This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pfeiffer, W. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cracchiolo, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pfeiffer, W. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cracchiolo, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 76, Issue 8 1222-1230, Copyright © 1994 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

Clinical results after tarsal tunnel decompression

WH Pfeiffer and A Cracchiolo
University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center.

We reviewed the clinical results for thirty patients (thirty-two feet) who had had exploration and decompression of the posterior tibial nerve for the treatment of tarsal tunnel syndrome between 1982 and 1990. The average duration of follow-up was thirty-one months (range, twenty-four to 118 months). Most of the patients were female, and the average age was forty-seven years (range, thirteen to seventy-two years). Over-all, only fourteen (44 percent) of the thirty-two feet benefited markedly from the operative procedure (a good or excellent result). Of the five patients (five feet) who were completely satisfied, three had another lesion (a ganglion cyst, an accessory navicular bone, or a medial talocalcaneal coalition) in or near the tarsal tunnel that had been treated at the same time. Eleven patients (twelve feet [38 percent]) were clearly dissatisfied with the result and had no long-term relief of the pain (a poor result). The pain was decreased in six feet (19 percent), but the patients still had some pain and disability (a fair result). There were four complications (13 percent): three wound infections and one delay in wound-healing. Twenty-two feet had had preoperative electrodiagnostic studies; the results of eighteen studies were considered abnormal and supportive of a diagnosis of tarsal tunnel syndrome. However, there was no correlation between the clinical outcome at the latest follow-up visit and the results of these studies. Over-all, the patients in the current series had less improvement than those who have been reported on previously.2
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
M. Nagaoka and H. Matsuzaki
Ultrasonography in Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome
J. Ultrasound Med., August 1, 2005; 24(8): 1035 - 1040.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
M. S. Mizel, P. J. Hecht, J. V. Marymont, and H. T. Temple
Evaluation and Treatment of Chronic Ankle Pain
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2004; 86(3): 622 - 632.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
M. Kinoshita, R. Okuda, J. Morikawa, T. Jotoku, and M. Abe
The Dorsiflexion-Eversion Test for Diagnosis of Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 2001; 83(12): 1835 - 1839.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
J. Kim and A. L. Dellon
Pain at the Site of Tarsal Tunnel Incision Due to Neuroma of the Posterior Branch of the Saphenous Nerve
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, March 1, 2001; 91(3): 109 - 113.
[Abstract] [Full Text]