Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury: A Biomechanical Comparison of Dorsal Plate Fixation and Transarticular Screws

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

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

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

Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes of Suture Button Fixation for Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Flexible ligamentous fixation has increased in popularity for the treatment of ligamentous Lisfranc injury, but the optimal fixation strategy is unclear.

Purpose

To review the biomechanical, clinical, and radiographic results of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries treated with flexible fixation.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar literature databases were queried for clinical and biomechanical (cadaveric) studies relating to flexible fixation of ligamentous Lisfranc injury. Outcomes of interest included patient-reported outcome scores, clinical/biomechanical results, radiographic alignment, and return to activity. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of the postoperative outcomes was performed.

Results

Of the 34 initial studies, 14 articles (243 feet) were included in the analysis. In the 11 clinical studies (216 patients), the mean postoperative American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score was 90.1 (n = 150; 6 studies) and the mean visual analog scale score was 1.5 (n = 137; 5 studies). The rate of return to activity was 100% (n = 35; 5 studies), and 100% of patients maintained radiographic alignment postoperatively (n = 62; 6 studies). No complications or subsequent hardware removals were reported. Of the 3 biomechanical studies (27 feet), 1 study found significantly greater change in diastasis under axial load between intact and postfixation ligaments with suture button versus screw fixation (+1.1 vs -0.1 mm; P < .05), another found no difference in the decrease in diastasis under axial load between the injured state and screw or suture button fixation (1.2 vs 1.0 mm; P = .5), and the third found no difference in displacement between intact and either screw or suture button fixation under either axial (intact vs screw: 1.0 vs 2.0 mm, P = .1; intact vs suture button: 0.6 vs 1.8 mm, P = .1) or abduction (intact vs screw: 1.5 vs 1.1 mm, P = .5; intact vs suture button: 1.3 vs 2.1 mm, P = .1) load.

Conclusion

Flexible fixation use in the treatment of ligamentous Lisfranc injury was found to have significant potential as a fixation option, as demonstrated by excellent clinical results. Biomechanical evidence was inconclusive but suggested a trend toward decreased diastasis in specimens fixed with screws compared with suture buttons.

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.

Computational analysis of Lisfranc surgical repairs

Ligamentous Lisfranc injuries cause debilitating pain and loss of function. Even small diastasis of this normally rigid joint after injury requires surgical treatment, but outcomes remain poor. Existing literature has compared the different surgical procedures using cadaveric models, but no approach has been recommended over others. This study uses a computational biomechanical approach consistent with a cadaveric study to evaluate the different procedures' ability to stabilize the Lisfranc joint without inducing secondary consequences. A validated rigid body model for the cadaver foot with a Lisfranc injury was extended to compare the stability of four different surgical repairs-three open reduction and internal fixation procedures with different hardware (cannulated screws, endobuttons, and screws with a dorsal plate) and primary arthrodesis with screws. Forces calculated from the rigid body model for 50% partial weight bearing provided boundary conditions for a finite element model of the surgical repairs. Comparing the different surgical procedures, the open reduction and internal fixation with screws and primary arthrodesis with screws showed the most stable postoperative Lisfranc joint. However, the use of cannulated screws for fixation showed regions of high stress that may be susceptible to breakage and also resulted in higher contact forces in joints adjacent to the surgery site. Endobuttons and dorsal plates did not restore sufficient stability. Since all procedures showed different points of concern that could impact outcomes, additional surgical approaches could be needed in the future. This study offers a standard protocol for benchmarking the new procedures against those currently used.

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.

Biomechanical Comparison of Fiber Tape Device Versus Transarticular Screws for Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury in a Cadaveric Model

BACKGROUND

The preferred method of fixation and surgical treatment for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries is controversial. Transarticular screws, bridge plating, fusion, and flexible fixation have been described, yet none have demonstrated superiority. Furthermore, screw fixation and plating often require secondary surgery to remove implants, leading surgeons to seek alternative fixation methods.

PURPOSE

To compare transarticular screws and a fiber tape construct under a spectrum of biomechanical loads by evaluating the diastasis at 3 joints in the Lisfranc complex.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Eight matched pairs of fresh, previously frozen lower extremity cadaveric specimens were fixed with either 2 cannulated transarticular crossed screws or a fiber tape construct with a supplemental intercuneiform limb. The diastasis between bones was measured at 3 midfoot joints in the Lisfranc complex: the Lisfranc articulation, the second tarsometatarsal joint, and the intercuneiform joint. Measurements were obtained for the preinjured, injured, and fixation conditions under static loading at 50% donor body weight. Specimens then underwent cyclic loading performed at 1 Hz and 100 cycles, based on 100-N stepwise increases in ground-reaction force from 100 to 2000 N, to simulate postoperative loading from the partial weightbearing stage to high-energy activities. Failure of fixation was defined as diastasis ≥2 mm at the Lisfranc articulation (second metatarsal-medial cuneiform joint).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in diastasis detected at the Lisfranc articulation or the intercuneiform joint throughout all loading cycles between groups. All specimens endured loading up to 50% body weight + 1400 N. Up to and including this stage, there were 2 failures in the cannulated transarticular crossed-screw group and none in the fiber tape group.

CONCLUSION

The fiber tape construct with a supplemental intercuneiform limb, which does not require later removal, may provide comparable biomechanical stability to cannulated transarticular crossed screws, even at higher loads.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are common among athletes. Therefore, biomechanical evaluations are necessary to determine stable constructs that can limit the time to return to play. This study compares the biomechanical stability of 2 methods of fixation for ligamentous injury through a wide spectrum of loading, including those experienced by athletes.

Computational analysis of the clinical presentation of a ligamentous Lisfranc injury

Lisfranc injuries in the midfoot disrupt key arches of the foot which, if left untreated, can progress to pain, dysfunction, and arthritis. A clinical challenge is that 30-40% of Lisfranc injuries are missed in initial evaluations. The objective of this study was to explore different conditions of limb loading that could influence the biomechanics of the Lisfranc joint in a validated computational model. A computational model was created using SolidWorks software to represent the bones and soft tissues of the lower leg and foot. The model was compared to a cadaveric study of healthy and injured Lisfranc joints. The model was then used to simulate weight-bearing radiographs and evaluate how muscle activity and foot position impacted the diastasis of the Lisfranc joint, a key indicator used to diagnose Lisfranc injuries. The computational model was within one standard deviation of the cadaveric study in all measurements for the healthy and injured foot. When simulating weight-bearing radiographs, the presence of muscle activity or inversion/eversion resulted in less joint separation for the model with ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. While previous research has noted that weight-bearing radiographs provide better conditions to assess Lisfranc injuries than nonweight-bearing, this study suggests that in weight-bearing radiographs both altering the position of the foot, possibly due to pain, and the active contraction of the extrinsic flexor muscles can obfuscate indications of a Lisfranc injury.

Clinical Study on Different Methods of Internal Fixation for Treatment of Lisfranc Joint Injury

The Lisfranc joints are mainly used to connect the forefoot and midfoot and maintain the stability of the arch of the foot. It is an important part of the arch of the foot. If the Lisfranc joints injury is not treated in time, it will cause poor walking, pain in the back of the foot, and even deformity or disability of the forefoot. The common treatment method is to select the Kirschner wires, screws, or steel plates for incisional repositioning internal fixation surgery. In our study, we used different materials to perform fixation surgery on Lisfranc joint injury patients. We measured the joint recovery, pain condition, complications, and biomechanical indexes of different groups of patients after the operation. The results of the study showed that compared with Kirschner wire and screw internal fixation, the use of shaped arch bridge-type microsteel plate internal fixation for the treatment of metatarsotarsal joint injury patients has better foot function recovery, fewer complications, and more reliable biomechanical strength.

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.

Biomechanical Comparison of Fibertape Device Repair Techniques of Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury in a Cadaveric Model

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc ligamentous injuries are complex, and their treatment, along with the preferred method of fixation, is controversial. Implementing a flexible synthetic augmentation device (fibertape) has been described as an alternative to traditional screw fixation. This biomechanical study evaluated two fibertape devices with interference screw fixation: InternalBrace, and InternalBrace with supplementary intercuneiform stabilization.

METHODS

The diastasis and relative angular displacement between bones were measured at three midfoot joints in the Lisfranc articulation. Measurements were obtained for the pre-injured, injured, and post-fixation stages under static loading. Specimens then underwent stepwise increases in cyclic loading performed at 1 Hz and 100 cycles, at 100 N ground reaction force intervals from 500 to 1200 N to simulate postoperative loading, and then up to 1800 N to simulate high loads. Failure of fixation was defined as diastasis greater than 2 millimeters at the second-metatarsal - medial-cuneiform joint.

RESULTS

InternalBrace specimens demonstrated failures in 3 of 9 (33%) specimens at cyclic loads of 1000 N. Conversely, InternalBrace with Supplementary Limb specimens had 1 failure at 1200 N. The difference in diastasis at the second metatarsal-medial cuneiform joint was statistically significant between the two groups at higher loads of 1600N (p = 0.019) and 1800N (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

The use of InternalBrace for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries appears to provide a biomechanically viable alternative for withstanding early postoperative protected weight bearing. Furthermore, the use of a supplementary limb in addition to the InternalBrace fibertape fixation method appears to enhance its biomechanical efficacy.

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.