Age, sex, causal and injury patterns in tarsometatarsal dislocations: a literature review of over 2000 cases

Management of Lisfranc Injuries: A Critical Analysis Review

»

There is a spectrum of midtarsal injuries, ranging from mild midfoot sprains to complex Lisfranc fracture-dislocations.

»

Use of appropriate imaging can reduce patient morbidity, by reducing the number of missed diagnoses and, conversely, avoiding overtreatment. Weight-bearing radiographs are of great value when investigating the so-called subtle Lisfranc injury.

»

Regardless of the operative strategy, anatomical reduction and stable fixation is a prerequisite for a satisfactory outcome in the management of displaced injuries.

»

Fixation device removal is less frequently reported after primary arthrodesis compared with open reduction and internal fixation based on 6 published meta-analyses. However, the indications for further surgery are often unclear, and the evidence of the included studies is of typically low quality. Further high-quality prospective randomized trials with robust cost-effectiveness analyses are required in this area.

»

We have proposed an investigation and treatment algorithm based on the current literature and clinical experience of our trauma center.

Arthrodesis in Acute and Chronic Lisfranc's Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Injury to Lisfranc's joint complex affects the longitudinal and transverse arches of the foot and can significantly alter its biomechanics. Some of the previous studies have suggested primary arthrodesis to be superior to open reduction and internal fixation for treating primarily ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. Additionally, arthrodesis is often used for treating chronic Lisfranc injuries, including those which previously underwent open reduction and internal fixation and subsequently developed arthrosis. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the outcomes of arthrodesis at the level of Lisfranc's articulation for both acute and chronic injuries. Patients who underwent midfoot arthrodesis surgical procedures between years 2001 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. About 187 patients with an average age of 55.9 ± 13.2 years old and a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included in the study. Median time to return to preoperative activities was 11 weeks. Overall successful joint fusion rate was 81.4%. However, concomitantly fused joints of the midfoot and hindfoot, in addition to the tarsometatarsal joints (TMTJ), were included in the overall fusion rate. Fusion rate at the first TMTJ was 90.2% (101 out of 112), second TMTJ was 94.4% (67 out of 71), and third TMTJ was 97.8% (45 out of 46). The present study demonstrates that patients who undergo arthrodesis for both acute and chronic Lisfranc injuries typically can return to activity in under approximately 3 months postoperatively (acute patients significantly faster) with a high union rate at the TMTJs. However, the overall union rate is significantly lower when concomitant proximal midfoot and rearfoot arthrodesis procedures are performed.

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.

Sports-Related Lisfranc Injuries and Recognition of Lisfranc Variants: Surgical Strategies for Stabilization

Much has changed since Lisfranc described lesions at the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint in 1815. What was considered an osseous high-energy condition nowadays is understood as myriad possible presentations, occurring in minor and inconspicuous traumas. Advancements in diagnostics of Lisfranc injury allow recognizing many variants of this trauma presentation, most of them with a focus on ligaments. This perception shifted trends in surgical planning, especially for implants and fixation techniques. These revolutions established a new and evolving universe around TMT lesions, different from what was known only a few years ago and still not enough to completely settle the disease scenario.

Optimizing Return to Play for Common and Controversial Foot and Ankle Sports Injuries

»

Surgical decision-making should consider factors to help optimize return to play for athletes with foot and ankle injuries, including injuries to the syndesmosis, the Achilles tendon, the fifth metatarsal, and the Lisfranc complex. Understanding influential factors on return to play may help orthopaedic surgeons counsel athletes and coaches on expectations for a timeline to return to play and performance metrics.

»

Outcomes after rigid and flexible fixation for syndesmotic injuries are generally favorable. Some data support an earlier return to sport and higher functional scores with flexible fixation, in addition to lower rates of reoperation and a decreased incidence of malreduction, particularly with deltoid repair, if indicated.

»

Minimally invasive techniques for Achilles tendon repair have been shown to have a decreased risk of wound complications. Athletes undergoing Achilles repair should expect to miss a full season of play to recover.

»

Athletes with fifth metatarsal fractures have better return-to-play outcomes with surgical management and can expect a high return-to-play rate within approximately 3 months of surgery.

»

Percutaneous treatment of Lisfranc injuries may expedite return to play relative to open procedures.

Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries: When to Fix and When to Fuse

Lisfranc injuries can be devastating to the athlete and nonathlete. In the athletic population, minor loss of midfoot stability compromises the high level of function demanded of the lower extremity. The most critical aspect of treatment is identifying the injury and severity of the ligamentous/articular damage. Not all athletes are able to return to their previous level of function. With appropriate treatment, a Lisfranc injury does not mandate the cessation of an athletic career. We focus on the diagnosis and an algorithmic approach to treatment in the athlete discussion the controversy of open reduction and internal fixation versus arthrodesis.

Biomechanical comparison of fixation stability using a Lisfranc plate versus transarticular screws

BACKGROUND

To obtain adequate fixation in treating Lisfranc soft tissue injuries, the joint is commonly stabilized using multiple transarticular screws; however iatrogenic injury is a concern. Alternatively, two parallel, longitudinally placed plates, can be used to stabilize the 1st and 2nd tarsometatarsal joints; however this may not provide adequate stability along the Lisfranc ligament. Several biomechanical studies have compared earlier methods of fixation using plates to the standard transarticular screw fixation method, highlighting the potential issue of transverse stability using plates. A novel dorsal plate is introduced, intended to provide transverse and longitudinal stability, without injury to the articular cartilage.

METHODS

A biomechanical cadaver model was developed to compare the fixation stability of a novel Lisfranc plate to that of traditional fixation, using transarticular screws. Thirteen pairs of cadaveric specimens were tested intact, after a simulated Lisfranc injury, and then following implant fixation, using one method of fixation randomly assigned, on either side of each pair. Optical motion tracking was used to measure the motion between each of the following four bones: 1st metatarsal, 2nd metatarsal, 1st cuneiform, and 2nd cuneiform. Testing included both cyclic abduction loading and cyclic axial loading.

RESULTS

Both the Lisfranc plate and screw fixation method provided stability such that the average 3D motions across the Lisfranc joint (between 2nd metatarsal and 1st cuneiform), were between 0.2 and 0.4mm under cyclic abduction loading, and between 0.4 and 0.5mm under cyclic axial loading. Comparing the stability of fixation between the Lisfranc plate and the screws, the differences in motion were all 0.3mm or lower, with no clinically significant differences (p>0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Diastasis at the Lisfranc joint following fixation with a novel plate or transarticular screw fixation were comparable. Therefore, the Lisfranc plate may provide adequate support without risk of iatrogenic injury to the articular cartilage.

Incidence and Characteristics of Midfoot Injuries

BACKGROUND:

The epidemiology of midfoot injuries is poorly known. It has been estimated that the incidence of Lisfranc injuries (intra-articular injury in the tarsometatarsal joint) is 1/55 000 person-years and the incidence of Chopart injuries (intra-articular injury in the talonavicular and calcaneocuboidal joint) 4/100 000 person-years. The purpose of our study was to assess the computed tomography (CT) imaging-based incidence (per 100 000 person-years) and trauma mechanisms of midfoot injuries.

METHODS:

All CT studies performed due to acute injury of the foot and ankle region between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, at Tampere University Hospital were reviewed. Patients presenting with an injury in the midfoot region in the CT scan were included in this study, and their records were retrospectively evaluated to assess patient characteristics.

RESULTS:

During the 5-year study period, 953 foot and ankle CT scans were obtained because of an acute injury of the foot and ankle. Altogether, 464 foot injuries were found. Of these, 307 affected the midfoot area: 233 (75.9%) the Lisfranc joint area, 56 (18.2%) the Chopart joint area, and 18 (5.9%) were combined injuries or miscellaneous injuries in the midfoot. The incidence of all midfoot injuries was 12.1/100 000 person-years. The incidence of Lisfranc injuries was 9.2/100 000 person-years. The incidence of Chopart injuries was 2.2/100 000 person-years.

CONCLUSIONS:

The incidence of Lisfranc injuries was higher and the incidence of Chopart injuries lower than previously estimated. More than two-thirds of the midfoot injuries in this study were nondisplaced (<2 mm displacement in fracture or joint) and were caused by low-energy trauma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Level III, epidemiologic study.

Radiographic Anatomy of the Pediatric Lisfranc Joint

BACKGROUND

Injuries to the Lisfranc joint in children and adolescents are rare. The incomplete ossification of the bones of the foot makes it difficult to detect injuries.The aim of this study was to determine age-specific radiographic measurements of the Lisfranc joint to provide guidance to the radiologist, emergency physicians, and surgeons to decrease misdiagnosis of Lisfranc injuries and improve detection.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all foot radiographs without traumatic injury made between August 2014 and February 2015 in all patients younger than 18. The attendance list of the Emergency Department and Outpatient Clinic of a level-1 trauma center were used. Using a non-weight-bearing anteroposterior-view of the foot the distance between the base of metatarsal 1 and metatarsal 2 (MT1-MT2) and the distance between the medial cuneiform (MC) and the base of metatarsal 2 (MC-MT2) were measured. Median normal values were calculated per age.

RESULTS

A total of 352 patients between the age of 0 and 18 years were screened for eligibility. Excluded were 109 patients because of anatomic abnormality, a fracture, inadequate radiograph, pain at the base of the first metatarsal, second metatarsal or MC, persisting pain at the Outpatient Clinic checkup or no follow-up. Included in the analysis were 243 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The distance between the base of MT1-MT2 was constant below 3 mm. Measurements for both MT1-MT2 and MC-MT2 distance approached adult values at the age of 6.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Injury Characteristics of Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries Compared With High-Energy Injuries

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries result from high- and low-energy mechanisms though the literature has been more focused on high-energy mechanisms. A comparison of high-energy (HE) and low-energy (LE) injury patterns is lacking. The objective of this study was to report injury patterns in LE Lisfranc joint injuries and compare them to HE injury patterns.

METHODS

Operative Lisfranc injuries were identified over a 5-year period. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, injury pattern, associated injuries, missed diagnoses, clinical course, and imaging studies were reviewed and compared. HE mechanism was defined as motor vehicle crash, motorcycle crash, direct crush, and fall from greater than 4 feet and LE mechanism as athletic activity, ground level twisting, or fall from less than 4 feet. Thirty-two HE and 48 LE cases were identified with 19.3 months of average follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no differences in demographics or missed diagnosis frequency (21% HE vs 18% LE). Time to seek care was not significantly different. HE injuries were more likely to have concomitant nonfoot fractures (37% vs 6%), concomitant foot fractures (78% vs 4%), cuboid fractures (31% vs 6%), metatarsal base fractures (84% vs 29%), displaced intra-articular fractures (59% vs 4%), and involvement of all 5 rays (23% vs 6%). LE injuries were more commonly ligamentous (68% vs 16%), with fewer rays involved (2.7 vs 4.1).

CONCLUSIONS

LE mechanisms were a more common cause of Lisfranc joint injury in this cohort. These mechanisms generally resulted in an isolated, primarily ligamentous injury sparing the lateral column. Both types had high rates of missed injury that could result in delayed treatment. Differences in injury patterns could help direct future research to optimize treatment algorithms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, comparative series.

Lisfranc Injuries in the Athlete

Lisfranc injuries to the tarsometatarsal complex of the midfoot have become increasingly recognized in the athletic population. Regardless of mechanism, any injury that results in instability in the midfoot requires operative stabilization to preserve function and enable return to sport. In this manuscript, the anatomy, etiology, prevalence, current treatment modalities, and clinical outcomes of patients who suffer Lisfranc injuries are reviewed, with a special focus on the unique characteristics surrounding such an injury in an athlete.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Acute forefoot and midfoot injuries

Forefoot and midfoot injuries in the athlete are common. Injuries of the digits include subungual hematomas and fractures. Metatarsal fractures occur frequently in sports, and their treatments range greatly. Hyperflexion and extension injuries about the first metatarsophalangeal joint can be very debilitating. Midfoot sprains and fractures require a high index of suspicion for diagnosis.

Etiology and Biomechanics of Tarsometatarsal Injuries in Professional Football Players: A Video Analysis

Background:

Tarsometatarsal (TMT) dislocations are uncommon yet debilitating athletic injuries, particularly in American football. To date, the mechanisms of athletic TMT dislocation have been described only anecdotally. This lack of information confounds the development of preventative countermeasures.

Purpose:

To use video analysis to provide direct, independent identification of the etiologic and mechanistic variables responsible for TMT dislocations in professional football players.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Sixteen professional National Football League players who sustained publicly reported TMT dislocations were identified. Publicly broadcast game footage of the plays in which injury occurred was reviewed by a panel of 5 biomechanists. Consensus was reached regarding the details surrounding injury, and a weighting was assigned to each detail based on the panel’s confidence.

Results:

Roughly 90% of injuries occurred while the injured player was engaged with or by another player, a detail that has heretofore been undocumented. Few injuries resulted from direct loading of either the foot or the ipsilateral limb; however, the injured foot was frequently subjected to axial loading from ground engagement with the foot in plantar flexion and the toes dorsiflexed. Injurious loading was often due to external rotation of the midfoot (86%). Fifteen of 16 injuries were season ending.

Conclusion:

TMT dislocations are frequently associated with engagement by or with a second player but infrequently caused by a direct blow to the foot. Axial loading of the foot, external rotation, and pronation/supination are the most common conditions during injurious loading.