Treatment of Zone 1 Fractures of the Proximal Fifth Metatarsal With CAM-Walker Boot vs Hard-Soled Shoes

Background: Zone 1 fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal are usually treated nonsurgically using some type of immobilization. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and functional outcomes, time to return to prior activity levels, and rate of bone healing when using a hard-soled shoe (HSS) vs a controlled ankle motion (CAM)–walker boot (CWB). Methods: Seventy-two consecutive patients with zone 1 fractures of the fifth metatarsal base were treated conservatively with either an HSS or CWB by 2 different providers. We included 57 women and 15 men, average age of 41.3 (range, 16-88) years. Radiographic findings, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and American Orthopaedic Ankle & Foot Society (AOFAS) midfoot score were assessed. Patients were followed at 4, 8, 10, 12, and 24 weeks or until asymptomatic and able to return to prior level of activities. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U, Fisher exact, and chi-square tests. P values <.05 were considered significant. Results: Age and gender distributions were similar in both groups (P = .23 and P = .57). Patients had similar VAS and AOFAS scores after 8 (P = .34 and P = .83) and 12 (P = .87 and P = .79) weeks. Average time for bone healing was significantly faster using the CWB (7.2 weeks) when compared to the HSS (8.6 weeks) (P < .001). The average time to return to prior level of activities was similar in both groups (8.3 weeks for CWB and 9.7 weeks for HSS) (P = .11). Fracture displacement was equal in both groups, with a mean of 1.9 mm of displacement in patients using the HSS, and a mean of 1.6 mm in those using the CWB (P = .26). Conclusion: Zone 1 fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal can be treated conservatively with either a hard-soled shoe or a CAM-walker boot. Even though patients treated in the CAM-walker boot demonstrated earlier signs of complete healing, similar clinical and functional results were achieved with both treatments. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative series.