Outcomes of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Joint-Preserving Fixation

Early Outcomes of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Arthrex InternalBrace: A Case Series

Introduction

The treatment of Lisfranc injuries continues to evolve with time. The purpose of this study was to report early outcomes of patients with Lisfranc ligamentous injuries treated with the Arthrex InternalBrace, which has benefits to other previously described techniques.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively identified 15 adult patients with Lisfranc injuries that were treated via open reduction internal fixation with the Arthrex InternalBrace (Naples, Fl). These patients were identified at two separate United States institutions between 2019 and 2022. Demographic data, mechanism of injury, and concomitant foot injuries were recorded. Outcomes were assessed by return-to-work or sport and time to weight-bearing. Secondary complications or revision surgeries were noted.

Results

The mean patient age was 35 years. Eight patients had isolated Lisfranc ligamentous injuries and seven had additional intercuneiform instability, which required a supplemental limb of the fixation device. The most common mechanism of injury was a cutting/pivoting maneuver (n = 5) followed by fall (n = 4). The mean radiographic follow-up time was 7.3 months. The average time to weight-bearing as tolerated was 6.6 weeks (± 2.2). The average time to return-to-work/sport as tolerated was 14.1 weeks (± 3.6). Only two minor complications were noted at follow-up but no major complications or revision surgeries occurred.

Conclusions

The outcomes of this case series suggest that the Arthrex InternalBrace is a viable option when performing open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc ligamentous injuries. Future prospective studies are needed to directly compare this device with alternative fixation methods.

Graphical Abstract

Screws Alone for Acute Lisfranc Injuries Fixed Without Arthrodesis: A Better "Value" Than Plating in the Short Term

This study compares outcomes of patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with screw only fixation constructs to those treated with dorsal plate and screw constructs. Seventy patients who underwent surgical treatment for acute Lisfranc injury without arthrodesis and minimum 6-month (mean >1-year) follow-up were identified. Demographics, surgical information, and radiographic imaging were reviewed. Cost data were compared. The primary outcome measure was the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Surgery (AOFAS) midfoot score. Univariate analysis through independent sample t tests, Mann-Whitney U, and chi-squared compared the populations. Twenty-three (33%) patients were treated with plate constructs and 47 (67%) with screw only fixation. The plate group was older (49 ± 18 vs 40 ± 16 years, p = .029). More screw constructs treated isolated medial column injuries compared to plate constructs (92% vs 65%, p = .006). At latest follow-up (mean 14 ± 13 months), all tarsometatarsal joints were aligned. There was no difference in AOFAS midfoot scores. Plate patients experienced longer operations (131 ± 70 vs 75 ± 31 minutes, p < .001) and tourniquet time (101 ± 41 vs 69 ± 25 minutes, p = .001). Plate constructs were more expensive than screw ($2.3X ± $2.3X vs $X ± $0.4X, p < .001) ($X is the mean cost of screws alone). Plate patients had a higher incidence of wound complications (13% vs 0%, p = .012). Treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocation injuries with screws only demonstrated a higher value procedure as similar outcomes were found amidst lower implant costs. Screw only fixation required a shorter operative and tourniquet time with less frequent wound complications. Screw only fixations proved mechanically sound enough to achieve goals of repair without inferior outcomes.

A Rare Case of a Lisfranc Ligament Transection

Ligamentous Lisfranc injuries, which mimic a surgical transection are rare. Left untreated or missed, these injuries may result in severe complications including long-term disability. The present case describes a unique mechanism of injury via a sharp object puncture through the plantar surface of the midfoot. It highlights the utility of planning staged procedures to remove a large foreign body object, reports notable intraoperative techniques, and provides a decision management guide for treating this type of injury. Extensive surgical planning may be required when encountering similar cases and knowledge of this may be useful to providers.

A Systematic Review of Outcomes Following Lisfranc Injury Fixation: Removal vs Retention of Metalwork

Background:

Following Lisfranc injury fixation, no consensus exists on whether to routinely remove metalwork. The aim of this study was to evaluate functional outcomes and complications in patients following routine removal of metalwork and in those with retained metalwork.

Methods:

A systematic review of literature (1999-2020) reporting results of metalwork removal vs retention following Lisfranc injury fixation, was undertaken. The primary outcome was functional outcomes at 1 year following index surgery. Secondary outcomes were rates of complications including unplanned removal of metalwork.

Results:

No studies directly comparing routine metalwork removal vs retention were found. A total of 28 studies reporting on 1069 patients were included. Of these, 10 studies (317 patients) reported on retention and 18 (752 patients) on routine removal of metalwork. The difference in the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score between removal and retention groups was 3.38 (95% CI 6.3-0.48), P = .02 (removal 79.97 [±16.09; 71-96]; retention 76.59 [±20.36; 65.4-94]). No difference in reported rates of infection was found between the 2 groups (0%-12% for both groups). Of the 317 patients in the retention group, metalwork was removed in 198 cases, resulting in a 62.5% unplanned removal rate.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this systematic review found limited evidence comparing different strategies of metalwork management after Lisfranc injury fixation. A randomized controlled trial is necessary to elucidate if routine removal of metalwork confers any true benefit.

Level of Evidence:

Level IV, systematic review including case series.