Dual Approach to Talar Dome Increases Access for Fracture Care Without Osteotomy. (November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Campbell, Megan L.; Lenz, Amy L.; Peterson, Andrew C.; DeKeyser, Graham J.; Haller, Justin M.; O'Neill, Dillon C.
• Is Part Of: Foot & ankle international. Volume 43:Number 11(2022)
• Page Start: 1474
• Page End: 1481
• Publication Date: 2022-11
• Subjects: talus -- fracture -- talar body fractures -- approaches to the talus -- hindfoot trauma; Foot -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Ankle -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; 617.585
• DOI: 10.1177/10711007221115719
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1071-1007

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus surgical treatment algorithm for talar body fractures, with authors recommending both soft tissue–only and osteotomy-based approaches. This study evaluates talar dome access via dual approaches to the talar dome through anterolateral transligamentous (ATL) and modified posteromedial (mPM) approaches. Methods: Ten cadaveric legs (5 matched pairs) were included. An mPM approach, between flexor hallucis longus and Achilles tendon, and an ATL approach, utilizing the anterolateral interval with transection of anterior talofibular ligament and calcaneofibular ligament, were performed on each specimen. Order of approach was alternated within each pair. Accessible dome surface area (DSA) was outlined by drilling with a 1.6-mm Kirschner wire at the visualized talar dome margin both with and without 4 mm of tibiotalar distraction using an external fixator. Specimens were analyzed by computed tomography (CT). Primary outcome was accessible DSA. Student t tests compared DSA accessed by different exposure methods. Results: An initial mPM approach exposed 25.6% and 33.6% of DSA without and with distraction ( P = .002). An initial ATL approach accessed 47.0% and 58.1% of DSA without and with distraction, respectively ( P = .003). Accessibility via dual approaches was 71.7% and 93% of DSA without and with distraction with an initial ATL approach and 71.3% and 87.5% of DSA without and with distraction with an initial mPM approach ( P = .96 and .37, respectively). The central talar dome was inaccessible in an almond-shaped area, tapered at the medial and lateral ends. Anterior, lateral, and posterior articular margins were able to be fully exposed, often with overlapping exposure between posterior and anterior approaches, with distraction reliably improving lateral visualization. Conclusion: Dual approaches provided access to greater than 70% and 85% of talar DSA without and with distraction, respectively. Order of approach did not significantly affect exposure and thus should be determined by surgeon discretion. These results may promote soft tissue–only treatment strategies in talar body fracture care with an extensile exposure of the talar dome surface. Careful preoperative planning optimizes the advantages of this approach. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.