Adequate return to sports and sports activities after treatment of Lisfranc injury: a meta-analysis

Suture button fixation yields high levels of patient reported outcomes, return to sport, and stable fixation in isolated Lisfranc injuries: A systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Lisfranc injuries remain a significant, but often misdiagnosed, orthopaedic injury. Alongside the traditional methods of surgical fixation, including arthrodesis and open reduction and internal fixation with screws, suture button fixation is an emerging technique.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of suture button fixation for treatment of Lisfranc injuries through a systematic review.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A comprehensive literature review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for original, English-language studies observing outcomes of Lisfranc injury until August 19, 2022. The clinical studies with evidence level I-IV and at least a 12 month follow-up after the index surgery were included if they examined quantifiable outcomes of Lisfranc injury treated with suture button. Articles were excluded if they included case reports, systematic reviews, comments, editorials, surveys, animal studies, or biomechanical/cadaveric studies. Variables extracted from text and figures include demographic information, return to sport measures, patient reported outcomes, and complications.

FINDINGS

Of the 10 studies included, there were 186 total patients with an age range of 13-72. In every study, all patients were able to return to sport or activity with a return time averaging from 10.8 to 25.9 weeks. Postoperative American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scores ranged from 83.5 to 97.0 while pain Visual Analogue Scale ranged from 0.6 to 2.5. Complications were reported in four studies at a rate of 7.7% including two cases of diastasis, two cases of paraesthesia, one case of button irritation, and one of postoperative degenerative joint disease, with no reported revisions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In our systematic review, suture button fixation shows high levels of patient reported outcomes, return to sport, and stable fixation in isolated Lisfranc injuries. This surgical technique provides a physiologic reduction across the Lisfranc joint and reduces the need for reoperation including removal of hardware. However, further evidence such as large sample size high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed to draw a definitive conclusion regarding the best treatment for Lisfranc injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Systematic Review of Level III and IV studies.

Lisfranc Sports Injuries: What Do We Know So Far?

Lisfranc sports injuries include tarsometatarsal joint injuries, which may be accompanied by fractures. They most commonly occur due to a blow or axial force. The aim of this review is to assess the current standards for surgical intervention in Lisfranc injuries resulting from sports-related accidents. This evaluation will cover the timing of treatment, the recovery process, and the appropriate timing for a return to normal sporting activities. This research was done via an analytical review of current literature. Methods included a structured search strategy on PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The collated literature was processed using formal inclusion or exclusion, data extraction, and validity assessment. Joint involvement and severity were taken into account while classifying Lisfranc injuries. The primary fixation and fusion techniques for Lisfranc injuries were compared, and the surgical management of these injuries was examined in all of the literature. Treatment recovery times were examined, and the results were talked about. A variety of injuries, from minor sprains to serious fractures and rips, make up Lisfranc injuries. Although open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in combination with primary arthrodesis (PA) is now thought to be the optimum course of treatment, its acceptance has increased. Patients with Lisfranc injuries can usually expect excellent outcomes and the return of joint function to its pre-injury form if the injury is appropriately assessed and treated. Lisfranc injuries are manageable and have a good recovery time if not neglected. The outcomes of management and surgical options are also quite satisfactory.

Management of Lisfranc Injuries: A Critical Analysis Review

»

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

»

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

»

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

»

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

»

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

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.

Kinematic Analysis of Sequential Partial-Midfoot Arthrodesis in Simulated Gait Cadaver Model

BACKGROUND

Primary tarsometatarsal (TMT) arthrodesis is gaining popularity in the surgical treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, few studies have evaluated biomechanical effects of TMT arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the kinematics of joints adjacent to the midfoot during simulations of stance before and after sequential arthrodesis of the first, second, and third TMT joints.

METHODS

Ten midtibia cadaveric specimens were loaded on a 6-degree-of-freedom robotic gait simulator. Motion capture cameras were used to collect joint kinematics throughout simulations of the stance phase. Simulations were performed for the intact and sequential arthrodesis conditions of the first, second, and third TMT joints. The sagittal, coronal, and transverse plane rotational kinematics of the intact condition were compared to kinematics after each sequential arthrodesis condition.

RESULTS

Sequential arthrodesis of the first and second TMT joints had no significant effect on ankle, subtalar, talonavicular, and first metatarsophalangeal joint motion during simulated stance when compared to the intact condition. In contrast, inclusion of the third TMT joint into the sequential arthrodesis significantly increased subtalar inversion (P = .032) in late stance and increased range of motion values in the ankle and subtalar joints by 2.1 degrees (P = .009) and 2.8 degrees (P = .014), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sequential primary arthrodesis induced changes to ankle and adjacent joint kinematics during stance phase simulations, although not until the third TMT joint was included into the primary arthrodesis. The significant changes to kinematics due to arthrodesis of the first, second, and third TMT joints were small.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The minimal changes in sagittal, coronal, and transverse plane rotational kinematics support the positive clinical outcomes reported in the literature for primary partial arthrodesis of Lisfranc injuries. The inclusion of the third TMT joint should be done judiciously.