Table 5.
Data relating to length of clinical follow-up and joint range of motion0 at the last assessment, observed in the ankle, subtalar and midfoot joints of the patients treated for talar neck fracture, and the percentage loss of joint range of motion, compared with the joint range of motion of the contralateral foot
| Patient | Length of follow-up | Ankle(flexion + extension) | Subtalar(varus and valgus) | Midfoot(adduction and abduction) | Midfoot(supination + pronation) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | Loss | Range | Loss | Range | Loss | Range | Loss | ||
| 1 | 169 | 30 | 60% | 10 | 78% | 10 | 67% | 30 | 14% |
| 2 | 142 | 20 | 60% | 0 | 100% | 10 | 67% | 10 | 50% |
| 3 | 113 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 10 | 50% | 20 | 0 |
| 4 | 100 | 60 | 33% | 5 | 83% | 5 | 83% | 20 | 78% |
| 5 | 96 | 50 | 29% | 20 | 33% | 20 | 33% | 35 | 0 |
| 6 | 101 | 30 | 63% | 10 | 67% | 20 | 20% | 75 | 17% |
| 7 | 98 | 60 | 33% | 10 | 67% | 30 | 0 | 75 | 0 |
| 8 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 |
| 9 | 67 | 35 | 50% | 5 | 83% | 10 | 67% | 75 | 17% |
| 10 | 70 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 100% | 0 | 100% | 0 | 100% |
| 11 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 |
| 12 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 |
| 13 | 46 | 30 | 50% | 5 | 83% | 20 | 33% | 40 | 27% |
| 14 | 41 | 90 | 0 | 15 | 52% | 30 | 0 | 65 | 0 |
| 15 | 43 | 60 | 25% | 15 | 50% | 30 | 0 | 75 | 0 |
| 16 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 | –3 |
| 17 | 25 | 35 | 55% | 0 | 100% | 15 | 48% | 40 | 38% |
| 18 | 26 | 5 | 94% | 5 | 84% | 5 | 83% | 10 | 84% |
| 19 | 22 | 0 | 100% | 0 | 100% | 5 | 83% | 15 | 83% |
| 20 | 14 | 45 | 36% | 0 | 100% | 15 | 50% | 15 | 57% |
The “Range” columns refer to the joint range of motion of the fractured foot The “Loss” columns refer to the percentage loss of joint range of motion of the fractured foot, in comparison with the contralateral foot
-3 - patient who underwent secondary reconstructive procedure.
Medical Archives and Statistics Service, Central Hospital of Santa Casa de São Paulo (SAME)