Functional Outcomes After Temporary Bridging With Locking Plates in Lisfranc Injuries

The Use of Dorsal Bridge Plate Fixation in the Operative Management of Lisfranc Injuries - A Retrospective Cohort Study at Medium Term Follow-Up

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, early surgical management of Lisfranc injuries with transarticular screws (TAS) was deemed to be the optimal treatment. However, concerns of potential iatrogenic articular cartilage disruption has led to discrepancies in opinion amongst surgeons, with many surgeons now utilizing dorsal bridge plates (DBP) for ORIF of Lisfranc injuries.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes at medium-term follow-up of consecutive patients in our institution who underwent ORIF with DBP for Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent ORIF with DBPs for Lisfranc injuries were identified. Outcomes of interest included; visual analogue scale (VAS), functional foot index (FFI), American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Surgeons (AOFAS) hindfoot scores, and complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 37 consecutive patients (24 males) with a mean age of 34.8 ± 13.0 years underwent ORIF with DBPs for lisfranc injuries. After a mean 48.3 ± 28.7 months, the mean reported AOFAS and FFI scores were 77.4 ± 23.8 and 31.9 ± 32.7 respectively, with satisfactory reported pain scores as measured by VAS post-operatively at rest and whilst walking (2.2 ± 2.5 and 3.1 ± 2.6 respectively). The reported satisfaction rate was 86.5% (32/37). Overall, 25 patients (67.6%) had subsequent removal of metal or were listed for same, 88% (22/25) of whom did so electively in the absence of broken screws or infection.

CONCLUSION

This study found that the use of Dorsal Bridge Plates for Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries resulted in satisfactory functional outcomes, high rates of patient-reported satisfaction and a low complication rate at medium-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Retrospective Series of Consecutive Patients.

Functional Outcomes After High-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Midfoot fractures and dislocations are infrequent and functional outcomes following Lisfranc injuries have not been well described. The purpose of this project was to explore functional outcomes following operative treatment of high-energy Lisfranc injury.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 46 adults with tarsometatarsal fractures and dislocations treated at a single Level 1 trauma center were reviewed. Demographic, medical, social, and injury features of these patients and their injuries were recorded. Foot Function Index (FFI) and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) surveys were collected after mean 8.7 years' follow-up. Multiple linear regression was performed to identify independent predictors of outcome.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients with mean age 39.7 years completed functional outcome surveys. Mean SMFA scores were 29.3 (dysfunction) and 32.6 (bothersome). Mean FFI scores were 43.1 (pain), 43.0 (disability), and 21.7 (activity), with a mean total score of 35.9. FFI pain scores were worse than published values for fractures of the plafond (33, P = .04), distal tibia (33, P = .04), and talus (25.3, P = .001). Lisfranc injury patients reported worse disability (43.0 vs 29, P = .008) and total FFI scores (35.9 vs 26, P = .02) compared with distal tibia fractures. Tobacco smoking was an independent predictor of worse FFI (P < .05) and SMFA emotion and bothersome scores (P < .04). Chronic renal disease was a predictor of worse FFI disability (P = .04) and SMFA subcategory scores (P < .04). Male sex was associated with better scores in all SMFA categories (P < .04). Age, obesity, or open injury did not affect functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported worse pain by FFI after Lisfranc injury compared to other injuries about the foot and ankle. Tobacco smoking, female sex, and preexisting chronic renal disease are predictive of worse functional outcome scores, warranting further study in a larger sample, as well as counseling of long-term consequences of this injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective, prognostic.

Long term results and patient reported outcome measures following lisfranc injuries treated with memory staple fixation

INTRODUCTION

Various modalities of fixation have been proposed for Lisfranc injuries. Memory staple fixation offers a simple option for transarticular fixation in suitable fracture configuration with no diaphyseal extension. However there is little evidence available in the literature regarding its efficacy and patient reported outcomes. Aim of the study was to present the long term outcomes of Lisfranc injuries treated with memory staple fixation and patient reported outcomes at average follow-up of four years.

METHOD

This was a retrospective analysis of all the patients who underwent fixation for Lisfranc injury using shape memory alloy (Nitinol) staples from December 2010 to October 2018. Patient demography, mechanism of injury, classification of Lisfranc injury, duration of followup, complication, revision surgery, implant removal and patient reported outcomes (AOFAS midfoot score) was noted.

RESULTS

31 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 50 years and 17 patients were females. 54 % patients reported low to moderate energy trauma which included simple fall from standing height or twisting injury. 28 (90.3 %) had B2 type of fracture pattern. 13 had fixation with staples only, 15 with a staple and home run screw. No patient had primary fusion. One patient had superficial infection treated with antibiotics only. Three patients developed symptomatic arthritis, out of which one proceeded to fusion. Six had implant removal for hardware related symptoms. Average AOFAS midfoot score at average four years follow-up was 77.8 which are satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

This paper highlights good outcome following memory staple fixation for Lisfranc injuries. We believe staples are more suited for the dorsal buttressing that is typically required and provide stable, reproducible fixation Our findings also suggest less need for implant removal compared to transarticular screw or plate fixation though larger studies would be required to make definitive conclusions.

Does temporary bridge plate fixation preserve joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury?

BACKGROUND

Recently, temporary bridge plate fixation has gained popularity in the treatment of unstable Lisfranc injuries. The technique aims to reduce the risk of posttraumatic osteoarthritis, and after plate removal, the goal is to regain joint mobility. Here we explore marker-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure motion in the 1st tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint and asses the radiological outcome in patients treated with this surgical technique.

METHOD

Ten patients with an unstable Lisfranc injury were included. All were treated with a dorsal bridge plate over the 1st TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the 2nd and 3rd TMT joints. The plate was removed four months postoperatively. Non- and weight-bearing RSA images were obtained one and five years postinjury to assess joint mobility and signs of osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

Detectable 1st TMT joint motion was observed in 2/10 patients after one year, and 6/9 patients after five years. At the final follow-up, mean 1st TMT dorsiflexion was 2.0°. Radiologically, the incidence of posttraumatic osteoarthritis was present in 4/10 patients after one year, and 5/9 patients after five years. All patients had observed TMT joint stability throughout the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Preservation of joint motion can be achieved with a temporary bridge plate fixation over the 1st TMT joint.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective cohort study/Therapeutically level IV.

Functional Outcomes of Dorsal Bridge Plating for Lisfranc Injuries With Routine Implant Retention: A Major Trauma Center Experience

OBJECTIVES

To assess medium-term functional outcomes and the complication profile for unstable Lisfranc injuries treated with dorsal bridge plate (DBP) fixation when implants are not routinely removed.

DESIGN

Large single-center retrospective case series.

SETTING

Level-1 Trauma Center, London, United Kingdom.

PATIENTS

Consecutive cases of skeletally mature individuals with unstable Lisfranc injuries treated operatively between 2014 and 2019.

INTERVENTION

Open reduction and DBP fixation with implants not routinely removed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Patient-reported outcome measures at final follow-up. The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire summary index was the primary outcome measure. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale, complications, and all-cause reoperation rates were secondary outcome measures. Logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors that influenced outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were included. Mean follow-up was 40.8 months (24-72). The mean Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire Summary Index was 27.0 (SD 7.1) and mean AOFAS score 72.6 (SD 11.6). The presence of an intra-articular fracture was associated with poorer outcomes, with worse MOXFQ and AOFAS scores (both P < 0.001). Eighteen patients (21%) required implants removal, with this more likely in female patients (OR 3.89, 95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 12.0, P = 0.02). Eight patients (9%) required secondary arthrodesis.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest series of Lisfranc injuries treated with DBP fixation reported to-date and the only to routinely retain implants. Medium-term outcomes are comparable to existing literature in which implants are routinely removed. The presence of an intra-articular fracture is a poor prognostic indicator. Implant removal is more likely to be needed in female patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Evaluation of Functional Outcome and Complications in Bridge Plating Compared to Transarticular Screws for Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The optimal treatment strategy of Lisfranc injury is still in debate. This study aimed to compare the functional outcome and complications of dorsal bridge plating (BP) and transarticular screws (TAS). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the present literature was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched using set search criteria and date range January 2000 to July 26, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational comparative studies concerning the outcome of dorsal BP and TAS for the fixation of Lisfranc injuries were eligible for inclusion. Random effect models were used to analyze pooled data. Forest plots using 95% confidence intervals (CI) were created to illustrate mean differences and odds ratios. Four observational studies were eligible for inclusion, including 111 patients in the BP group and 87 patients in the TAS group. American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score was significantly higher in the BP group (mean difference 7.08, 95% CI 1.50-12.66, p = .01). Osteoarthritis was significantly less common in the BP group compared to the TAS group (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.94, p = .03). No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative infection, hardware removal, chronic pain, and secondary arthrodesis. Dorsal bridge plating of fractures in the Lisfranc joint may lead to better functional outcome and a lower incidence of post-traumatic arthritis when compared to transarticular screws. A larger body of high-quality evidence is required to independently analyze the severity of fractures in the different columns involved and subsequent outcomes of operative management.

A Comparison of Trans-Articular Screw Versus Dorsal Bridge Plate Versus Compression Locking Plate Fixation in B2 Lis Franc Injuries: A 5-Year Experience in a Level 1 Trauma Center, in the United Kingdom

This retrospective case series aimed to identify whether trans-articular screws, dorsal bridging plates or if a 4-corner compression plate offers better functional outcome after B2 Lis Franc injuries. Thirty-eight patients underwent surgical fixation for these injuries over 5 years in a Level 1 Trauma Centre. Patients were treated in 1 of 3 treatment arms: trans-articular screw, dorsal bridge plate, or 4-corner compression plate fixation. The primary outcome measures were the Manchester Oxford Foot and Ankle Questionnaire and the Euroqol- 5DL score and surgical results included postoperative complications and further surgery. Injury type, energy of mechanism, and open versus closed status were not significantly different within any fixation group. We achieved 94.7% (n = 36) good anatomical reduction. Finding significant improvement between plate fixation (both types) versus trans-articular screw groups treatment functional outcomes. A clinically crucial improvement in Manchester Oxford Foot & Ankle Questionnaire scores, and improved Euroqol- 5DL outcomes between 4-corner compression plate and trans-articular screw group. Overall, there was no significant difference in metalware failure, metalware removal and soft tissue complications. This study concludes that functional outcomes after Lis Franc fractures are not just dependent on the quality of anatomical reduction but are affected by fixation type. Further studies are required to provide qualitative analysis and assessment of dorsal bridge plate fixation versus 4-corner plate. Significantly, we have seen the 4-corner compression plate group reached the minimum clinically meaningful difference in the Manchester Oxford Foot and Ankle Questionnaire when compared to trans-articular screw fixation.

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.

Resources for Patient Mental Health and Well-being after Orthopaedic Trauma

Orthopaedic trauma is an unanticipated life-altering experience for patients. Additionally, the prevalence of psychiatric disorders has been found to be higher in patients with trauma than in the general adult population. Symptoms of depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder have been reported in up to 56% of patients throughout their postoperative course. Furthermore, symptoms of any one of these illnesses have been consistently associated with worse patient outcomes after treatment of traumatic orthopaedic injuries. This includes increased levels of pain and disability, postoperative complications, and, in some cases, higher rates of hospital readmission. For most patients with trauma, focus is placed on physical therapy and rehabilitation in the acute postoperative setting to help patients regain function and strength; however, more recent studies have demonstrated equal importance of the social and psychological factors involved with trauma and their impact on outcomes. Therefore, it is essential for orthopaedic surgeons and other members of the care team to be adept in the screening and treatment of psychiatric disorders. For patients struggling with these conditions, several treatment resources exist, which can be used both during their admission and after discharge. Thus, earlier recognition and intervention with appropriate treatment and referrals should be emphasized to improve outcomes. This review discusses the social and psychological impacts of orthopaedic trauma on patients' mental health and well-being and outlines numerous resources available to patients as they recover from their injuries.

Screw in Lisfranc Ligament

Background. Injury to the Lisfranc interosseous ligament is currently managed with a screw. However, this can potentially further disrupt the ligament. The objective of this study was to observe the proximity of the screw or disruption it can cause at the ligament attachment sites. Methods. Twenty-three feet were studied. A 40-mm, 4.0, partially threaded, cannulated screw was inserted from the base of the second metatarsal into the medial cuneiform. The relationship of the ligament attachment sites to the screw hole were measured. Results. The screw hole contacted at least 1 of the ligament attachment sites in 20 of the 23 feet. The screw hole fully penetrated it in 7 feet, partially disrupted it in 4 feet, and had less than or equal to 1 mm of contact in 9 feet. There was no contact with either of the attachment sites in 3 feet, with an average distance of 1.5 mm separating them. Conclusion. Our results show the proximity of the ligament to the screw and the disruption that can result from its insertion. This is clinically relevant as some amount ligamentous disruption is likely to occur with insertion of the "Lisfranc screw," which may interfere with its healing process.Levels of Evidence: Level V: Expert opinion includes case reports and technique tips.

Lisfranc Fixation Techniques and Postoperative Functional Outcomes: A Systematic Review

The optimal method of fixation of acute Lisfranc injuries is yet to be established. We aim to systematically review the literature to identify the impact of fixation method on postoperative functional outcomes. A systematic review was undertaken using the PRISMA framework to identify all studies reporting postoperative functional outcomes in patients who underwent open-reduction internal fixation of acute Lisfranc injuries. Studies reporting outcomes of numerous fixation methods were divided into fixation subcohorts. Studies comparing bridge plate with transarticular screw fixation were included for meta-analysis, conducted using a random-effects model. Seventeen studies (20 subcohorts) with 462 patients were included. Mean patient age was 29.6 (rang, 15-81) years. Mean follow-up was 38.7 (range 11 to 287) months. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons midfoot score (AOFAS-MF) was the most frequently reported functional outcome (16/20 subcohorts). Overall weighted mean AOFAS-MF was 76.3 ± 9.4 for all cases, with 74.2 ± 9.4 for transarticular screws and 79.2 ± 8.3 for bridge plates. The mean difference between screw and plate was not statistically significant (mean difference = 5.0, 95% confidence interval, -4.8 - 14.8, p = .3). A single study reported AOFAS-MF mean of 92 using suture button fixation. Meta-analysis of the 2 available comparative studies revealed higher postoperative AOFAS-MF with bridge plate fixation (pooled standardized mean difference, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.87, p = .006). There is scarcity of literature examining the impact of fixation method on postoperative functional outcomes in acute Lisfranc injuries. A small number of studies have reported superior functional outcomes with use of bridge plate fixation. Further evidence is needed to ascertain which injuries are best managed with each fixation method or whether 1 fixation construct is universally superior.

Elective removal of metalwork following Lisfranc injury fixation: Results of a national consensus survey of practice

No consensus exists regarding whether metalwork should be routinely removed following fixation of a Lisfranc injury. When metalwork is removed, notable variation in the timing of surgery is reported in current literature. With the support of the British Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (BOFAS) and the Orthopaedic Trauma Society (OTS) an online 10-question survey was distributed and completed by a total of 205 consultant surgeons in the UK between April-June 2020. Excluding the 20 consultant responses from a regional pilot survey, 185 responses were used to form the main analysis. Over one third (69/183, 37.7%) of surgeons reported they routinely remove metalwork following Lisfranc injury fixation at a median time of 6 months post fixation (interquartile range 4-10). The two most commonly chosen reasons for removal of metalwork were 'to optimise physiological function' and 'to reduce the risk of broken metalwork and risk of making subsequent surgery more difficult' (55/78 responses, 70.5%). Over two thirds of survey respondents (126/184, 68.5%) expressed interest to participate in a randomised controlled trial to compare outcomes of metalwork retention versus removal following Lisfranc injury fixation. Community clinical equipoise exists nationally regarding routine metalwork removal following Lisfranc injury fixation. Considering the paucity of literature, the current survey supports the development of a randomised controlled trial to establish the risks and benefits of metalwork retention versus removal, and would be of value to foot & ankle and trauma surgeons in the UK.

Percutaneous reduction and fixation of low energy Lisfranc injuries results in better outcome compared to open reduction and internal fixation: Results from a matched case-control study with minimum 12 months follow up

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc injuries is potentially less invasive to traditional open techniques but evidence of any clinical benefit is lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous reduction and internal fixation (PRIF) of low energy Lisfranc injuries with a matched, control group of patients treated with ORIF.

METHODS

Over a seven-year period (2012-2019), 16 consecutive patients with a low energy Lisfranc injury (Myerson B2-type) were treated with PRIF. Patient demographics, injury mechanism and radiological outcomes were recorded within a prospectively maintained database at the institution. This study sample was matched for age, sex and mechanism of injury to a control group of 16 patients with similar low energy Lisfranc injuries (Myerson B2-type) treated with ORIF. Clinical outcome was compared using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ).

RESULTS

At a mean follow up of 43 months (95% CI 35.6 - 50.4), both the AOFAS and MOXFQ scores were significantly higher in the PRIF group compared to the control ORIF group (AOFAS 89.1vs 76.4, p=0.03; MOXFQ 10.0 vs 27.6, p=0.03). There were no immediate postoperative complications in either group. There was no radiological evidence of midfoot osteoarthritis in the PRIF group, three patients in the ORIF group developed midfoot osteoarthritis (p=0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

PRIF of low energy Lisfranc injures is a safe, minimally invasive technique and is associated with better mid-term clinical outcomes compared to ORIF.

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.

Temporary Bridge Plating vs Primary Arthrodesis of the First Tarsometatarsal Joint in Lisfranc Injuries: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Unstable Lisfranc injuries are best treated with anatomic reduction and stable fixation. There are controversies regarding which type of stabilization is best. In the present study, we compared primary arthrodesis of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint to temporary bridge plating in unstable Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients with Lisfranc injuries were included and followed for 2 years. Twenty-four patients were randomized to primary arthrodesis (PA) of the medial 3 TMT joints, whereas 24 patients were randomized to temporary bridge plate (BP) over the first TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the second and third TMT joints. The main outcome parameter was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale and the secondary outcome parameters were the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain). Computed tomography (CT) scans pre- and postoperatively were obtained. Radiographs were obtained at follow-ups. Pedobarographic examination was performed at the 2-year follow-up. Twenty-two of 24 patients in the PA and 23/24 in the BP group completed the 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean AOFAS midfoot score 2 years postoperatively was 89 (SD 9) in the PA group and 85 (SD 15) in the BP group (P = .32). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to SF-36 or VAS pain scores. The alignment of the first metatarsal was better in the BP group than in the PA group measured by the anteroposterior Meary angle (P = .04). The PA group had a reduced peak pressure under the fifth metatarsal (P = .047). In the BP group, 11/24 patients had radiologic signs of osteoarthritis in the first TMT joint.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment groups had good outcome scores. The first metatarsal was better aligned in the BP group; however, there was a high incidence of radiographic osteoarthritis in this group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level I, prospective randomized controlled study.

Outcomes of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Joint-Preserving Fixation

BACKGROUND

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with transarticular screws to stabilize Lisfranc injuries may increase the risk of arthritis or affect outcomes. Joint-preserving fixation using staples, bridge plating, or Lisfranc screws avoids iatrogenic articular damage. This study analyzes functional outcomes and complications in Lisfranc-injury patients who underwent joint-preserving fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients treated for Lisfranc injury at a Level 1 trauma center from July 2008 to October 2015. Patients over 18 years of age, with no concomitant procedures in the lower extremities, were included. Functional outcomes were evaluated through American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients met the inclusion criteria. The average followup time was 57 months (range 22-102 months). AOFAS scores averaged 80.4 (standard deviation [SD] 16) at the time of the latest followup, with time to return to regular activities averaging 34 weeks (SD 25 weeks). Five patients had their hardware removed, and two required subsequent fusion during the followup period. The single complication involved a screw backing out, with subsequent removal.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case series, joint-preserving fixation for Lisfranc injuries offered similar AOFAS scores as those reported for ORIF with transarticular screws but with a decreased rate of hardware removal and need for midfoot fusion.

Dorsal bridge plating versus. Transarticular screw fixation for lisfranc injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lisfranc injuries are relatively uncommon but carry devastating consequences if left untreated. Although many surgical techniques have been proposed for best operative management, there is an ongoing debate over which procedure is superior. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of transarticular screw fixation and dorsal bridge plating in management of Lisfranc injuries. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the outcomes between screw and dorsal plate fixation. The pooled outcome data were calculated by random and fixed effect models. One prospective cohort and three retrospective studies were identified with a total of 210 patients with mean follow up of 40.6 months. All papers were analysed for quality using the modified Newcastle Ottawa score. The results show that dorsal bridge plating is associated with better American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score (AOFAS) compared with transarticular screw fixation (OR - 0.71, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.10, p = 0.02). Dorsal plating may also be associated with fewer cases of arthritis, although this was not significant (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.89 to 6.80, p = 0.08). We found no significant differences between the groups in terms of Foot Function Index (FFI), post traumatic arthritis and failure of hardware material. Although our results suggest dorsal bridge plating may provide superior functional outcomes, there is a scarcity of literature with little robustness to make definitive conclusions. High quality randomised trials are required.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Acute Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation with Use of Dorsal Bridging Plates

Lisfranc injuries consist of a wide spectrum of injuries, ranging from subtle injuries to severe fracture-dislocations. Injuries with instability of the tarsometatarsal, intercuneiform, or naviculocuneiform joints should be treated with anatomic reduction and stable fixation. The best method of fixation is debated. Transarticular screw fixation has the disadvantage of damaging the tarsometatarsal joints. Bridging the tarsometatarsal joints with use of low-profile locking plates avoids the placement of screws through the joint and potentially reduces the risk of posttraumatic arthritis. Primary arthrodesis of the 3 medial tarsometatarsal joints is also an option in treating Lisfranc injuries and has been shown to lead to better outcomes compared with transarticular screw fixation in ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. In this article, we show the technique of open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc fracture-dislocation with use of dorsal bridging locking plates. The following steps are presented in the video: (1) incision technique with use of a dorsomedial incision and a dorsolateral incision, (2) open reduction and temporary fixation of the tarsometatarsal joints with use of Kirschner wires, (3) confirmation of anatomic reduction of the tarsometatarsal joints with direct visualization and fluoroscopy, (4) fixation of the medial 3 tarsometatarsal joints with dorsal bridging locking plates, (5) placement of a "homerun" screw from the medial cuneiform to the base of the second metatarsal, (6) fixation of the fourth and fifth tarsometatarsal joints with Kirschner wires, and (7) checking of reduction and fixation with use of fluoroscopy and performance of wound closure. Postoperatively, the foot is kept non-weight-bearing in a below-the-knee cast for 6 weeks, followed by 6 weeks of protected weight-bearing in a walker boot. Any Kirschner wires fixating the fourth and fifth tarsometatarsal joints are removed 6 weeks postoperatively. We prefer to remove the dorsal bridging plates 4 to 6 months postoperatively. Anatomic reduction and stable fixation is associated with better functional outcomes. Hardware failure and loss of reduction are potential complications that can lead to worse outcomes.

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management

It is essential to know and understand the anatomy of the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint (Lisfranc joint) to achieve a correct diagnosis and proper treatment of the injuries that occur at that level.

Up to 20% of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations go unnoticed or are diagnosed late, especially low-energy injuries or purely ligamentous injuries. Severe sequelae such as post-traumatic osteoarthritis and foot deformities can create serious disability.

We must be attentive to the clinical and radiological signs of an injury to the Lisfranc joint and expand the study with weight-bearing radiographs or computed tomography (CT) scans.

Only in stable lesions and in those without displacement is conservative treatment indicated, along with immobilisation and initial avoidance of weight-bearing.

Through surgical treatment we seek to achieve two objectives: optimal anatomical reduction, a factor that directly influences the results; and the stability of the first, second and third cuneiform-metatarsal joints.

There are three main controversies regarding the surgical treatment of Lisfranc injuries: osteosynthesis versus primary arthrodesis; transarticular screws versus dorsal plates; and the most appropriate surgical approach.

The surgical treatment we prefer is open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with transarticular screws or with dorsal plates in cases of comminution of metatarsals or cuneiform bones.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:430-444. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180076

Return to Sports and Physical Activities After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries in Recreational Athletes

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess participation in sport and physical activity following open reduction and internal fixation of a Lisfranc injury in a cohort of recreational athletes.

METHODS

This study identified all adult patients aged 55 years or younger who presented with a Lisfranc injury and underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using a Lisfranc screw combined with bridge plating technique. Sports and physical activity participation was assessed with a new sports-specific, patient-administered questionnaire. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Thirty-three patients qualified for the study (21 men/12 women). Mean age and follow-up were 31.2 (range, 18-55) years and 2.9 (range, 1.5-5.4) years, respectively.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, 31 patients (94%) were able to return to some form of sport. Twenty-two patients (66%) returned to playing sport at or above their preinjury level. Of the 11 patients who played less sport, 6 had ongoing pain, and the remaining 5 were asymptomatic but were participating less frequently because of other lifestyle reasons. In addition, of the 33 patients, 11 (33%) had some degree of ongoing pain that might limit their ability to return to sports and physical activities. There was strong correlation between overall FAOS and the Sports Questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

Most patients who sustained a Lisfranc injury could return to sport and physical activity after ORIF. Patients should be counseled preoperatively that about 1 in 3 might experience continued pain at the injury site Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective case series.

Modified Dorsal Approach in the Management of Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc injuries has typically used multiple longitudinal incisions or a single transverse incision to approach the tarso-metatarsal joint (TMTJ). The incidence of wound-related complications is considerable. We describe a novel single-incision approach that utilizes subcutaneous windows to the medial TMTJ.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified 150 patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation for Lisfranc injuries, via the modified dorsal approach, at our center between January 2011 and June 2016. Removal of hardware (ROH) was routinely undertaken in 105 patients at a median of 210 days postoperatively. Medical records were reviewed to record patient demographics, mechanism of injury, and operative details. Outpatient notes were reviewed to identify wound-related complications, including delayed wound healing, superficial infection, wound dehiscence, deep infection, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), neuroma, and impaired sensation. Median age was 37 years (range, 19-78 years). Seventy-three percent of patients (110) were male. Most frequent mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle accident (MVA), 39%; motorbike accident (MBA), 19%; and fall, 18%. Sixteen percent (24) of injuries were open. Five patients required soft tissue reconstruction at the primary operation. Median follow-up was 144 (range, 27-306) weeks.

RESULTS

Following the primary procedure, 14% of patients experienced wound-related complications including delayed healing (3%), superficial infection (5%), dehiscence (3%), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) (1%), and impaired sensation (1%). MBA injuries were at 15.1 times odds of superficial infection ( P =.01) than were MVA injuries. Following ROH, 13% of patients experienced wound-related complications, including delayed healing (2%), superficial infection (8%), dehiscence (1%), CRPS (2%), and neuroma (1%). Overall, 5 patients returned to surgery for soft tissue reconstruction for wound dehiscence.

CONCLUSION

The modified dorsal approach using intervals to the midfoot offers a viable alternative with comparable wound complication rates to existing midfoot approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Dorsal bridge plating or transarticular screws for Lisfranc fracture dislocations: a retrospective study comparing functional and radiological outcomes

Aims

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of bridge plating, screw fixation, and a combination of both methods for the treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocations.

Patients and Methods

A total of 108 patients were treated for a Lisfranc fracture dislocation over a period of nine years. Of these, 38 underwent transarticular screw fixation, 45 dorsal bridge plating, and 25 a combination technique. Injuries were assessed preoperatively according to the Myerson classification system. The outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, the validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) functional tool, and the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical reduction.

Results

Significantly better functional outcomes were seen in the bridge plate group. These patients had a mean AOFAS score of 82.5 points, compared with 71.0 for the screw group and 63.3 for the combination group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire score was 25.6 points in the bridge plate group, 38.1 in the screw group, and 45.5 in the combination group (p < 0.001). Functional outcome was dependent on the quality of reduction (p < 0.001). A trend was noted which indicated that plate fixation is associated with a better anatomical reduction (p = 0.06). Myerson types A and C2 significantly predicted a poorer functional outcome, suggesting that total incongruity in either a homolateral or divergent pattern leads to worse outcomes. The greater the number of columns fixed the worse the outcome (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Patients treated with dorsal bridge plating have better functional and radiological outcomes than those treated with transarticular screws or a combination technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:468-74.

The Role of Implant Removal in Orthopedic Trauma

Although implant removal is common after orthopedic trauma, indications for removal remain controversial. There are few data in the literature to allow evidence-based decision-making. The risk of complications from implant removal must be weighed against the possible benefits and the likelihood of improving the patient's symptoms.

Staged management of open Lisfranc injury: Experience from 14 patients

There are still controversies on the management and outcome of open Lisfranc injury in available studies. This study evaluates the staged management of Lisfranc injury and its complications.Patients who received a staged strategy for open Lisfranc injury were reviewed.One patient with degloving injury suffered from partial skin and hallux necrosis which was treated by debridement, hallux amputation, definitive internal fixation, and local flap transfer on the 12th day after first stage management. A definitive internal fixation and simultaneous skin graft or flap coverage were performed in another 3 patients with soft tissue defects. Other patients without soft tissue problems underwent a second stage of definitive internal fixation. Bone union was observed on the 12.5th week after definitive surgery. The median AOFAS midfoot score at the last follow-up was 74.4 ± 8.7, while the average VAS score was 2.2 ± 1.8. The average return-to-work time was 8th months postoperatively in 9 patients. Flap necrosis, infection, implant failure, nonunion, and osteomyelitis were not observed during the follow-up. Two patients received Lisfranc arthrodesis for persistent pain due to posttraumatic arthritis.In the management of open Lisfranc injury, surgeons must consider soft tissue condition. Staged strategy is a rational protocol for this severe injury. Temporary K-wire fixation after early radical debridement and realignment will facilitate the definitive internal fixation until soft tissue condition improves, which also can decrease the soft tissue complication.