The surgical outcome of Lisfranc injuries accompanied by multiple metatarsal fractures: A multicenter retrospective study

Primary arthrodesis versus open reduction internal fixation for acute Lisfranc injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The presence of a Lisfranc injury alone is considered a surgical indication in most patients. Indications for primary arthrodesis (PA) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), however, is a topic of debate among surgeons. Conflicting data exists as to which treatment modality leads to improved patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), reoperations, and complications.

METHODS

Databases queried included PubMed, OVID Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov from their dates of inception to 3/21/2024. Studies were incorporated into this analysis if they had included patients with acute Lisfranc injuries and compared outcomes between PA and ORIF. PROMs, reoperations, and complications were captured. Results were reported as effect sizes (ES) and odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

There were eighteen studies included in this SRMA. Pooled data from 13/16 studies that reported AOFAS and VAS demonstrated better outcomes after PA compared to ORIF. AOFAS was 84.4 ± 28.5 after PA and 75.7 ± 29.0 after ORIF. VAS pain was 1.4 ± 2.7 after PA and 2.0 ± 3.3 after ORIF. There were 3 more studies that reported other PROMs and favored ORIF. Return to preinjury activity was 79.2% after PA and 65.7% after ORIF. The prevalence of midfoot post-traumatic arthritis was reported as 2.8% after PA and 17.3% after ORIF. Adjacent joint arthritis was not reported in the current literature. After PA, 77/438 (17.6%) patients underwent reoperations, and after ORIF, 514/802 (64.1%) patients underwent reoperations. After excluding planned hardware removals, relative rates of unplanned reoperations were 14.7% (n = 62/423) after PA and 38.3% (n = 181/472) after ORIF (p < 0.001). Non-operative complications occurred in 43/406 (10.6%) patients after PA and 95/753 (12.6%) patients after ORIF (p = 0.31). Meta-analyses demonstrated that AOFAS (ES: 0.41, CI 0.13, 0.68, p = 0.004) and VAS pain (ES: - 0.53, CI - 0.91, - 0.15, p = 0.006), and return to activity rates (OR: 2.71, CI 1.43, 6.39) favored PA over ORIF. Post-traumatic arthritis (OR: 0.29, CI 0.11, 0.77) and reoperations (OR: 0.16, CI 0.06, 0.44) were less prevalent after PA compared to ORIF.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that PA provides better short- and medium-term outcomes in the setting of Lisfranc injuries when compared to ORIF with rigid fixation. Due to a lack of available clinical studies, the long-term effects of PA are largely unknown but may include increased adjacent joint arthritis, pain, and need for further surgery-especially in young and active patients. Future research demonstrating long-term outcomes would be helpful in clinical decision making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Metatarsal fracture without Lisfranc injury

Metatarsal fractures are frequent, at one-third of all fractures in the foot. The present study reviews the field, addressing 4 questions. Isolated or associated, benign but, in case of crush injury, sometimes severe, prognosis varies and sequelae can be serious. Fatigue fracture is common, often implicating sports activity. It is important to group metatarsal fractures according to the metatarsal or metatarsals involved: first (M1), central (CM) or fifth (M5). Lesion mechanism is a determining factor in management, especially for M5 fatigue fractures. Severity is a matter of associated lesions, particularly in the tarsometatarsal joint and adjacent soft tissue, directly related to trauma kinetics and mechanism. Treatment depends on the site of the fracture, whether it is recent or old, and the severity of the causal trauma. M1 fractures can be managed non-operatively if not displaced; otherwise, internal fixation is recommended. In the CMs and distal M5, non-operative treatment gives excellent results in fractures with little or no displacement, but reduction and internal fixation should be considered for displacement exceeding 3-4 mm or angulation exceeding 10° in whatever plane. In M5, non-operative treatment is indicated for fractures in Lawrence-Botte zones 1 or 2, but particular care is needed for high-level sports players; zone 3 fractures are fatigue fractures, requiring internal fixation. High-energy trauma is associated with skin complications and infection. Surgery is also a risk factor, notably for neurologic complications. Non-union, delayed healing and iterative fracture mainly affect the base of M5, particularly in zone 3. Malunion is associated with poor prognosis due to severe functional disorder in the foot or limb. Post-traumatic osteoarthritis generally follows joint injury at M1 or a CM, or sometimes associated tarsometatarsal joint involvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V; expert opinion.

Functional Outcome and Patient Satisfaction After Primary vs Secondary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Injuries: Toward a Single-Surgery Approach

BACKGROUND

The choice between primary arthrodesis (PA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for acute Lisfranc injuries remains contentious. Apart from primary treatment, arthrodesis is often used for treating chronic Lisfranc injuries, including patients in whom initial ORIF or nonoperative treatment failed. The aim of this study was to compare PA and secondary arthrodesis (SA) in terms of complications and functional outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on trauma patients with Lisfranc injuries treated at a level 1 trauma center between July 1, 2010, and July 1, 2020. Selected patients were evaluated at the outpatient clinic and received a survey. Demographics, injury characteristics, management, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot score, Foot Function Index) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine of 37 potential patients (78.4%; PA n = 11, SA n = 18) completed the survey with a median follow-up of 7.1 (PA) to 9.3 (SA) years (P = .01). The majority were female (n = 18, 62.1%); the mean age of PA patients was 57.1 years (SD 14.2) compared with 43.5 years (SD 17.1) in SA patients (P = .04). In the PA group, there was no infection, 100% union, and implants were removed in 5 of 11 patients. In the SA group, 11.1% (n = 2) developed infection, malunion rate was 11.1%, implants were removed in 33.3% (n = 6), and 22.2% required revision surgery. AOFAS was "good" in PA (77.7, SD 17.3) compared with rated "fair" in SA (67.1, SD 21.3, P = .19). FFI was better in PA (26.0, SD 26.2) than SA (37.6, SD 30.8, P = .32), which exceeded the minimally important clinical difference.

CONCLUSION

Although this study was limited by sample size, the overall results suggest equivalent functional outcome, pain and treatment satisfaction in primary arthrodesis compared with secondary arthrodesis patients for treatment of Lisfranc injury.

Serious injuries of Lisfranc joint: A retrospective multicenter study of 141 patients

INTRODUCTION

Lisfranc joint injuries are common and often underdiagnosed. They occur during trauma of various mechanisms, high or low energy. Their management is difficult because of the wide spectrum of lesions and the management of associated lesions, particularly in the emergency stage. Their surgical treatment remains controversial. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the management of Lisfranc injuries and to study their clinical, functional and radiologic evolution. We also wanted to assess the consequences of these lesions on the patient's quality of life.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study of 141 patients over 16 years at the time of the trauma. The patients included had presented a Lisfranc injury from January 2010 to June 2018. The epidemiological characteristics, the type of osteosynthesis, and the immediate and radiographic results at the last follow-up were collected. Functional assessment was analyzed by telephone review using the SF12, FAAM and AOFAS scores.

RESULTS

An associated M2 base fracture was found in almost 50 % of cases. A closed reduction and fixation was made in 25 % of cases. There was 69 % pins fixation. The reduction was not anatomical in 1/3 of the cases and was more difficult to achieve with an associated fracture. The FAAM score was statistically superior in the patients with internal fixation by screws compared to the treatment by pins. We found 18 % early complications. At least 1 year after the injury, C2M2 osteoarthritis was found in 45 % of patients.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to what is recommended in the literature, this study reported a high rate of osteosynthesis by pins whereas screws and plates were more recommended. Open reduction was also recommended and was the strategy of choice in this study. An M2 fracture was often associated with Lisfranc dislocations. The quality of reduction was essential and was better with open reduction and screw fixation.

Surgical Treatment for Isolated Closed Multi-metatarsal Fractures: At Least 2-Year Outcomes in 79 Feet

Multimetatarsal fractures are a particular type possibly associated with worse functional outcomes. Existing studies are scarce, fragmented, and lack control for confounders. This study aimed to explore the functional prognosis of isolated closed extra-articular multimetatarsal fractures and the different outcomes between the plate-screw and K-wire fixation. This retrospective study included 79 patients who underwent surgery for isolated closed extra-articular multimetatarsal fractures from May 2017 to December 2020. We recorded baseline characteristics. The primary outcome measure was Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Exploratory correlation analysis of the variables with VAS, AOFAS score, and FAOS was performed. The differences between the plate-screw group (n = 58) and K-wire group (n = 21) were compared. Seventy-nine patients (79 feet) were included with a follow-up of (47.3 ± 12.7) months (range, 26-70). Full weight bearing time was (11.7±5.3) weeks. VAS was (1.4±1.8) points, AOFAS score was (86.4±13.3) points, and FAOS was (79.0±11.1) points. Complications were observed in 17 cases (21.5%). According to exploratory correlation analysis, VAS was weakly associated with fixation method and gender, AOFAS was weakly associated with fixation method, FAOS was weakly associated with trauma mechanism. When the plate-screw group (n = 58) was compared with the K-wire group (n = 21), we found the former was superior to the latter in terms of full weight bearing time, VAS, AOFAS score, and malunion rate (all p < .05). FAOS was nonsignificant (p = .056). Operative treatment of isolated closed extra-articular multimetatarsal fractures showed good mid-term results. Plate-screw fixation was associated with faster rehabilitation as well as a lower malunion rate. The mid-term follow-up results showed patients with plate-screw fixation had better VAS and AOFAS scores.

Treatment of two or more metatarsal fractures

INTRODUCTION

Metatarsal fractures are the most common type of foot fracture. When surgical treatment is needed, pinning is typically used, either percutaneous or open. However, this fixation method has been criticized by some authors who lament residual malunion and prefer to use plate and/or screws. The primary objective of our study was to compare the outcomes of K-wire versus plate and/or screw fixation for the surgical treatment of two or more metatarsal fractures. The secondary objective was to evaluate the factors that contribute to poor outcomes and complications. We hypothesized that plate and/or screw fixation will produce better functional outcomes than K-wire fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective and retrospective multicenter study carried out between 1 January 2010 and 1 June 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Three functional scores were determined (AOFAS, FAAM and SF12 physical and mental) preoperatively, postoperatively and at the final assessment. We evaluated the outcomes in the entire study population and in four injury type subgroups, including one with isolated metatarsal fractures to control analysis bias.

RESULTS

Our analysis compiled data from 165 patients (123 men, 42 women) who had a mean age of 38 years (16-82). The mean follow-up time was 27.9months (10-120). There were no complications in 130 patients (79%). Skin necrosis occurred in 25 patients (15%). The FAAM score was significantly higher in the plate and/or screw group 70.2 (17-84) versus 60.3 (31-84) in the K-wire group (P=0.033). The 78 (19-100) AOFAS was higher, but not significantly, in the plate and/or screw group versus 70 (12-100) in the K-wire group (P=0.144).

CONCLUSION

Trauma to the foot that causes a fracture in two or more metatarsals often occurs due to a crush injury (39%). The frequency of associated bone lesions means that a preoperative CT scan should be done routinely to analyze the injury pattern and determine the best treatment. The fixation method should be adapted to the local conditions; when possible, it is preferable to use rigid fixation with plates and/or screws as it yields better functional outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; study with retrospective component.

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocations: A Cost Analysis

Background

Lisfranc fracture-dislocation is an uncommon but serious injury that currently lacks universal consensus on optimal operative treatment. Two common fixation methods are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis (PA). The objective of this study is to analyze the cost difference between ORIF and PA of Lisfranc injuries, along with the contribution of medical services to overall costs.

Methods

This was a retrospective cost analysis of the MarketScan database from 2010 to 2020. MarketScan is an insurance and commercial claims database that integrates deidentified patient information. It captures person-specific clinical utilization, expenditures, and enrollment across inpatient and outpatient services. Patients undergoing primary ORIF (CPT code 28615) vs PA (28730 and 28740) for Lisfranc fracture-dislocation were identified. The primary independent variable was ORIF vs PA of Lisfranc injury. Total costs due to operative management was the primary objective. The utilization of and costs contributed by medical services was a secondary outcome.

Results

From 2010 to 2020, a total of 7268 patients underwent operative management of Lisfranc injuries, with 5689 (78.3%) ORIF and 1579 (21.7%) PA. PA was independently associated with increased net and total payment and coinsurance, clinic visits, and imaging, and patients attended significantly more PT sessions.

Conclusion

Using this large database that does not characterize severity or extent of injury, we found that treatment of Lisfranc fracture-dislocation with ORIF was associated with substantially lower initial episode of treatment costs compared with PA. Specific excessive cost drivers for PA were clinic visits, PT sessions, and imaging.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

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.

Suspensory Device Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries in a Southeast Asian Urban Population: Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes

Introduction Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis are two conventional options for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, they are associated with implant-related complications. An alternative suspensory device construct using interosseous nonabsorbable sutures with endobuttons has been described with satisfactory results. This study aims to explore functional outcomes after suture button fixation of Lisfranc injuries in a Southeast Asian population. Methods This was a single-surgeon retrospective study of patients with Lisfranc injuries treated surgically using a suture button fixation technique between 2017 and 2019. Data collected included demographic information, pre-injury levels of activity, nature of injury, and type of surgery performed. The minimum postoperative follow-up was one year. The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) were used to evaluate patient-reported outcomes. Scores were reported in percentage (%) with median and interquartile range. Results Twenty-nine patients with a mean age of 29 years (21-76) were recruited. Sixteen underwent suture button fixation only (SB), and 13 underwent suture button fixation with intercuneiform screw fixation and plating (SBM). The median scores for the FAOS and FAAM questionnaires were at least 80% in all domains. Twenty-eight patients (97%) were able to return to pre-injury activity level, 27 patients (93%) were able to return to sports. Only one patient was not satisfied with the outcomes of surgery. No patients had post-traumatic arthritis or hardware failure necessitating implant removal at the final follow-up. Conclusion This study has demonstrated that treatment of Lisfranc injuries with a suspensory device construct resulted in good outcomes with 97% of patients being able to return to pre-injury activity levels, and 93% of patients being able to return to sports. It may not be necessary to perform primary arthrodesis in uncomplicated Lisfranc injuries. This technique is also advantageous as implant removal is not routinely required due to the design and biomechanical properties of suspensory devices.

[Functional outcome of 111 metatarsal fractures following conservative in comparison to operative treatment]

BACKGROUND

Fractures of the metatarsal bones are common injuries of the foot and particularly occur in patients aged 40-50 years. Especially multiple metatarsal fractures can lead to permanent limitations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the functional outcome of metatarsal fractures after conservative and surgical treatment using a validated self-reported patient-based outcome questionnaire.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients suffering from metatarsal fractures between 2003 and 2015 were enrolled in this retrospective analysis. The following data were collected: demographic data, AO classification, treatment, reoperation rate and the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS). For outcome analysis, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U‑test and Fisher's exact test were performed.

RESULTS

In total the functional outcome of 111 patients with metatarsal fractures were analyzed, 81 patients suffered of an isolated metatarsal fracture and 30 of multiple fractures. The mean age of the patients was 45 ± 15.2 years with a total of 48 men (43%) and 63 women (57%). Patients with an isolated metatarsal fracture had an FAOS of 88 ± 17.1, while patients with multiple metatarsal fractures achieved an FAOS of 78 ± 17.7 (p = 0.046). In the group of isolated metatarsal fractures 43 patients (53%) were surgically treated and of these 36 patients showed a type C fracture (84%). In the group of multiple metatarsal fractures 16 patients (53%) underwent operative treatment.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the functional outcome of isolated metatarsal fractures following operative as well as conservative treatment is good to very good. Simple fractures can be successfully treated conservatively and complex multifragment fractures can be safely managed surgically. If more than one metatarsal bone is fractured, the functional outcome is significantly worse with patients reporting lasting limitations involving the range of motion and stiffness.

Lisfranc injuries: fix or fuse? : a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature presenting outcome after surgical treatment for Lisfranc injuries

AIMS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):842-849.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction and internal fixation in patients with Lisfranc fracture instability (The BFF Study) study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

The Lisfranc injury is a complex injury of the midfoot. It can result in persistent pain and functional impairment if treated inappropriately. In Lisfranc fracture dislocation, treatment options are primary arthrodesis of the midfoot joints or open reduction and internal fixation. The purpose of the proposed study is to define the optimal treatment for the Lisfranc fracture dislocation, either primary arthrodesis or open reduction and internal fixation, in regard to quality of life, complications, functional outcomes, and cost effectiveness.

Methods

Study design: A prospective multicenter RCT. Study population: All patients of 18 years and older with an acute (< 6 weeks) traumatic fracture dislocation in the Lisfranc midfoot joints, displaced on static radiographic evaluation or unstable with dynamic evaluation, weight bearing radiographs or fluoroscopic stress testing under anesthesia, and eligible for either one of the surgical procedures. In total, this study will include n = 112 patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation. Interventions: Patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation will be randomly allocated to treatment in “The Better to Fix or Fuse Study” (The BFF Study) with either PA or ORIF. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome parameter: the quality of life. Secondary outcomes: complications, functional outcomes, secondary surgical interventions and cost effectiveness. Nature and extent of the burden: PA is expected to have a better outcome, however both treatments are accepted for this injury with a similar low risk of complications. Follow up is standardized and therefore this study will not add extra burden to the patient.

Discussion

This study protocol provides a comprehensive overview of the aims and methods of the attached clinical study. Limitations of this study are the absence of patient blinding since it is impossible in surgical intervention, and the outcome measure (AOFAS) that has limited validity not for these injuries. This study will be the first with enough power to define optimal treatment for Lisfranc fracture dislocations. This is necessary since current literature is unclear on this topic.

Trial registration Current controlled Trial: NCT04519242 with registration date: 08/13/2020. Retrospectively registered; Protocol date and version: Version 4 05/06/2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01320-1.

Fracture blisters: pathophysiology and management

Open fractures are considered an orthopaedic emergency due to the severe soft tissue disruption that might potentially lead to devastating complications. On the other hand, closed fractures, and especially those resulting from high-energy mechanisms, are also often accompanied by severe soft tissue trauma. Soft tissue envelope compromise can have a detrimental effect on the final outcome of the patients. Fracture blisters in particular, develop as a sign of significant local tissue trauma and appear in a time period between 6 to 72 hours post-injury. They can delay the definitive fracture treatment for a considerable amount of time and at the same time they also increase the risk for post-operative wound complications. Awareness of fracture blisters pathophysiology and their management options are crucial for orthopaedic surgeons, in order to achieve a favorable clinical outcome. In the herein study we present a concise synopsis of the pathophysiology pathways and management options of fracture blisters.

Primary Arthrodesis for High-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

The reported incidence of Lisfranc injuries is 9.2/100.000 person-years; two-thirds of the injuries are nondisplaced. Tarsometatarsal injuries range from minor sprains and isolated ligamentous injuries to grossly unstable and multiligamentous lesions. High-energy injuries are usually linked with mechanical energy dissipation through the soft tissues. Operative treatment options include open reduction and internal fixation, open reduction with hybrid internal and external fixation, closed reduction with percutaneous internal or external fixation, and primary arthrodesis. Treatment goals are to obtain a painless, plantigrade, and stable foot. Anatomic reduction is a key factor for improved outcomes and decreased rates of post-traumatic arthritis.

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.