CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04168411Updated Nov 19, 2019

Comparison Different Method Treatment in Tuberosity Fractures of the Proximal Fifth Metatarsal

An interventional study of Symptomatic Treatment in Muscle Weakness, Metatarsal Fracture and Healing Fracture of Bone, sponsored by Istanbul University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey. Open to participants aged 21 Years to 64 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-11-19.

Sponsored by Istanbul University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 1 year 6 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Apr 2018, registered Nov 2019).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
64
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
21 Years to 64 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Fracture of the base of the fifth metatarsal is one of the most common injuries in ankle trauma. There are many conservative treatment protocols for fifth metatarsal base fractures which have up to 99% success. Short leg cast and walking boot are conservative treatment methods that aim to prevent weight-bearing. There are many different conservative treatment methods that allow weight-bearing such as an elastic bandage. There was no significant difference between cast and symptomatic treatment in the previous studies. Muscle atrophy developing after immobilization with cast may adversely affect the daily activities of the patient in the first few months. However, there was no study comparing the effect of these two treatment methods on ankle muscle strength.

In this study, the investigators compared the strength of the ınjured and healthy ankle muscle when symptomatic and cast treatment methods are applied to patients with tuberosity fractures of proximal fifty metatars. In addition, patients' functional, clinic and radiological outcomes were also compared.

Read the detailed description

We prospectively treated 73 patients with 5th metatarsal base fractures (Zone 1) who came to the emergency department. Patients were allocated to a treatment group using an electronic random number generator. The generation of an even number randomized the participant to a below-knee cast, and an odd number to a double-layered elasticated bandage. In all, patients were allocated to wear a double layered elasticated bandage (group 1) applied by S.B and patients were given a below-knee cast (group 2) applied by D.K. Duration of both treatments were for four weeks and the cast removed in that time in our clinic. This reference form of treatment was the same as in previous reports.

The non-injured extremity was measured with isokinetic test at initial injury time for evaluation of side effect of immobilization after treatment. At that time, patients were asked for height, weight and pain scores. Body muscle index was calculated for all patients. Tobacco using was also asked.To measure clinical outcomes, using the validated Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) score [7] and The EuroQol-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS) score were used [8]. The VAS-FA score ranges from 0 to 100 points: higher scores indicate a better functional outcome. EQ-5D VAS score was used as a secondary outcome measure: this ranges from 0 to 100. Baseline functional scores were collected at the time of consult in the clinic.

Both ankle plantar-dorsiflexors and inversion-eversion'strength (peak torque %BW (Body Weight)) were measured with an isokinetic dynamometer (Cybex Humac Norm, CA, USA) at Isokinetic Test Laboratory of Sports Medicine in the Istanbul Medical Faculty. Test procedure was performed by the same investigator (T.Ş) in all cases for ensuring standardization. The muscle strength can be defined as the capacity of a muscle to withstand great force.

Injured extremity values were compared with non-injured extremity. The non-injured extremity was measured at initial injury time for evaluation of side effect of both treatment methods. The tests were started with non-injured sides of the patients and measurements at low angular velocity. The dynamometer was calibrated at the beginning of each testing session. Subjects were tested in prone position and stabilized in the exercise chair as per the manufacturer's recommendation. The anatomical axis of the ankle was aligned with the axis of the dynamometer while the foot was secured to the foot plate with velcros. Proximal stabilization was achieved with the straps at the thigh and calf. In the test, dorsiflexion-plantarflexion and inversion-eversion peak torque force (strength) measurements were performed in 3 trials and 3 tests repetitions at 30 degrees/sec angular speed for both side of the patient.

All of the patients were given follow-up appointments at 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 week interval at our clinic. Radiographs were similarly scheduled for 4, 8, and 12 week intervals to assess bony healing. However, functional outcomes and isokinetic test was applied also at 24 week control. At second visit, isokinetic test was not applied. These studies were started on fixed ground and then continued on moving boards. Standard rehabilitation program was given for all patients each group included joint mobilizations, passive stretching, electrotherapy-ice compression for pain relieving and ankle proprioceptive exercises, as considered necessary by same author (T.Ş).

02

Conditions studied

  • Muscle Weakness
  • Metatarsal Fracture
  • Healing Fracture of Bone

Keywords

  • metatarsal, fracture, muscle weakness, isokinetic test,
03

In context

Muscle Weakness

601 studies on the registry are indexed under Muscle Weakness; 99 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 64 is above the median of 46 across 444 interventional studies indexed under Muscle Weakness.

Browse Muscle Weakness studies →

Lead sponsor

Istanbul University is the lead sponsor of 496 studies on the registry; 79 are open to participants now.

Of its 5 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 1 (20%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
21 Years to 64 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Aged over 18 years
  • Acute (presented within one week of injury) Zone 1 fractures of fifth metatarsi

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Zone 2-3 fractures
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Osteoporotic bone (T score\<-2.5),
  • History of osteoporotic drug therapy,
  • Other lower extremity any fracture,
  • Previous foot surgery or fracture in both lower extremity,
  • Chronic fracture, pathological fracture,
  • Aged over 65 years (congruity of muscle strength test)
  • Open fracture
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
64 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Symptomatic treatment group

    The patients were allocated to wear a double layered elasticated bandage for treatment 5th metatarsal base fractures (Zone 1).

    Procedure: Symptomatic Treatment

  • Active comparator
    Cast group

    The patients were given a below-knee cast for treatment 5th metatarsal base fractures (Zone 1).

    Procedure: Symptomatic Treatment

Interventions

  • ProcedureSymptomatic Treatment

    Conservative treatment methods of tuberosity fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Changed of Baseline Isokinetic Muscle Strength at 6 months

    Both ankle plantar-dorsiflexion muscle strength and inversion-eversion muscle strength (peak torque %BW (Body Weight)) were measured with an isokinetic dynamometer (Cybex Humac Norm, CA, USA) at Isokinetic Test Laboratory of Sports Medicine in the Istanbul Medical Faculty. Test procedure was performed by the same investigator in all cases for ensuring standardization. The muscle strength can be defined as the capacity of a muscle to withstand great force. Injured extremity values were compared with healthy extremity. he healthy extremity was measured at initial injury time for evaluation of side effect of both treatment methods.

    Time frame: Isokinetic Muscle Strength test was scheduled for baseline, 4, 8,12 and 24 week intervals to assess ankle muscle strength

Secondary outcomes

  1. Changed of Baseline VAS-FA Scores at 6 months

    The investigators was measured clinical outcomes, using the validated "Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) Score". VAS-FA score is numbered from 0 to 100. 100 is the best health and 0 is the worst health.

    Time frame: baseline, 2, 4, 8,12 and 24 weeks follow-up visit

  2. Changed of Baseline EuroQol-5D VAS Scores at 6 months

    The investigators was measured clinical outcomes using The EuroQol-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS). (EQ-5D VAS is numbered from 0 to 100. 100 is the best health and 0 is the worst health.

    Time frame: baseline, 2nd, 4th, 8th,12th and 24th week follow-up visit

Other outcomes

  1. Number of Days with using an assistive device

    Patients use the Canadian sticks while walking for decrease their pain level. The time of the using assistive device was investigated and compared between both groups.

    Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months

  2. Number of Days with a take of analgesia

    Patients take the pills for their pain. Our drug choose is paracetamol for patients. The time of take of drug was investigated and compared between both groups.

    Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months

  3. Number of Days with unable to work

    The time taken of unable to work was investigated and compared between both groups.

    Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months

  4. Rates of Complications

    Every treatment method has got a lot of complications. The complications of both treatment methods were investigated and noted. The complication rates of the treatment methods were compared between the two groups.

    Time frame: through study completion, an average of 6 months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine
    Istanbul, Fatih 34093, Turkey
08

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 19, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04168411
Lead sponsor
Istanbul University
Responsible party
Serkan Bayram (Medical Doctor, Istanbul University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 19, 2019
Start date
Apr 15, 2018
Primary completion
Jun 20, 2019
Completion
Sep 9, 2019
Last update
Nov 19, 2019

Study contacts

Turgut Akgul, MD
study director · Istanbul University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion