Comparison of Screws to Plate-and-Screw Constructs for Midfoot Arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: We performed a prospective comparison of screws versus plate-and-screws for midfoot arthrodesis. MATERIALS: Between 2010 and 2015, a total of 50 patients with midfoot arthritis received screws or plate-and-screws for their midfoot arthrodesis. Function and pain were graded with the Foot and Ankle Ability Measures (FAAM) and visual analog scale (VAS), respectively. Data regarding arthrodesis healing and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients received screws for fusion, where 21 achieved full arthrodesis healing by 6 months from surgery. Mean FAAM increased from 46.4 to 82.7 of 100 between initial and final visit. Mean pain decreased from 8.3 to 2.1 of 10 between initial and latest encounter. Twenty-five patients received plate-and-screws for their fusion, where 23 achieved full arthrodesis healing by 6 months from surgery. Mean FAAM increased from 48.2 to 86.3 of 100 between initial and final visit. Mean pain decreased from 8.0 to 1.8 of 10 between initial and latest encounter. These postoperative scores were not significantly different from patients with screws ( P > .05). Three and 6 patients with screws versus plate-and-screws, respectively, developed wound complications ( P = .03). Four and 2 patients with screws versus plate-and-screws, respectively, developed delayed or nonunion of their arthrodesis ( P = .15). DISCUSSION: A comparison of outcomes of midfoot arthrodesis with screws or plate-and-screws has not been previously reported. Both constructs provide improved function and pain. Using screws might generate less wound complications, but using plate-and-screws might produce higher rates of bony healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized, prospective, and comparative cohort study.