History of fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61383082%3A_____%2F21%3A00001112" target="_blank" >RIV/61383082:_____/21:00001112 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1619998721000726#" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1619998721000726#</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuspru.2021.06.003" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.fuspru.2021.06.003</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

History of fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal (PFMT) have been for a long time a neglected issue. A systematic interest in these fractures began to increase not long ago, at the turn of the 1980s. Nevertheless, the history of these fractures is much more diverse. In the pre-radiology era, metatarsal fractures were considered to be a rare injury and most of the prominent fracture textbooks of that time made no mention of them. Only Malgaigne, in 1847, cited Bérard́s description of “the proximal fifth metatarsal fracture”. Sir Robert Jones, in 1902, was the first to describe six such fractures on the basis of radiographs, including his own injury while dancing; hence the eponym “Jones” or “Dancer's fracture”. Tanton, in 1916, divided PFMT fractures into two types and also mentioned an ossification at the tuberosity. Carp, in 1927, published the first current concept review on fifth metatarsal fractures. For a long time after the Carp's article, no major study appeared in the literature that would reveal any new findings concerning these fractures. The publications of that time were primarily general or case reports and notable fracture textbooks published between the wars mostly ignored this issue. Stewart́s article from 1960 brought a new impetus for research of fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal that lasted until today.

Název v anglickém jazyce

History of fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal

Popis výsledku anglicky

Fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal (PFMT) have been for a long time a neglected issue. A systematic interest in these fractures began to increase not long ago, at the turn of the 1980s. Nevertheless, the history of these fractures is much more diverse. In the pre-radiology era, metatarsal fractures were considered to be a rare injury and most of the prominent fracture textbooks of that time made no mention of them. Only Malgaigne, in 1847, cited Bérard́s description of “the proximal fifth metatarsal fracture”. Sir Robert Jones, in 1902, was the first to describe six such fractures on the basis of radiographs, including his own injury while dancing; hence the eponym “Jones” or “Dancer's fracture”. Tanton, in 1916, divided PFMT fractures into two types and also mentioned an ossification at the tuberosity. Carp, in 1927, published the first current concept review on fifth metatarsal fractures. For a long time after the Carp's article, no major study appeared in the literature that would reveal any new findings concerning these fractures. The publications of that time were primarily general or case reports and notable fracture textbooks published between the wars mostly ignored this issue. Stewart́s article from 1960 brought a new impetus for research of fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal that lasted until today.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30211 - Orthopaedics

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Fuß & Sprunggelenk

ISSN

1619-9987

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

19

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

DE - Spolková republika Německo

Počet stran výsledku

9

Strana od-do

175-183

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85110534711