Lisfranc injuries

The Use of Knotless Suture Tape Construct vs Screw Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries are often treated with open reduction and internal fixation using rigid fixation techniques. The use of flexible fixation to stabilize the Lisfranc joint is a newer technique. The purpose of this cadaveric study is to compare the amount of diastasis at the Lisfranc interval under diminished physiologic loads when treated with a knotless suture tape construct and a solid screw.

METHODS

Ten cadavers (20 feet) had native motion at the intact Lisfranc interval assessed at multiple increasing loads (69, 138, and 207 N). The Lisfranc ligamentous complex was then disrupted, and testing repeated to evaluate the amount of diastasis. Randomization was performed to determine the type of fixation for each cadaver: solid screw or knotless suture tape construct. Once fixation was completed, specimens were cyclically loaded for 10 000 cycles at loads, and diastasis was quantified after each load cycle to compare the interventions. Diastasis was measured using motion tracking cameras and retroreflective marker sets. A non-inferiority statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Diastasis mean values were confirmed to be >2 mm for all load bearing conditions in the injury model. Posttreatment, diastasis was significantly reduced when compared to the sectioned conditions (P < .01) for both treatment options. Non-inferiority analyses showed that the knotless suture tape construct did not perform inferior to screw fixation for diastasis at the Lisfranc interval at any of the compared load states.

CONCLUSION

Under the loads tested, there is no significant difference in diastasis at the Lisfranc interval when treating ligamentous Lisfranc injuries with a knotless suture tape construct or solid screws. Both reduced diastasis from the injured state and were not different from the intact state.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In this cadaveric model with ligamentous Lisfranc injury, diastasis of a knotless suture tape construct is compared to solid screw fixation as tested.

Statistical Fragility Analysis of Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis to Treat Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of consensus in the use of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) vs primary arthrodesis (PA) in the management of Lisfranc injuries. Statistical fragility represents the number of events needed to flip statistical significance and provides context to interpret P values of outcomes from conflicting studies. The current study evaluates the statistical fragility of existing research with an outcome-specific approach to provide statistical clarity to the ORIF vs PA discussion. We hypothesized that statistical fragility analysis would offer clinically relevant insight when interpreting conflicting outcomes regarding ORIF vs PA management of Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

All comparative studies, RCTs, and case-series investigating ORIF vs PA management of Lisfranc injuries published through October 5, 2023, were identified. Descriptive characteristics, dichotomous outcomes, and continuous outcomes were extracted. Fragility index and continuous fragility index were calculated by the number of event reversals needed to alter significance. Outcomes were categorized by clinical relevance, and median FI and CFI were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 244 studies were screened. Ten studies and 67 outcomes (44 dichotomous, 23 continuous) were included in the fragility analysis. Of the 10 studies, 4 studies claimed PA to correlate with superior outcomes compared to ORIF with regard to functional scores and return to function outcomes. Of these 4 studies, 3 were statistically robust. Six studies claimed PA and ORIF to have no differences in outcomes, in which only 2 studies were statistically robust.

CONCLUSION

The overall research regarding ORIF vs PA is relatively robust compared with other orthopaedic areas of controversy. Although the full statistical context of each article must be considered, studies supporting PA superiority with regard to functional scores and return to function metrics were found to be statistically robust. Outcome-specific analysis revealed moderate fragility in several clinically relevant outcomes such as functional score, return to function, and wound complications.

Effects of rigid and kinesio taping on plantar pressure distribution in patients with Lisfranc fracture sequelae

BACKGROUND

Patients with Lisfranc fractures may regain functional status after anatomical fixation, but they may experience sequelae such as flatfoot deformity and pain associated with foot pressure distribution during weight-bearing.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the impact of Lisfranc fracture sequelae on both the injured and uninjured sides, and how does the antipronation taping affect plantar pressure distribution parameters?

METHODS

Twenty-six patients who underwent anatomical fixation for Lisfranc fracture, displaying pronation on the injured side based on the Foot Posture Index-6 test, as well as 15 healthy subjects, participated in this study. Plantar pressure distribution measurements were conducted during barefoot walking for the healthy subjects. In the patient group, measurements were taken under two antipronation taping conditions (kinesio and rigid taping), as well as during barefoot walking.

RESULTS

Participants who received anatomical fixation after Lisfranc fracture exhibited significant alterations in plantar pressure distribution parameters on both the injured and uninjured sides, as compared to the control group. After the application of Kinesio Taping to the injured side, there was no significant change observed in the plantar pressure distribution values (p > 0.05). The analysis of the rigid taping on the injured side revealed statistically worse values in peak pressure of the hindfoot (p = 0.027) and maximum force of the midfoot and toes (p = 0.005 and p = 0.013, respectively) compared to the injured barefoot condition.

SIGNIFICANCE

Lisfranc fracture sequelae affected plantar pressure distribution on both injured and uninjured sides. Anti-pronation taping (kinesio and rigit), commonly used for foot conditions, did not lead to foot pressure distribution becoming more similar to that of the control group.

Dorsal Dislocation of Intermediate Cuneiform With Multiple Cuneiform and Cuboid Fractures Combined With Lisfranc Injury: A Case Report

Multiple cuneiform fractures combined with isolated intermediate cuneiform dorsal dislocation and cuboid fracture, with disruption of the Lisfranc ligament, are rare injuries. In this study, we present a polytrauma patient who sustained these injuries, his treatment course, and the follow-up period. The patient was operated on the day of the injury and six months after that the results are very satisfactory.

Lisfranc Sports Injuries: What Do We Know So Far?

Lisfranc sports injuries include tarsometatarsal joint injuries, which may be accompanied by fractures. They most commonly occur due to a blow or axial force. The aim of this review is to assess the current standards for surgical intervention in Lisfranc injuries resulting from sports-related accidents. This evaluation will cover the timing of treatment, the recovery process, and the appropriate timing for a return to normal sporting activities. This research was done via an analytical review of current literature. Methods included a structured search strategy on PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The collated literature was processed using formal inclusion or exclusion, data extraction, and validity assessment. Joint involvement and severity were taken into account while classifying Lisfranc injuries. The primary fixation and fusion techniques for Lisfranc injuries were compared, and the surgical management of these injuries was examined in all of the literature. Treatment recovery times were examined, and the results were talked about. A variety of injuries, from minor sprains to serious fractures and rips, make up Lisfranc injuries. Although open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in combination with primary arthrodesis (PA) is now thought to be the optimum course of treatment, its acceptance has increased. Patients with Lisfranc injuries can usually expect excellent outcomes and the return of joint function to its pre-injury form if the injury is appropriately assessed and treated. Lisfranc injuries are manageable and have a good recovery time if not neglected. The outcomes of management and surgical options are also quite satisfactory.

Outcomes of Surgically Treated Purely Ligamentous Stage II Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Low-energy stage II Lisfranc injuries are rare, and treatment can be operative or nonoperative based on a surgeon's assessment of midfoot stability. No previously published patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data for Lisfranc injuries isolates purely ligamentous stage II injuries. The purpose of this study was to analyze PROMs for patients who underwent operative management of stage II Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients (39 feet) with confirmed Nunley-Vertullo stage II Lisfranc injuries between May 2012 and February 2022 were identified through a retrospective chart review. PROMs that were analyzed were the visual analog scale (VAS) pain scale, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Thirty-two open reduction internal fixations (ORIFs) and 7 fusions were performed. The mean latest follow-up was 44.6 (range, 12-92) months. There were 2 complications (5%, 2/39) that required a revision procedure. Twenty-six patients (67%, 26/39) underwent secondary surgery to remove retained hardware. The mean time to hardware removal was 3.97 (range, 2.70-7.47) months. The overall mean patient satisfaction score with overall medical care including clinical visits and interactions with medical staff personnel was 93.6/100. All PROMs (VAS, VR-12, FAAM) demonstrated statistically significant improvement (P < .05) from preoperative (injury) values to latest follow-up postinjury values.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were treated surgically with stage II purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries via the methods used were found to mostly undergo hardware removal and have high levels of overall satisfaction with their process of medical care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

Lisfranc Injury: Recent Trends in Management

Lisfranc injury refers to a group of bony or ligamentous injuries in which one or more of the metatarsals are displaced with respect to the tarsus. These injuries can occur as a result of either high-energy trauma like motor vehicle accidents and falls from height, or low-energy trauma from sports activities. A significant proportion of Lisfranc injuries are missed initially. The effects of delayed and missed diagnosed cases can be devastating as patients may develop progressive midfoot instability, collapse of arch, abduction of forefoot, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis, which can cause chronic pain, stiffness, and foot and ankle complex dysfunction. Favourable outcomes are associated with early diagnosis and prompt treatment. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with arthrodesis has better results than ORIF alone in functional outcomes. Dorsal bridge plates are currently the preferred mode of fixation due to advantages over trans-articular screws.

Nonoperative management of lisfranc injuries - A systematic review of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Historically, most Lisfranc injuries have been considered to be unstable and treated with surgical intervention. However, with better access to cross-sectional imaging, stable injury patterns are starting to be recognised. The aims of the current study were to perform a systematic review of outcomes of Lisfranc injuries treated non-operatively.

METHODS

A literature review was performed of studies reporting nonoperative management of Lisfranc injuries (PROSPERO registered and following PRISMA guidelines). Following exclusions, 8 papers were identified: 1 prospective and 7 retrospective studies. A total of 220 patients were studied with a mean age of 39.8 years and a mean follow-up of 4.3 years. Outcomes included function, displacement, and rates of surgery.

RESULTS

High heterogeneity was observed with variable outcomes. Four papers reported good outcomes, with adjusted functional scores ranging from 82.6 to 100 (out of 100). However, one study reported late displacement in 54 % of patients. Rates of secondary osteoarthritis ranged from 5 % to 38 %. Rates of surgical intervention were as high as 56 %. Several studies compared operative to non-operative treatment, reporting superior outcomes with surgery. Those injuries with no displacement on CT, measured at the medial cuneiform-second metatarsal had the best outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Reported outcomes following nonoperative treatment of Lisfranc injuries vary widely, including high rates of conversion to surgery. In contrast, some studies have reported excellent functional outcomes. CT seems to be an important diagnostic tool in defining a stable injury. Due to limited data and lack of a clear definition of a stable injury or treatment protocol, prospective research is needed to determine which Lisfranc injuries can be safely treated nonoperatively.

Kinematic Analysis of Sequential Partial-Midfoot Arthrodesis in Simulated Gait Cadaver Model

BACKGROUND

Primary tarsometatarsal (TMT) arthrodesis is gaining popularity in the surgical treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, few studies have evaluated biomechanical effects of TMT arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the kinematics of joints adjacent to the midfoot during simulations of stance before and after sequential arthrodesis of the first, second, and third TMT joints.

METHODS

Ten midtibia cadaveric specimens were loaded on a 6-degree-of-freedom robotic gait simulator. Motion capture cameras were used to collect joint kinematics throughout simulations of the stance phase. Simulations were performed for the intact and sequential arthrodesis conditions of the first, second, and third TMT joints. The sagittal, coronal, and transverse plane rotational kinematics of the intact condition were compared to kinematics after each sequential arthrodesis condition.

RESULTS

Sequential arthrodesis of the first and second TMT joints had no significant effect on ankle, subtalar, talonavicular, and first metatarsophalangeal joint motion during simulated stance when compared to the intact condition. In contrast, inclusion of the third TMT joint into the sequential arthrodesis significantly increased subtalar inversion (P = .032) in late stance and increased range of motion values in the ankle and subtalar joints by 2.1 degrees (P = .009) and 2.8 degrees (P = .014), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sequential primary arthrodesis induced changes to ankle and adjacent joint kinematics during stance phase simulations, although not until the third TMT joint was included into the primary arthrodesis. The significant changes to kinematics due to arthrodesis of the first, second, and third TMT joints were small.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The minimal changes in sagittal, coronal, and transverse plane rotational kinematics support the positive clinical outcomes reported in the literature for primary partial arthrodesis of Lisfranc injuries. The inclusion of the third TMT joint should be done judiciously.

Arthrodesis or Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Meta-analysis

The purpose of this study is to determine if arthrodesis, compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), produces favorable American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and to determine if differences in complication, revision surgery, and secondary arthrodesis rates exist for patients with Lisfranc fracture/dislocation injuries. Searches were performed in PubMed using the keywords "Lisfranc fracture," "metatarsal fracture," "ORIF," "open reduction internal fixation," "arthrodesis," and "fusion." These criteria left 183 articles for review. Exclusions left 21 articles and 2 translations of Chinese abstracts. Data analysis was performed using Student's 2-sample t test for samples of equal variance, and chi-square test for goodness of fit. The t test revealed a significant difference (P = .03) between the average AOFAS score for patients who underwent primary arthrodesis (84.7 ± 6.14) compared with those who were treated with ORIF (78.9 ± 5.09). There was no significant difference for the average VAS scores (P = .33) of the arthrodesis and ORIF groups. The complication rate of arthrodesis patients was significantly lower than ORIF patients (P = .04), and the rates of revision surgery (P = .22) and secondary arthrodesis (P = .53) were not significant between the groups. The results of this study indicate that arthrodesis may be a better surgical option than ORIF, due to the higher functional scores and the lower complication rate.Levels of Evidence: Level III: A meta-analysis.

The Lisfranc Injury: A Literature Review of Anatomy, Etiology, Evaluation, and Management

Despite being first described in the 1800s, the Lisfranc injury remains one of the most controversial topics in foot and ankle surgery. From the basic anatomy of the ligament complex to the optimal diagnostic and management methods, new research both sharpens and yet confounds our understanding of this unique injury. This article reviews the literature from established and classic papers to recent studies evaluating newer techniques. We discuss the unique bony and ligamentous anatomy, which confer strength to the Lisfranc complex, the typical mechanisms of injury, the most common classification systems, the clinical presentation, current imaging modalities, and conservative and surgical treatment options. We review studies comparing open reduction and internal fixation with primary arthrodesis of acute injuries, in addition to studies evaluating the various methods for obtaining fixation, including intra-articular screws, dorsal plates, and flexible fixation. It is clear from this review that despite the vast number of studies in the literature, much is still to be learned about the diagnosis and management of this challenging injury.Levels of Evidence: Level V: Expert opinion.

Case Study: The Conservative Management of a Complex Mid Foot Injury in an Elite Professional Footballer

Lisfranc injuries, often accompanied with tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) disruption, are not well documented in football despite becoming increasingly more prevalent within other athletic populations. Currently there is a paucity of evidence documenting prognosis, rehabilitation strategy and outcome. The presented case summarizes the conservative rehabilitation and return to play of a 26-year-old elite professional footballer who presented with a Lisfranc injury alongside a 3^rd TMTJ coalition stress response. Injury was sustained when landing awkwardly from a jump causing the midfoot to be forced into a hyper-plantarflexed position. Palpation identified tenderness over the 2^nd and 3^rd MT, with a positive piano key test. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), stork view x-ray and review from a leading foot and ankle specialist confirmed diagnosis, post-contradictory MRI results. Presented is a summary of the assessment process, conservative management of the injury and the resultant rehabilitation process followed, which led to the successful return to play of the athlete.

Updates on Lisfranc Complex Injuries

Lisfranc injuries are a disruption of one or more of the tarsometatarsal joints and have an estimated incidence of 1/55 000 people. However, the total number of Lisfranc injuries could be underreported, because almost 20% of these injuries are initially missed. Because of the relative infrequency of these injuries, the current literature is inconsistent in regard to proper treatment. This article provides a review of Lisfranc complex injuries including relevant anatomy, diagnosis, treatment, classifications, operative approaches, and outcomes and complications. Based on existing evidence, it also proposes an algorithm the authors prefer for the evaluation and treatment of Lisfranc complex injuries.

Comparison of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction with internal fixation for Lisfranc injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Multiple studies have compared primary arthrodesis versus open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) for surgical treatment of fractures of the Lisfranc joint, but their results have been inconsistent. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical efficacy of arthrodesis versus ORIF for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries.

Methods

Through searching the Embase, PubMed, PMC, CINAHL, PQDT, and Cochrane Library databases (from July 1998 to July 2018), we identified five case-controlled trials and two randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical efficacy of primary arthrodesis and ORIF for treating Lisfranc injuries. The extracted data were analyzed using Review manager 5.3 software.

Results

Through comparisons of data for primary arthrodesis and ORIF groups, we found no significant differences in the anatomic reduction rate, revision surgery rate, and total rate of complications between the different treatment approaches. However, arthrodesis was associated with a significantly better American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, return to duty rate, and visual analog scale score with a lower incidence of hardware removal compared with ORIF.

Conclusions

For the treatment for Lisfranc injuries, primary arthrodesis was superior to ORIF based on a higher AOFAS score, better return to duty rate, lower postoperative pain, and lower requirement for internal fixation removal. Further evidence from future randomized controlled trials with higher quality and larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of Suture-Augmented Ligamentplasty to Transarticular Screws in a Lisfranc Cadaveric Model

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries represent a spectrum of trauma from high-energy lesions, with significant instability of the midfoot, to low-energy lesions, with subtle subluxations or instability without gross displacement. Recently, treatment options that allow for physiologic fixation of this multiplanar joint are being evaluated. The purpose of this study was to analyze the stability of a cadaveric Lisfranc injury model fixed with a novel suture-augmented neoligamentplasty in comparison with a traditional transarticular screw fixation construct.

METHODS

Twenty-four fresh-frozen, matched cadaveric leg and foot specimens (12 individuals younger than 65 years of age) were used for this study. Two different types of Lisfranc ligament injuries were tested: partial and complete. Two different methods of fixation were compared: transarticular screws and augmented suture ligamentplasty with FiberTape. Specimens were fixed to a rotation platform in order to stress the joints while applying 400 N of axial load and internal and external rotation. Six distances were measured and compared between the intact, injured, and fixed states with a 3D Digitizer arm, in order to evaluate the stability between them. Analysis of variance was used with P < .05 considered significant.

RESULTS

Using distribution graphs and analyzing the grouped data, it was observed that there was no difference between the 2 stabilization methods, but the augmented suture ligamentplasty presented lower variability and observed distance shortenings were more likely to be around the mean. The variability of the stabilization with screws was 2.9 times higher than that with tape (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

We suggest that augmented suture ligamentplasty can achieve similar stability to classic transarticular screws, with less variability.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This cadaveric study adds new information on the debate about Lisfranc lesions treatment. Flexible fixations, such as the synthethic ligamentplasty used, can restore good stability such as conventional transarticular screws.

Effect of different fusion types on kinematics of midfoot lateral column: a comparative biomechanical study

Background

This study aimed to compare the biomechanical outcomes of the isolated 4^th or 5^th tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint arthrodesis with the whole lateral TMT joints arthrodesis.

Methods

Ten cadaveric lower legs underwent isolated 4^th TMT joint arthrodesis, 5^th TMT joint arthrodesis, and whole lateral TMT joints arthrodesis in sequence. Texson F-scan and K-scanTM joint sensor were used to test the medial and lateral plantar pressure and the pressure of calcaneocuboid joint.

Results

Compared with the intact foot, the lateral forefoot pressure increased significantly (P<0.05) after 4^th TMT joint fusion. The medial forefoot pressure was significantly lower in the 5^th TMT joint fusion than that in the intact foot (P<0.05) and the 4^th TMT joint fusion (P<0.05), but higher than that in the whole lateral TMT joints fusion (P<0.05). On the contrary, the lateral forefoot pressure was significantly higher in the 5^th TMT joint fusion than that in the intact foot and the 4^th TMT joint fusion, but lower than that in the whole lateral TMT joints fusion (P<0.05). The medial forefoot pressure was the lowest (P<0.05) and lateral forefoot pressure was the highest (P<0.05) in the whole lateral TMT joints fusion. The calcaneocuboid joint pressure increased respectively with the intact foot being the lowest, followed by the isolated 4^th TMT joint arthrodesis, the isolated 5^th TMT joint arthrodesis, and the whole lateral TMT joints arthrodesis (P<0.05).

Conclusions

The isolated 4^th or 5^th TMT joint arthrodesis has less impact on the pressure of forefoot and adjacent joints than the whole lateral TMT joints arthrodesis. The isolated 4^th TMT joint arthrodesis has the lowest influence on the pressure of forefoot and adjacent joints.

Percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc injuries

Lisfranc injuries may occur in the form of fracture-dislocations or pure ligamentous dislocations or subluxations. These innocuous appearing injuries have the potential for significant morbidity and long-term sequelae resulting in permanent deformities. Ligamentous subluxations account for 20% of these injuries and cases with partial incongruity are amenable to percutaneous fixation. In this article, we present step-by-step percutaneous fixation of these injuries as well as the post-operative management.

Return to sport following Lisfranc injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Information regarding return rates (RR) and mean return times (RT) to sport following Lisfranc injuries remains limited.

METHODS

A systematic search of nine major databases was performed to identify all studies which recorded RR or RT to sport following lisfranc injuries.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included (n=366). For undisplaced (Stage 1) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=35), RR was 100% and RT was 4.0 (0-15) wks. For stable minimally-displaced (Stage 2) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=16), RR was 100% and RT was 9.1 (4-14) wks. For the operatively-managed injuries, Percutaneous Reduction Internal Fixation (PRIF) (n=42), showed significantly better RR and RT compared to both: Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) (n=139) (RR - 98% vs 78%, p<0.019; RT - 11.6 wks vs 19.6 wks, p<0.001); and Primary Partial Arthrodesis (PPA) (n=85) (RR - 98% vs 85%, p<0.047; RT - 11.6 wks vs 22.0 wks, p<0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Stage 1 and stable Stage 2 Lisfranc injuries show good results with nonoperative management. PRIF offers the best RR and RT from the operative methods, though this may not be possible with high-energy injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV. Systematic Review of Level I to Level IV Studies.

Reoperation Rate Differences Between Open Reduction Internal Fixation and Primary Arthrodesis of Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists as to whether Lisfranc injuries are best treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) versus primary arthrodesis (PA). Reoperation rates certainly influence this debate, but prior studies are often confounded by inclusion of hardware removal as a complication rather than as a planned, staged procedure inherent to ORIF. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether reoperation rates, excluding planned hardware removal, differ between ORIF and PA. A secondary aim was to evaluate patient risk factors associated with reoperation after operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Between July 1991 and July 2016, adult patients who sustained closed, isolated Lisfranc injuries with or without fractures and who underwent ORIF or PA with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were analyzed. Reoperation rates for reasons other than planned hardware removal were examined, as were patient risk factors predictive of reoperation. Two hundred seventeen patients met enrollment criteria (mean follow-up, 62.5 ± 43.1 months; range, 12-184), of which 163 (75.1%) underwent ORIF and 54 (24.9%) underwent PA.

RESULTS

Overall and including planned procedures, patients treated with ORIF had a significantly higher rate of return to the operation room (75.5%) as compared to those in the PA group (31.5%, P < .001). When excluding planned hardware removal, however, there was no difference in reoperation rates between the 2 groups (29.5% in the ORIF group and 29.6% in the PA group, P = 1). Risk factors correlating with unplanned return to the operation room included deep infection ( P = .009-.001), delayed wound healing ( P = .008), and high-energy trauma ( P = .01).

CONCLUSION

When excluding planned removal of hardware, patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with ORIF did not demonstrate a higher rate of reoperation compared with those undergoing PA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.