Talar Dislocation: Is Reimplantation a Safe Procedure?

Total or complete dislocation of the talus is a triple dislocation of the tibiotalar, talocalcaneal, and talonavicular joints. It is a rare injury and is considered to be 1 of the most disabling ankle injuries. In light of the literature, there is a lack of consensus on their surgical treatment. The primary objective of this retrospective case series was to assess the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of 5 patients who underwent talar reimplantation for total talar dislocation. From 2005 to 2011, 5 patients were admitted in emergency care unit with a total talar dislocation. The talar dislocation was surgically reduced and stabilized by a temporary internal fixation. Patients were reviewed with a mean follow-up of 60 months (48-70 months). Clinical and radiological evaluations were performed at the last follow-up. Despite 3 opened-dislocation (60%), none had infection. Three patients obtained subnormal biomechanical function with an American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score of 60 to 70/100. Two others patients (40%) underwent a secondary ankle arthrodesis because of avascular necrosis of the talus. Signs of necrosis appeared at 15 months and 24 months. Talar reimplantation should be attempted despite the risk of avascular necrosis: restoration of the talus in the ankle maintains normal hindfoot anatomy and preserves bone stock for future function or a subsequent surgical procedure. Patients should be informed of the risk of secondary surgery. Opened-dislocation seems to be a major risk factor of avascular necrosis, and surgeon must take care to keep soft tissues attached.

Rapid Assessment of Ecosystem Service Co-Benefits of Biodiversity Priority Areas in Madagascar.

The importance of ecosystems for supporting human well-being is increasingly recognized by both the conservation and development sectors. Our ability to conserve ecosystems that people rely on is often limited by a lack of spatially explicit data on the location and distribution of ecosystem services (ES), the benefits provided by nature to people. Thus there is a need to map ES to guide conservation investments, to ensure these co-benefits are maintained. To target conservation investments most effectively, ES assessments must be rigorous enough to support conservation planning, rapid enough to respond to decision-making timelines, and often must rely on existing data. We developed a framework for rapid spatial assessment of ES that relies on expert and stakeholder consultation, available data, and spatial analyses in order to rapidly identify sites providing multiple benefits. We applied the framework in Madagascar, a country with globally significant biodiversity and a high level of human dependence on ecosystems. Our objective was to identify the ES co-benefits of biodiversity priority areas in order to guide the investment strategy of a global conservation fund. We assessed key provisioning (fisheries, hunting and non-timber forest products, and water for domestic use, agriculture, and hydropower), regulating (climate mitigation, flood risk reduction and coastal protection), and cultural (nature tourism) ES. We also conducted multi-criteria analyses to identify sites providing multiple benefits. While our approach has limitations, including the reliance on proximity-based indicators for several ES, the results were useful for targeting conservation investments by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). Because our approach relies on available data, standardized methods for linking ES provision to ES use, and expert validation, it has the potential to quickly guide conservation planning and investment decisions in other data-poor regions.