Ligament reconstruction with single bone tunnel technique for chronic symptomatic subtle injury of the Lisfranc joint in athletes

Inconsistent radiographic diagnostic criteria for lisfranc injuries: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the radiographic diagnostic criteria and propose standardised radiographic criteria for Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The various radiographic criteria for the diagnosis of Lisfranc injuries were extracted. Descriptive statistics were presented for all continuous (as mean ± standard deviation) and categorical variables (as frequencies by percentages).

RESULTS

The literature search included 29 studies that totalled 1115 Lisfranc injuries. The risk of bias ranged from "Low" to "Moderate" risk according to the ROBINS-I tool. The overall recommendations according to the GRADE assessment ranged from "Very Low" to "High". 1st metatarsal to 2nd metatarsal diastasis was the most common of the 12 various radiographic diagnostic criteria observed, as was employed in 18 studies. This was followed by 2nd cuneiform to 2nd metatarsal subluxation, as was employed in 11 studies.

CONCLUSION

The radiographic diagnostic criteria of Lisfranc injuries were heterogeneous. The proposition for homogenous radiographic diagnostic criteria is that the following features must be observed for the diagnosis of Lisfranc injuries: 1st metatarsal to 2nd metatarsal diastasis of ≥ 2 mm on anteroposterior view or 2nd cuneiform to 2nd metatarsal subluxation on anteroposterior or oblique views. Further advanced imaging by CT or MRI may be required in patients with normal radiographs but with continued suspicion for Lisfranc injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4, systematic review.

Various Flexible Fixation Techniques Using Suture Button for Ligamentous Lisfranc Injuries: A Review of Surgical Options

Contrary to Lisfranc joint fracture-dislocation, ligamentous Lisfranc injury can lead to additional instability and arthritis and is difficult to diagnose. Appropriate procedure selection is necessary for a better prognosis. Several surgical methods have recently been introduced. Here, we present three distinct surgical techniques for treating ligamentous Lisfranc employing flexible fixation. First is the "Single Tightrope procedure", which involves reduction and fixation between the second metatarsal base and the medial cuneiform via making a bone tunnel and inserting Tightrope. Second is the "Dual Tightrope Technique", which is similar to the "Single Tightrope technique", with additional fixation of an intercuneiform joint using one MiniLok Quick Anchor Plus. Last but not least, the "internal brace approach" uses the SwiveLock anchor, particularly when intercueniform instability is seen. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of surgical complexity and stability. These flexible fixation methods, on the other hand, are more physiologic and have the potential to lessen the difficulties that have been linked to the use of conventional screws in the past.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Surgical Management of Unstable Lisfranc Injuries in Athletes

Background:

Athletes sustaining Lisfranc joint instability after a low-energy injury often undergo surgical fixation. Limited studies report validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for this specific patient population. Our purpose was to report PROMs of athletes experiencing instability after a low-energy Lisfranc injury and undergoing surgical fixation.

Methods:

Twenty-nine athletes (23 competitive, 6 recreational) sustained an unstable Lisfranc injury (14 acute, 15 chronic) and met our inclusion criteria. Injuries were classified as acute if surgically managed within 6 weeks. All athletes completed validated PROMs pre- and postoperatively. The cohort underwent various open reduction internal fixation methods. We evaluated outcomes with the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) activities of daily living (ADL) and sports subscales.

Results:

Fourteen of 29 (48%) athletes reported PROMs at ≥2 years with a median follow-up time of 44.5 months. Substantial improvement for both FAAM ADL (50% vs 93%; P < .001) and sports (14.1% vs 80%; P = .002) subscales were found, when comparing preoperative to postoperative scores at ≥2 years.

Conclusion:

This study provides outcomes information for the young athletic population that were treated operatively for low-energy Lisfranc injury with apparent joint instability. Based on the FAAM sports subscale, these patients on average improved between their 6-month evaluation and their final ≥2 years but still scored 80% of the possible 100%, which indicates continued but “slight” difficulty with lower extremity function.

Level of Evidence:

Level IV, case series.

Surgical controversies and current concepts in Lisfranc injuries

INTRODUCTION

Lisfranc injuries, not as rare as previously reported, range from ligamentous to complex fracture-dislocations. Anatomical studies have identified a complex of discrete structures, and defined the anatomical characteristics of the Lisfranc joint.

SOURCES OF DATA

A narrative evidence-based review encompassed and analyzed published systematic reviews. Outcomes included clinical and surgical decision-making, including clinical-presentation, diagnosis, pathological-assessment, surgical-management techniques and indications, post-surgical care and comparative outcomes.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Better understanding of the Lisfranc complex anatomy aids surgical treatment and tactics. Prognosis is related to injury severity, estimated by the number of foot columns affected. Surgical outcome is determined by anatomical reduction for most fixation and fusion techniques. Appropriate treatment allows return to sport, improving outcome scores.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Identification of Lisfranc injuries may be improved by imaging modalities such as weight-bearing computer tomography. Recent evidence supports dorsal plate fixation as a result of better quality of reduction. In complex injuries, the use of combined techniques such as trans-articular screw and plate fixation has been associated with poorer outcomes, and fusion may instead offer greater benefits.

GROWING POINTS

Open reduction is mandatory if closed reduction fails, highlighting the importance of understanding surgical anatomy. If anatomical reduction is achieved, acute arthrodesis is a safe alternative to open reduction internal fixation in selected patients, as demonstrated by comparable outcomes in subgroup analysis.

AREAS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The current controversies in surgical treatment remain around techniques and outcomes, as randomized controlled trials are infrequent.

Clinical outcomes of Tightrope system in the treatment of purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries

Background

Purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are mainly caused by low energy damage and often require surgical treatment. There are several operative techniques for rigid fixation to solve this problem clinically. This study evaluated the effect of using the Tightrope system to reconstruct the Lisfranc ligament for elastic fixation.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 11 cases with purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries treated with the Tightrope system from 2016 to 2019, including 8 male and 3 female. X-ray was performed regularly after operation to measure the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate pain relief. American orthopedic foot & ankle society (AOFAS) and Maryland foot score were recorded at the last follow-up.

Results

The average follow-up time was 20.5 months (range, 17–24). There was statistically significant difference in the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and VAS score at 3 months, 6 months, and the last follow-up when compared with preoperative values (P < 0.05).Mean of postoperative AOFAS mid-foot scale and Maryland foot score were 92.4 ± 4.3, 94.1 ± 3.5, respectively. The Tightrope system was not removed and the foot obtained better biomechanical stability. No complications occurred during the operation.

Conclusion

Tightrope system in the treatment of purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries can stabilize the tarsometatarsal joint and achieve satisfactory effect.

Defining Return to Sport: A Systematic Review

Background:

Return to sport (RTS) commonly serves as a measure for assessment of clinical outcomes in orthopaedic sports medicine surgery. Unfortunately, while RTS is commonly utilized in research for this purpose, currently there is no widely accepted or standardized definition for when an athlete has officially returned to his or her sport.

Purpose:

To conduct a systematic review to evaluate and report the differences in specific definitions of RTS utilized in the orthopaedic surgery literature.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Trials databases per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Search terms consisted of variations of “RTS” combined with variations of “orthopedic surgery” and “define” to capture as many relevant articles as possible. The definition of RTS was recorded and analyzed.

Results:

A total of 718 articles were identified in the initial search, 29 of which met eligibility criteria, providing a clear definition of RTS. Of the 29 studies included, 20 (69.0%) defined RTS as an athlete competing in a game or other competitive play. Three (10.3%) defined this as the athlete competing in a game or other competitive play but with an explicitly stated competition-level modifier of the athlete returning to his or her preinjury level of competition. Two articles (6.9%) included returning to training or practice, and the remaining 4 articles (13.8%) used terminology other than the standard RTS.

Conclusion:

There is variability in the definition of RTS used in orthopaedic sports medicine literature. Most studies refer to the athlete competing in a game or other competitive play. Other variants include returning to practice/training and explicitly defined competition levels and objectives. Future studies should aim to standardize the definition of RTS to facilitate more precise assessment of outcome after sports medicine surgery. Using terminology that describes components of the recovery and rehabilitation process, such as “return to participation” and “return to performance,” in addition to RTS will allow us to more clearly understand the athlete’s recovery and associated level of competition or performance.

Reliability of measurements assessing the Lisfranc joint using weightbearing computed tomography imaging

INTRODUCTION

Subtle Lisfranc joint injuries remain challenging to diagnose in clinical practice. Although of questionable accuracy, bilateral weightbearing radiographs are considered the current gold standard to assess these injuries. However, weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT), which provides clearer visualization of bony landmarks, can also be used for evaluation. This study aims to design a protocol that reliably measures the distance between the medial cuneiform (C1) and second metatarsal (M2) to assess the Lisfranc joint using WBCT imaging.

METHODS

Two unique methods of measuring the C1-M2 distance were designed that localize the center of the interosseous Lisfranc ligament (ILL, reference point). This reference point was located by (I) measuring a specific distance at the M2 base, or (II) approximating from nearby bony landmarks, on both axial (Ax) and coronal (Cor) WBCT images. Four parameters (I-Ax, I-Cor, II-Ax, and II-Cor) were evaluated for each of 96 specimens. Measurements were recorded by three independent observers and repeated for inter- and intra-observer agreement.

RESULTS

In total, 96 patient image series were included and assessed in our study with an average age of 46 (19-66, SD 16.1) and average BMI of 25.8 (17.8-30.5, SD 4.3). I-Ax showed excellent agreement for intra-observer evaluation (R = 0.802) and good agreement for inter-observer evaluation (R = 0.727). I-Cor demonstrated excellent inter- (R = 0.814) and intra-observer (R = 0.840) agreement. Good agreement was found for both II-Ax and II-Cor for both intra- (R = 0.730, R = 0.708) and inter-observer (R = 0.705, R = 0.645) evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Measuring the C1-M2 joint space with coronal WBCT imaging through a protocol that localizes the ILL is reproducible, simple, and can potentially be utilized clinically to evaluate the Lisfranc joint.

Anatomy and biomechanics of the Lisfranc ligamentous complex: A systematic literature review

Lisfranc injuries are challenging to treat and can have a detrimental effect on active individuals. Over the past decade researchers have investigated methods for the reconstruction of the Lisfranc ligamentous complex (LLC) to preserve its functional stability and mobility. To aid in this innovation, this study presents the current understanding of the anatomical and biomechanical characteristics of the LLC through a systematic review. Three medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) were searched from inception through July 2019. Original studies investigating the anatomy and/or biomechanical properties of the LLC were considered for inclusion. Data recorded from each study included: number of cadavers, number of feet, gender, laterality, age, type of specimen, measurement methods, reported ligamentous bundles, ligament origins and insertions, geometric characteristics, and biomechanical properties of the LLC. The Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale was used to assess the methodologic quality of included articles. Eight cadaveric studies investigating the LLC were included out of 1204 screened articles. Most articles described the LLC as three distinct structures: the dorsal- (DLL), interosseous- (ILL), and plantar- (PLL) Lisfranc Ligaments. The ILL had the largest thickness and insertional area of osseous attachment. Biomechanically, the ILL also had the highest stiffness and resistance to load prior to failure when loaded parallel to its fiber orientation. Current knowledge of the anatomical and biomechanical properties of the LLC are presented and highlight its significant role of stabilizing the tarsometatarsal articulation. Appreciating the biomechanical characteristics of the ILL may improve clinical insight in managing LLC injuries.

Adequate return to sports and sports activities after treatment of Lisfranc injury: a meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Although a large number of Lisfranc injuries occur during sports, data on sports outcomes, such as return to sport (RTS) rates and times as well as level of sports activities after treatment of this injury remain limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to assess the RTS rates, times and the sports activity levels after different treatments of Lisfranc injuries.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CDSR, DARE and CENTRAL were searched to identify relevant articles from January 1985 to July 2020. The mean RTS rates (to any level and preinjury level of sports) and times were extracted per study, and pooled wherever methodologically possible. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria (MINORS).

FINDINGS

Fifteen studies were included in this review. Methodological quality of the studies was poor. The treatments reported in the studies were conservative treatment, surgical fixation and primary partial arthrodesis. For conservative treatment, the RTS rate regardless of sports level was 93% (95% CI 81% to 98%; n=42) and for return to preinjury level of sports was 88% (95% CI 75% to 95%; n=42). The fixation group showed a RTS percentage of 94% (95% CI 91% to 97%; n=270) to each level of sports and for return to the level before injury was 86% (95% CI 80% to 90%; n=188). In the primary partial arthrodesis group, the return to any level of sports was 94% (95% CI 85% to 98%; n=65) and for return to preinjury level was 74% (95% CI 62% to 83%; n=65). Mean time to RTS ranged from 7 to 33 weeks across all treatment groups. No data pooling was possible for this outcome measure. From the different studies, a total of 43 different sports and 440 physical activities were reported before treatment. After treatment, patients participated in 37 different sports (88%) and 391 different physical activities (89%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The different treatment options for Lisfranc injuries allow for good sport-specific outcomes with 93% to 94% of athletes returning to any level of sports, and 74% to 88% of athletes returning to their preinjury level of sport. These sport-specific outcomes can be used to inform patients about their expected sport-specific outcomes after different treatments of Lisfranc injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Surgical outcome of chronic Lisfranc injury without secondary degenerative arthritis: A systematic literature review✰

BACKGROUND

Chronic Lisfranc joint injuries (tarsometatarsal, TMT) can present as a variety of clinical symptoms and radiographic findings. If significant arthritis at the Lisfranc joint is present, salvage arthrodesis is an option. For patients who receive a delayed diagnosis and/or present with no signs of arthritic changes, selecting the most appropriate treatment can be challenging. This article provides a systematic review of current surgical treatment options and outcomes for patients with a chronic Lisfranc injury but no secondary degenerative changes.

METHODS

Four major medical databases were searched from inception through March 5, 2019: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase. Studies were included if they were original research studies that assessed the outcome of patients treated surgically for chronic Lisfranc injuries without secondary osteoarthritic changes. Only studies written in English and German were considered. The following data were recorded from each study: number of patients and feet included, study design (prospective vs. retrospective, single vs. multicenter, level of evidence), time between initial injury and operation, operative techniques, age, mechanism of injury, type of injury (purely ligamentous or ligamentous with concomitant bony fractures), indications for surgery, pre-operative assessment, postoperative follow-up time, time to return to activity or sport, and clinical outcome. The modified Coleman Score was used to assess the methodologic quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 6,845 screened, ten studies met the above criteria and were included. All but one were single center studies. All studies were either retrospective or prospective case series. Overall, studies generally reported low complication rates and good functional outcomes. Postoperative outcomes were most frequently measured with the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle (AOFAS) score; the overall mean preoperative AOFAS scores of 55.7 significantly improved to 88.1 at final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

No definitive consensus exists on how Lisfranc instability without concurrent osteoarthritis should be surgically managed. Despite the delay in diagnosis, patients who undergo surgical repair for chronic, unstable Lisfranc injury without osteoarthritis have improved patient outcome and few post-surgical complications. While the quality of these studies is satisfactory, a larger patient cohort and prospective analysis could further strengthen arguments for or against certain surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Systematic Review of Level IV Studies.

Undisplaced subtle ligamentous Lisfranc injuries, conservative or surgical treatment with percutaneous position screws?

PURPOSE

Undisplaced subtle ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are easy to miss or underestimate, and many cases are treated without surgical fixation. It has not yet widely known whether conservative treatment for undisplaced subtle ligamentous Lisfranc injuries may lead to a poor outcome. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of conservative versus surgical management (percutaneous position screw) of undisplaced subtle ligamentous Lisfranc injury.

METHODS

We analysed 61 cases in this retrospective study, including 38 males and 23 females. Forty-one patients were managed conservatively, while 20 patients received surgical treatment involving minimal invasive percutaneous position screw. American orthopaedic foot &ankle society (AOFAS), foot function index (FFI, including FFI disability, FFI pain score and activity limitation scale) scores, Maryland foot score and short form-36 (SF-36) were recorded and compared after a follow-up of 10-16 months (average 12.3).

RESULTS

Patients in the surgical management group had higher scores in all evaluation methods (p < 0.05). The complications in the conservative management group had higher incidence, mainly including secondary diastasis (34.1% vs. 5.0%), joint stiffness after 3 months (82.9% vs. 0%), and secondary arthrodesis (12.2% vs. 0%). The highest rate of complication in surgical management group was temporary forefoot pain (55.0%).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the outcomes of the surgical management with percutaneous position screw fixation are better than the conservative management to treat undisplaced subtle ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. This study can serve as a resource for orthopaedic surgeons in recognizing and managing such injuries.

Lisfranc Joint Ligament Complex Reconstruction: A Promising Solution for Missed, Delayed, or Chronic Lisfranc Injury Without Arthritis

The current classifications of "Lisfranc injury" can be purely ligamentous (low-grade midfoot sprains) or involve the osseous and articular structures (high-grade Lisfranc fracture displacements). The first type is often difficult to detect. If these patients are not properly treated, long-term disability can result. The rate of missed or delayed diagnoses has ranged from 13% to 24%, primarily owing to the subtlety of the radiographic findings. This is relatively more common in cases of subtle ligamentous injury (19%). The aim of the present report was to provide a new technique for missed or delayed Lisfranc injury without degenerative local signs. The Lisfranc ligament complex reconstruction is performed with a gracilis tendon graft and is protected by temporary screw fixation. We performed this technique in 3 patients. All 3 patients obtained good results, have been able to resume their previous activities, and have stated they would undergo this type of procedure again. The minimum follow-up length was 2 years.