JS, Pavlov H, DeLee JC. Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal distal to the tuberosity: a review. Foot and Ankle 1987 7 245252. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110078700700406)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Torg JS Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal distal to the tuberosity. Orthopedics 1990 13 731737. (https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-19900701-09)

  • 35

    Torg JS, Balduini FC, Zelko RR, Pavlov H, Peff TC, Das M. Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal distal to the tuberosity. Classification and guidelines for non-surgical and surgical management. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 1984 66 209214. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198466020-00007)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    DeLee JC, Evans JP, Julian J. Stress fracture of the fifth metatarsal. American Journal of Sports Medicine 1983 11 349353. (https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658301100513)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Stiell I, Wells G, Laupacis A, Brison R, Verbeek R, Vandemheen K, Naylor CD. Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Multicentre Ankle Rule Study Group. BMJ 1995 311 594597. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7005.594)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    David S, Gray K, Russell JA, Starkey C. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules for acute foot and ankle injuries. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 2016 25 4851. (https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2014-0253)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Pao DG, Keats TE, Dussault RG. Avulsion fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal not seen on conventional radiography of the foot: the need for an additional projection. American Journal of Roentgenology 2000 175 549552. (https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.2.1750549)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Rammelt S, Heineck J, Zwipp H. Metatarsal fractures. Injury 2004 35 (Supplement 2) SB77-86. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2004.07.016)

  • 41

    Hatch RL, Alsobrook JA, Clugston JR. Diagnosis and management of metatarsal fractures. American Family Physician 2007 76 817826.

  • 42

    Usmani S, Al-Ramadhan F, Marafi F, Rasheed R, Al Kandari F. Tc-99m HDP single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography in stress fracture of base of metatarsal bone. Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2019 34 251253. (https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnm.IJNM_68_19)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    Major NM Role of MRI in prevention of metatarsal stress fractures in collegiate basketball players. American Journal of Roentgenology 2006 186 255258. (https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1275)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Pritchard NS, Smoliga JM, Nguyen AD, Branscomb MC, Sinacore DR, Taylor JB, Ford KR. Reliability of analysis of the bone mineral density of the second and fifth metatarsals using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2017 10 52. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-017-0234-1)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Shimasaki Y, Nagao M, Miyamori T, Aoba Y, Fukushi N, Saita Y, Ikeda H, Kim SG, Nozawa M & Kaneko K et al.Evaluating the risk of a fifth metatarsal stress fracture by measuring the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Foot and Ankle International 2016 37 307311. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715617042)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Villacis D, Yi A, Jahn R, Kephart CJ, Charlton T, Gamradt SC, Romano R, Tibone JE, Hatch GF. Prevalence of abnormal vitamin D levels among division I NCAA athletes. Sports Health 2014 6 340347. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738114524517)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47

    Bowes J, Buckley R. Fifth metatarsal fractures and current treatment. World Journal of Orthopedics 2016 7 793800. (https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v7.i12.793)

  • 48

    Akimau PI, Cawthron KL, Dakin WM, Chadwick C, Blundell CM, Davies MB. Symptomatic treatment or cast immobilisation for avulsion fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal: a prospective, randomised, single-blinded non-inferiority controlled trial. Bone and Joint Journal 2016 98 - B 806811. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B6.36329)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49

    Baumbach SF, Prall WC, Kramer M, Braunstein M, Böcker W, Polzer H. Functional treatment for fractures to the base of the 5th metatarsal – influence of fracture location and fracture characteristics. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2017 18 534. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1893-6)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50

    Baumbach SF, Urresti-Gundlach M, Böcker W, Vosseller JT, Polzer H. Results of functional treatment of epi-metaphyseal fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal. Foot and Ankle International 2020 41 666673. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100720907391)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51

    Choi YR, Kim BS, Kim YM, Park JY, Cho JH, Kim S, Kim HN. Hard-soled shoe versus short leg cast for a fifth metatarsal base avulsion fracture: a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 2020 103 23–29.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52

    Dineen HA, Murphy TD, Mangat S, Lukosius EZ, Lin FC, Pettett BJ, Peoples SJ, Hurwitz SR. Functional outcomes for nonoperatively treated proximal fifth metatarsal fractures. Orthopedics 2017 40 e1030–e1035. (https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20171012-02)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53

    Massada MM, Pereira MA, de Sousa RJ, Costa PG, Massada JL. Intramedullary screw fixation of proximal fifth metatarsal fractures in athletes. Acta Ortopédica Brasileira 2012 20 262265. (https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-78522012000500003)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54

    Grant MJ, Molloy AP, Mason LW. The use of percutaneous screw fixation without fracture site preparation in the treatment of fifth metatarsal base nonunion. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2020 59 753757. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2019.08.034)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55

    Tan EW, Cata E, Schon LC. Use of a percutaneous pointed reduction clamp before screw fixation to prevent gapping of a fifth metatarsal base fracture: a technique tip. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2016 55 151156. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2015.04.011)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56

    Looney AM, Renehan JR, Dean DM, Murthy A, Sanders TH, Neufeld SK, Cuttica DJ. Rate of delayed union with early weightbearing following intramedullary screw fixation of Jones fractures. Foot and Ankle International 2020 41 13251334. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100720938317)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 57

    Marecek GS, Earhart JS, Croom WP, Merk BR. Treatment of acute Jones fractures without weightbearing restriction. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2016 55 961964. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2016.04.013)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58

    Yoho RM, Vardaxis V, Dikis J. A retrospective review of the effect of metatarsus adductus on healing time in the fifth metatarsal jones fracture. Foot 2015 25 215219. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2015.05.006)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59

    Lareau CR, Hsu AR, Anderson RB. Return to play in National Football League players after operative Jones fracture treatment. Foot and Ankle International 2016 37 816. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715603983)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60

    Lee KT, Kim KC, Young KW, Jegal H, Park YU, Lee HS, Roh Y. Conservative treatment of refractures after modified tension band wiring of fifth metatarsal base stress fractures in athletes. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 2020 28 2309499020926282. (https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499020926282)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61

    Huh J, Glisson RR, Matsumoto T, Easley ME. Biomechanical comparison of intramedullary screw versus low-profile plate fixation of a Jones fracture. Foot and Ankle International 2016 37 411418. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715619678)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62

    Lee SK, Park JS, Choy WS. Locking compression plate distal ulna hook plate as alternative fixation for fifth metatarsal base fracture. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2014 53 522528. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2014.02.021)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 63

    Mitchell RJ, Duplantier NL, Delgado DA, Lambert BS, McCulloch PC, Harris JD, Varner KE. Plantar plating for the treatment of proximal fifth metatarsal fractures in elite athletes. Orthopedics 2017 40 e563e566. (https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20170327-04)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64

    Seidenstricker CL, Blahous EG, Bouché RT, Saxena A. Plate fixation with autogenous calcaneal dowel grafting proximal fourth and fifth metatarsal fractures: technique and case series. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2017 56 975981. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2017.04.035)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65

    Ismat A, Rupp M, Knapp G, Heiss C, Szalay G, Biehl C. Treatment of proximal fifth metatarsal fractures with an ulna hook plate. Foot 2020 42 101653. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2019.101653)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 66

    Kim JB, Song IS, Park BS, Ahn CH, Kim CU. Comparison of the outcomes Between headless cannulated screw fixation and fixation using a locking compression distal ulna hook plate in fracture of fifth metatarsal base. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2017 56 713717. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2017.01.048)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 67

    Bernstein DT, Mitchell RJ, McCulloch PC, Harris JD, Varner KE. Treatment of proximal fifth metatarsal fractures and refractures with plantar plating in elite athletes. Foot and Ankle International 2018 39 14101415. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718791835)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68

    Bishop JA, Braun HJ, Hunt KJ. Operative Versus nonoperative treatment of Jones fractures: a decision analysis model. American Journal of Orthopedics 2016 45 E69E76.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69

    Yue JJ, Marcus RE. The role of internal fixation in the treatment of Jones fractures in diabetics. Foot and Ankle International 1996 17 559562. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079601700909)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70

    Payo-Ollero J, Álvarez Goenaga F, Elorriaga Sagarduy G, Ruiz Nasarre A, Olmos-García MA, Villas Tomé C. Stress fracture of the fifth metatarsal in foot deformity secondary to neuromuscular disease: experiences of deformity correction treatment – a report of 3 cases and review of the literature. Foot and Ankle Specialist 2018 11 177182. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640017744642)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71

    Dameron Jr TB Fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal: selecting the best treatment option. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 1995 3 110114. (https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-199503000-00006)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 72

    Clapper MF, O’Brien TJ, Lyons PM. Fractures of the fifth metatarsal. Analysis of a fracture registry. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1995 315 238241.

  • 73

    Smith TO, Clark A, Hing CB. Interventions for treating proximal fifth metatarsal fractures in adults: a meta-analysis of the current evidence-base. Foot and Ankle Surgery 2011 17 300307. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2010.12.005)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 74

    Rosenberg GA, Sferra JJ. Treatment strategies for acute fractures and nonunions of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2000 8 332338. (https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200009000-00007)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 75

    Nishikawa DRC, Aires Duarte F, Saito GH, Bang KE, Monteiro AC, Prado MP, de Cesar Netto C. Treatment of zone 1 fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal with boot vs hard-soled shoes. Foot and Ankle International 2020 41 508512. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100720903259)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 76

    Zwitser EW, Breederveld RS. Fractures of the fifth metatarsal; diagnosis and treatment. Injury 2010 41 555562. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.05.035)

  • 77

    Hong CC, Nag K, Yeow H, Lin AZ, Tan KJ. Suture anchor fixation for fifth metatarsal tuberosity avulsion fractures: a case series and review of literature. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2018 57 10301033. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2018.02.014)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 78

    Lee TH, Lee JH, Chay SW, Jang KS, Kim HJ. Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between non-operative and operative treatment in 5th metatarsal base fractures (zone 1). Injury 2016 47 17891793. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.05.016)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 79

    Valkier C, Fallat LM, Jarski R. Conservative versus surgical management of fifth metatarsal avulsion fractures. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2020 59 988992. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2020.05.003)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 80

    Wang Y, Gan X, Li K, Ma T, Zhang Y. Comparison of operative and non-operative management of fifth metatarsal base fracture: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2020 15 e0237151. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237151)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 81

    Wu GB, Li B, Yang YF. Comparative study of surgical and conservative treatments for fifth metatarsal base avulsion fractures (type I) in young adults or athletes. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 2018 26 2309499017747128. (https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499017747128)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 82

    Khan S, Axelrod D, Paul R, Catapano M, Stephen D, Henry P, Wasserstein D. Acute fifth metatarsal tuberosity fractures: a systematic review of nonoperative treatment. PM and R 2021 13 405411. (https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12427)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 83

    Husain ZS, DeFronzo DJ. Relative stability of tension band versus two-cortex screw fixation for treating fifth metatarsal base avulsion fractures. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2000 39 8995. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s1067-2516(0080032-0)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 84

    Rettig AC, Shelbourne KD, Wilckens J. The surgical treatment of symptomatic nonunions of the proximal (metaphyseal) fifth metatarsal in athletes. American Journal of Sports Medicine 1992 20 5054. (https://doi.org/10.1177/036354659202000113)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 85

    Zhao J, Yu B, Xie M, Huang R, Xiao K. Surgical treatment of zone 1 fifth metatarsal base fractures using the locking compression plate distal ulna hook plate. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 2017 107 369374. (https://doi.org/10.7547/15-208)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 86

    McGarvey WC, Coetzee JC. Midfoot fractures and dislocations. In Baxter’s the Foot and Ankle in Sport. Eds Porter D, Schon LC. S.l.: Elsevier – Health Science, 2020.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 87

    Schildhauer TAH, MF. Fractures and dislocations of the midfoot and forefoot. In Rockwood and Green’s Fractures in Adults, pp. 29683060. Ed Tornetta P Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer, 2020.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 88

    Josefsson PO, Karlsson M, Redlund-Johnell I, Wendeberg B. Closed treatment of Jones fracture. Good results in 40 cases after 11–26 years. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1994 65 545547. (https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679409000911)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 89

    Konkel KF, Menger AG, Retzlaff SA. Nonoperative treatment of fifth metatarsal fractures in an orthopaedic suburban private multispeciality practice. Foot and Ankle International 2005 26 704707. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070502600907)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 90

    Ekrol I, Court-Brown CM. Fractures of the base of the 5th metatarsal. Foot 2004 14 9698. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2003.12.007)

  • 91

    Hunt KJ, Anderson RB. Treatment of Jones fracture nonunions and refractures in the elite athlete: outcomes of intramedullary screw fixation with bone grafting. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2011 39 19481954. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511408868)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 92

    Vorlat P, Achtergael W, Haentjens P. Predictors of outcome of non-displaced fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal. International Orthopaedics 2007 31 510. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0116-9)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 93

    Holmes Jr GB Treatment of delayed unions and nonunions of the proximal fifth metatarsal with pulsed electromagnetic fields. Foot and Ankle International 1994 15 552556. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079401501006)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 94

    Portland G, Kelikian A, Kodros S. Acute surgical management of Jones’ fractures. Foot and Ankle International 2003 24 829833. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070302401104)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 95

    Mologne TS, Lundeen JM, Clapper MF, O’Brien TJ. Early screw fixation versus casting in the treatment of acute Jones fractures. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2005 33 970975. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546504272262)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 96

    Goodman SB, Jiranek W, Petrow E, Yasko AW. The effects of medications on bone. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2007 15 450460. (https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200708000-00002)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 97

    Porter DA, Duncan M, Meyer SJ. Fifth metatarsal Jones fracture fixation with a 4.5-mm cannulated stainless steel screw in the competitive and recreational athlete: a clinical and radiographic evaluation. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2005 33 726733. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546504271000)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 98

    Low K, Noblin JD, Browne JE, Barnthouse CD, Scott AR. Jones fractures in the elite football player. Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 2004 13 156160.

  • 99

    Kerkhoffs GM, Versteegh VE, Sierevelt IN, Kloen P, van Dijk CN. Treatment of proximal metatarsal V fractures in athletes and non-athletes. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2012 46 644648. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090389)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 100

    Roche AJ, Calder JD. Treatment and return to sport following a Jones fracture of the fifth metatarsal: a systematic review. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2013 21 13071315. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2138-8)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 101

    Yates J, Feeley I, Sasikumar S, Rattan G, Hannigan A, Sheehan E. Jones fracture of the fifth metatarsal: is operative intervention justified? A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of results. Foot 2015 25 251257. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2015.08.001)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 102

    Granata JD, Berlet GC, Philbin TM, Jones G, Kaeding CC, Peterson KS. Failed surgical management of acute proximal fifth metatarsal (Jones) fractures: a retrospective case series and literature review. Foot and Ankle Specialist 2015 8 454459. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640015592836)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 103

    Reese K, Litsky A, Kaeding C, Pedroza A, Shah N. Cannulated screw fixation of Jones fractures: a clinical and biomechanical study. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2004 32 17361742. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546504264929)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 104

    Ochenjele G, Ho B, Switaj PJ, Fuchs D, Goyal N, Kadakia AR. Radiographic study of the fifth metatarsal for optimal intramedullary screw fixation of Jones fracture. Foot and Ankle International 2015 36 293301. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714553467)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 105

    Scott RT, Hyer CF, DeMill SL. Screw fixation diameter for fifth metatarsal jones fracture: a cadaveric study. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2015 54 227229. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2014.11.010)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 106

    Porter DA Fifth metatarsal Jones fractures in the athlete. Foot and Ankle International 2018 39 250258. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100717741856)

  • 107

    Ebraheim NA, Haman SP, Lu J, Padanilam TG, Yeasting RA. Anatomical and radiological considerations of the fifth metatarsal bone. Foot and Ankle International 2000 21 212215. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070002100305)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 108

    Wright RW, Fischer DA, Shively RA, Heidt Jr RS, Nuber GW. Refracture of proximal fifth metatarsal (Jones) fracture after intramedullary screw fixation in athletes. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2000 28 732736. (https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465000280051901)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 109

    Bigsby E, Halliday R, Middleton RG, Case R, Harries W. Functional outcome of fifth metatarsal fractures. Injury 2014 45 20092012. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.06.010)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 110

    Duplantier NL, Mitchell RJ, Zambrano S, Stone AC, Delgado DA, Lambert BS, Moreno MR, Harris JD, McCulloch PC & Lintner DM et al.A biomechanical comparison of fifth metatarsal Jones fracture fixation methods. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2018 46 12201227. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517753376)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 111

    Young KW, Kim JS, Lee HS, Jegal H, Park YU, Lee KT. Operative results of plantar plating for fifth metatarsal stress fracture. Foot and Ankle International 2020 41 419427. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100719895273)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 112

    Kadar A, Ankory R, Karpf R, Luger E, Elias S. Plate fixation of proximal fifth metatarsal fracture. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 2015 105 389394. (https://doi.org/10.7547/14-035)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 113

    Cheung CN, Lui TH. Proximal fifth metatarsal fractures: anatomy, classification, treatment and complications. Archives of Trauma Research 2016 5 e33298. (https://doi.org/10.5812/atr.33298)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 114

    Chuckpaiwong B, Queen RM, Easley ME, Nunley JA. Distinguishing Jones and proximal diaphyseal fractures of the fifth metatarsal. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2008 466 19661970. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0222-7)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 115

    O’Malley MJ, Hamilton WG, Munyak J. Fractures of the distal shaft of the fifth metatarsal. ‘Dancer’s fracture’. American Journal of Sports Medicine 1996 24 240243. (https://doi.org/10.1177/036354659602400223)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 116

    Morgan C, Abbasian A. Management of spiral diaphyseal fractures of the fifth metatarsal: a case series and a review of literature. Foot 2020 43 101654. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2019.101654)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 117

    Ruta DJ, Parker D. Jones fracture management in athletes. Orthopedic Clinics of North America 2020 51 541553. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2020.06.010)

  • 118

    Yang Z, Jian W, Li ZH, Jun X, Liang Z, Ge Y, Shi ZJ. The geometry of the bone structure associated with total hip arthroplasty. PLoS ONE 2014 9 e91058. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091058)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 119

    D’Hooghe P, Caravelli S, Massimi S, Calder J, Dzendrowskyj P, Zaffagnini S. A novel method for internal fixation of basal fifth metatarsal fracture in athletes: a cadaveric study of the F.E.R.I. technique (fifth metatarsal, extra-portal, rigid, innovative). Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics 2019 6 45. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-019-0213-5)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 120

    Nolte P, Anderson R, Strauss E, Wang Z, Hu L, Xu Z, Steen RG. Heal rate of metatarsal fractures: a propensity-matching study of patients treated with low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) vs. surgical and other treatments. Injury 2016 47 25842590. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.09.023)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 121

    Blum A, Zarqh O, Peleg A, Sirchan R, Blum N, Salameh Y, Ganaem M. Vascular inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in fracture healing. American Journal of Orthopedics 2012 41 8791.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 122

    Jiao H, Xiao E, Graves DT. Diabetes and its effect on bone and fracture healing. Current Osteoporosis Reports 2015 13 327335. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-015-0286-8)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 123

    Karlamangla AS, Burnett-Bowie SM, Crandall CJ. Bone health during the menopause transition and beyond. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 2018 45 695708. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2018.07.012)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 124

    Brinker MR, O’Connor DP, Monla YT, Earthman TP. Metabolic and endocrine abnormalities in patients with nonunions. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2007 21 557570. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e31814d4dc6)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 125

    Glasgow MT, Naranja Jr RJ, Glasgow SG, Torg JS. Analysis of failed surgical management of fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal distal to the tuberosity: the Jones fracture. Foot and Ankle International 1996 17 449457. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079601700803)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 126

    Larson CM, Almekinders LC, Taft TN, Garrett WE. Intramedullary screw fixation of Jones fractures. Analysis of failure. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2002 30 5560. (https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465020300012301)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 127

    Ritchie JD, Shaver JC, Anderson RB, Lawrence SJ, Mair SD. Excision of symptomatic nonunions of proximal fifth metatarsal avulsion fractures in elite athletes. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2011 39 24662469. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511417566)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 128

    Panteli M, Pountos I, Giannoudis P. Nonunions of fifth metatarsal fractures: our institutional experience. In Orthopaedic Trauma Association 2014 Annual Meeting; October 15–18, 2014; Tampa, FL, 2014.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

 

  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • Figure 1

    Schematic drawing showing the pertinent anatomy of the fifth metatarsal including Zones 1, 2, and 3. Zone 1 involves the tuberosity, Zone 2 the 4–5 intermetatarsal articulation (arrows), and Zone 3 is within 1.5 cm of the proximal metaphysis. (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD.)

  • Figure 2

    Vascular supply of the fifth metatarsal showing the watershed area in Zone 2 (gray). (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD.)

  • Figure 3

    Conservatively managed Zone 1 injury. (A) Injury anteroposterior, oblique, and lateral radiographs showing a Zone 1 injury. (B) At 6 weeks, the patient went into a fibrous painless union. (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD.)

  • Figure 4

    (A) Pre-operative anteroposterior and oblique radiographs showing a Zone 3 injury. (B) Intra-operative fluoroscopic images showing placement of an intramedullary screw. (C) Post-operative anteroposterior and oblique radiographs at 3 months showing complete healing. (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD)

  • Figure 5

    (A) Post-operative view of a relatively small, thin intramedullary screw. (B) A 2-month post-operative radiograph demonstrates hardware failure. (Obtained with permission from George D. Chloros, MD)

  • 1

    Petrisor BA, Ekrol I, Court-Brown C. The epidemiology of metatarsal fractures. Foot and Ankle International 2006 27 172174. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602700303)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Hasselman CT, Vogt MT, Stone KL, Cauley JA, Conti SF. Foot and ankle fractures in elderly white women. Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 2003 85 820824. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200305000-00008)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Schwagten K, Gill J, Thorisdottir V. Epidemiology of dancers fracture. Foot and Ankle Surgery 2021 27 677680. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2020.09.001)

  • 4

    Shuen WM, Boulton C, Batt ME, Moran C. Metatarsal fractures and sports. Surgeon 2009 7 8688. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s1479-666x(0980022-x)

  • 5

    Carreira DS, Sandilands SM. Radiographic factors and effect of fifth metatarsal Jones and diaphyseal stress fractures on participation in the NFL. Foot and Ankle International 2013 34 518522. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100713477616)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    O’Malley M, DeSandis B, Allen A, Levitsky M, O’Malley Q, Williams R. Operative treatment of fifth metatarsal Jones fractures (Zones II and III) in the NBA. Foot and Ankle International 2016 37 488500. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715625290)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Jones RI I. Fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal bone by indirect violence. Annals of Surgery 1902 35 697700.2.

  • 8

    DeVries JG, Taefi E, Bussewitz BW, Hyer CF, Lee TH. The fifth metatarsal base: anatomic evaluation regarding fracture mechanism and treatment algorithms. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2015 54 9498. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2014.08.019)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Keles-Celik N, Kose O, Sekerci R, Aytac G, Turan A, Güler F. Accessory ossicles of the foot and ankle: disorders and a review of the literature. Cureus 2017 9 e1881. (https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1881)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Smith JW, Arnoczky SP, Hersh A. The intraosseous blood supply of the fifth metatarsal: implications for proximal fracture healing. Foot and Ankle 1992 13 143152. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079201300306)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Shereff MJ, Yang QM, Kummer FJ, Frey CC, Greenidge N. Vascular anatomy of the fifth metatarsal. Foot and Ankle 1991 11 350353. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079101100602)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Donley BG, McCollum MJ, Murphy GA, Richardson EG. Risk of sural nerve injury with intramedullary screw fixation of fifth metatarsal fractures: a cadaver study. Foot and Ankle International 1999 20 182184. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079902000308)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Kavanaugh JH, Brower TD, Mann RV. The Jones fracture revisited. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 1978 60 776782. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197860060-00008)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Lawrence SJ, Botte MJ. Jones’ fractures and related fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Foot and Ankle 1993 14 358365. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079301400610)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Pritsch M, Heim M, Tauber H, Horoszowski H. An unusual fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal bone. Journal of Trauma 1980 20 530531. (https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-198006000-00018)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Richli WR, Rosenthal DI. Avulsion fracture of the fifth metatarsal: experimental study of pathomechanics. American Journal of Roentgenology 1984 143 889891. (https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.143.4.889)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Seyidova N, Hirtler L, Windhager R, Schuh R, Willegger M. Peroneus brevis tendon in proximal 5th metatarsal fractures: anatomical considerations for safe hook plate placement. Injury 2018 49 720725. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.01.008)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Kaneko F, Edama M, Ikezu M, Matsuzawa K, Hirabayashi R, Kageyama I. Anatomic characteristics of tissues attached to the fifth metatarsal bone. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2020 8 2325967120947725. (https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967120947725)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Gu YD, Ren XJ, Li JS, Lake MJ, Zhang QY, Zeng YJ. Computer simulation of stress distribution in the metatarsals at different inversion landing angles using the finite element method. International Orthopaedics 2010 34 669676. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0856-4)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Fujitaka K, Taniguchi A, Isomoto S, Kumai T, Otuki S, Okubo M, Tanaka Y. Pathogenesis of fifth metatarsal fractures in college soccer players. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2015 3 2325967115603654. (https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967115603654)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Hunt KJ, Goeb Y, Bartolomei J. Dynamic loading assessment at the fifth metatarsal in elite athletes with a history of Jones fracture. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 2021 31 e321e326. (https://doi.org/10.1097/JSM.0000000000000830)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Aronow MS, Diaz-Doran V, Sullivan RJ, Adams DJ. The effect of triceps surae contracture force on plantar foot pressure distribution. Foot and Ankle International 2006 27 4352. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602700108)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Pugliese M, De Meo D, Sinno E, Pambianco V, Cavallo AU, Persiani P, Villani C. Can body mass index influence the fracture zone in the fifth metatarsal base? A retrospective review. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2020 13 9. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-020-0374-6)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Karnovsky SC, Rosenbaum AJ, DeSandis B, Johnson C, Murphy CI, Warren RF, Taylor SA, Drakos MC. Radiographic analysis of National Football League players’ fifth metatarsal morphology relationship to proximal fifth metatarsal fracture risk. Foot and Ankle International 2019 40 318322. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718809357)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Jones CP Cavovarus: fifth metatarsal fractures and revision open reduction internal fixation. Clinics in Sports Medicine 2020 39 793799. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2020.07.006)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Fleischer AE, Stack R, Klein EE, Baker JR, Weil Jr L, Weil Sr LS. Forefoot adduction is a risk factor for Jones fracture. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2017 56 917921. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2017.04.017)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Yoho RM, Carrington S, Dix B, Vardaxis V. The association of metatarsus adductus to the proximal fifth metatarsal Jones fracture. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2012 51 739742. (https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2012.08.008)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Stewart IM Jones’s fracture: fracture of base of fifth metatarsal. Clinical Orthopaedics 1960 16 190198.

  • 29

    Dameron Jr TB Fractures and anatomical variations of the proximal portion of the fifth metatarsal. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 1975 57 788792. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197557060-00010)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Quill Jr GE Fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Orthopedic Clinics of North America 1995 26 353361. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(2031997-0)

  • 31

    Kane JM, Sandrowski K, Saffel H, Albanese A, Raikin SM, Pedowitz DI. The epidemiology of fifth metatarsal fracture. Foot and Ankle Specialist 2015 8 354359. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640015569768)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Fetzer GB, Wright RW. Metatarsal shaft fractures and fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Clinics in Sports Medicine 2006 25 13915 0 , x. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2005.08.014)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Lehman RC, Torg JS, Pavlov H, DeLee JC. Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal distal to the tuberosity: a review. Foot and Ankle 1987 7 245252. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107110078700700406)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Torg JS Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal distal to the tuberosity. Orthopedics 1990 13 731737. (https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-19900701-09)

  • 35

    Torg JS, Balduini FC, Zelko RR, Pavlov H, Peff TC, Das M. Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal distal to the tuberosity. Classification and guidelines for non-surgical and surgical management. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 1984 66 209214. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198466020-00007)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    DeLee JC, Evans JP, Julian J. Stress fracture of the fifth metatarsal. American Journal of Sports Medicine 1983 11 349353. (https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658301100513)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Stiell I, Wells G, Laupacis A, Brison R, Verbeek R, Vandemheen K, Naylor CD. Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Multicentre Ankle Rule Study Group. BMJ 1995 311 594597. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7005.594)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    David S, Gray K, Russell JA, Starkey C. Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules for acute foot and ankle injuries. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 2016 25 4851. (https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2014-0253)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Pao DG, Keats TE, Dussault RG. Avulsion fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal not seen on conventional radiography of the foot: the need for an additional projection. American Journal of Roentgenology 2000 175 549552. (https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.2.1750549)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Rammelt S, Heineck J, Zwipp H. Metatarsal fractures. Injury 2004 35 (Supplement 2) SB77-86. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2004.07.016)

  • 41

    Hatch RL, Alsobrook JA, Clugston JR. Diagnosis and management of metatarsal fractures. American Family Physician 2007 76 817826.

  • 42

    Usmani S, Al-Ramadhan F, Marafi F, Rasheed R, Al Kandari F. Tc-99m HDP single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography in stress