The Lisfranc Injury: A Literature Review of Anatomy, Etiology, Evaluation, and Management

Nitinol Staple Use in Primary Arthrodesis of Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocations

BACKGROUND

Primary arthrodesis of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations is a reliable treatment option, yet concerns remain about nonunion. Nitinol staple use has recently proliferated in midfoot arthrodesis. The purpose of this study is to examine the union rate of primary arthrodesis of acute Lisfranc fracture-dislocations treated with nitinol staples compared with traditional plate-and-screw fixation. The secondary objective is to assess the difference in operative times and reoperation rates.

METHODS

Midfoot fracture-dislocations treated with primary arthrodesis by 7 foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons were reviewed. Of 160 eligible patients, 121 patients (305 joints) met the required 4-month minimum radiographic follow-up. Radiographic outcomes were analyzed at the individual joint level. Each joint was classified as either staples alone (45 patients, 154 joints), staples plus plates and screws (hybrid) (45 patients, 40 joints), or plates and screws alone (31 patients, 111 joints). The primary outcome was arthrodesis union at each joint fused.

RESULTS

Nonunion was more common (9.0%, 10/111) among joints fixed with plate and screws than with hybrid (2.5%, 1/40) or staples only (1.3%, 2/154) (P = .0085). Multivariable regression demonstrated that autograft use was independent associated with union (P = .0035) and plate-and-screw only fixation was an independent risk factor for nonunion (P = .0407). Median operating room and tourniquet times were shorter for hybrid (92 and 83 minutes) and staple only (67 and 63 minutes) constructs compared to plate-and-screw only fixation (105 and 95 minutes) (P ≤ .0001 and .0003). There was no difference in reoperation rates among patients with different fixation types.

CONCLUSION

We found that use of nitinol compression staple and bone autograft in primary arthrodesis of Lisfranc and midfoot fracture-dislocations was associated with both improved union rates and shorter tourniquet and operative times compared to traditional plate-and-screw fixation techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic.

Recovery Curves for Lisfranc ORIF Using PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference

OBJECTIVES

To determine the postoperative trajectory and recovery of patients who undergo Lisfranc open reduction and internal fixation using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI).

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

Patients who underwent Lisfranc open reduction and internal fixation between January 2002 and December 2022 with documented PROMIS PF and/or PI scores after surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

PROMIS PF and PI were mapped over time up to 1 year after surgery. A subanalysis was performed to compare recovery trajectories between high-energy and low-energy injuries.

RESULTS

A total of 182 patients were included with average age of 38.7 (SD 15.9) years (59 high-energy and 122 low-energy injuries). PROMIS PF scores at 0, 6, 12, 24, and 48 weeks were 30.2, 31.4, 39.2, 43.9, and 46.7, respectively. There was significant improvement in PROMIS PF between 6 and 12 weeks ( P < 0.001), 12-24 weeks ( P < 0.001), and 24-48 weeks ( P = 0.022). A significant difference in PROMIS PF between high and low-energy injuries was seen at 0 week (28.4 vs. 31.4, P = 0.010). PROMIS PI scores at 0, 6, 12, 24, and 48 weeks were 62.2, 58.5, 56.6, 55.7, and 55.6, respectively. There was significant improvement in PROMIS PI 0-6 weeks ( P = 0.016). A significant difference in PROMIS PI between high-energy and low-energy injuries was seen at 48 weeks with scores of (58.6 vs. 54.2, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

After Lisfranc open reduction and internal fixation, patients can expect improvement in PF up to 1 year after surgery, with the biggest improvement in PROMIS PF scores between 6 and 12 weeks and PROMIS PI scores between 0 and 6 weeks after surgery. Regardless the energy type, Lisfranc injuries seem to regain comparable PF by 6-12 months after surgery. However, patients with higher energy Lisfranc injuries should be counseled that these injuries may lead to worse PI at 1 year after surgery as compared with lower energy injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Complications and Outcomes After Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries at an Urban Level 1 Trauma Center

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate patients with tarsometatarsal fractures and dislocations and describe complications and secondary operations.

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

Consecutive adults treated acutely for Lisfranc injuries with reduction and fixation using standard techniques of rigid medial fixation and flexible lateral fixation.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

Complications include infections, wound healing problems, nonunion, malunion, and posttraumatic arthrosis (PTA), and secondary unplanned procedures after a minimum of 2-year radiographic follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean age of the included 118 patients was 40 years (range, 18-73 years) and 96 (74%) were male. Comorbidities included obesity (n = 32; 40%), diabetes mellitus (n = 12; 9%), and tobacco use (n = 67; 52%). Thirty (23%) were open injuries, and concomitant forefoot injuries were present in 47% and hindfoot injuries in 12%. Unplanned secondary procedures, including implant removals, were performed on 39 patients (33%), most often for removal of painful implants (26%) or infectious debridement (9%). Sixty-seven complications occurred, with PTA most frequent (37%). Deep infections occurred in 8%. On multivariate analysis, open injury ( P = 0.028, CI = 1.22-30.63, OR = 6.12) and concomitant forefoot injury ( P = 0.03, CI = 1.12-9.76, OR = 3.31) were independent risk factors for complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Open Lisfranc injuries were associated with complications, with deep infections occurring in 9%. Secondary procedures were most often performed for pain relief; the most common late complication was PTA, warranting counseling of patients about potential long-term sequelae of injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Augmented Stress Weight-bearing CT for Evaluation of Subtle Lisfranc Injuries in the Elite Athlete

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries refer to a disruption or displacement of the tarsometatarsal joint of the foot. Subtle Lisfranc injuries can go undiagnosed on conventional imaging leading to devastating consequences and poor functional outcomes for elite athletes. Objective. The objective of this case study is to present a novel imaging technique using weight-bearing computed tomography (CT) with enhanced stress to identify subtle, dynamically unstable Lisfranc injuries. We illustrate this with a case presentation of an elite athlete who ultimately required surgical fixation for a subtle Lisfranc injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To perform an augmented stress weight-bearing CT, the patient was positioned standing, with their feet facing forward, and weight equally distributed. The patient was then coached to symmetrically raise both heels from the scanner platform. This plantarflexion provided augmented stress on the midfoot, allowing for more sensitive imaging of the Lisfranc injury. The weight-bearing CT and augmented stress images undergo 3D reconstruction and postprocessing to render coronal and sagittal images, allowing for comparison of the standard weight-bearing and augmented stress images.

RESULTS

We present the case of a 22-year-old collegiate football lineman sustaining a Lisfranc injury. The injury diagnosis was made by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical examination, without evidence of injury on weight-bearing XR or standard weight-bearing CT. With augmented stress CT imaging, the Lisfranc instability was noted, leading to surgical fixation, and return to sport the next season.

CONCLUSION

We propose this technique for diagnosing subtle, unstable Lisfranc injuries where clinical suspicion persists despite inconclusive imaging, particularly in elite athletes. Further research is needed with larger sample sizes to investigate the sensitivity of this novel imaging technique for the detection of Lisfranc injury.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level 4: Case Report.

Early Outcomes of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Arthrex InternalBrace: A Case Series

Introduction

The treatment of Lisfranc injuries continues to evolve with time. The purpose of this study was to report early outcomes of patients with Lisfranc ligamentous injuries treated with the Arthrex InternalBrace, which has benefits to other previously described techniques.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively identified 15 adult patients with Lisfranc injuries that were treated via open reduction internal fixation with the Arthrex InternalBrace (Naples, Fl). These patients were identified at two separate United States institutions between 2019 and 2022. Demographic data, mechanism of injury, and concomitant foot injuries were recorded. Outcomes were assessed by return-to-work or sport and time to weight-bearing. Secondary complications or revision surgeries were noted.

Results

The mean patient age was 35 years. Eight patients had isolated Lisfranc ligamentous injuries and seven had additional intercuneiform instability, which required a supplemental limb of the fixation device. The most common mechanism of injury was a cutting/pivoting maneuver (n = 5) followed by fall (n = 4). The mean radiographic follow-up time was 7.3 months. The average time to weight-bearing as tolerated was 6.6 weeks (± 2.2). The average time to return-to-work/sport as tolerated was 14.1 weeks (± 3.6). Only two minor complications were noted at follow-up but no major complications or revision surgeries occurred.

Conclusions

The outcomes of this case series suggest that the Arthrex InternalBrace is a viable option when performing open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc ligamentous injuries. Future prospective studies are needed to directly compare this device with alternative fixation methods.

Graphical Abstract

Multidisciplinary Management and Rehabilitation of Severe Crush Injury Resulting in Lisfranc Fracture: A Case Report

A 58-year-old male patient was seriously injured in his left foot as a result of a passenger car accident, resulting in a Lisfranc fracture and complications on his left side. The initial injury resulted in a 20-cm laceration, severe pain, and severe swelling. After primary care at the government hospital, the patient was referred to Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital (AVBRH) for further treatment. Clinical examination revealed infection, Lisfranc ligament rupture, bone exposure, restriction of movement, and muscle strength. His fracture was managed with Kirschner wire(K-wire) fixation surgically. A holistic physical management plan includes immobilization and a comprehensive medical program to reduce edema, muscle atrophy, and joint stiffness. Post physiotherapy showed significant improvements in joint function, muscle strength, and functional scores after rehabilitation. Outcome measures such as the Lower Extremity Functional Scale, Olerud-Molander Ankle Score, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 are related to physical recovery, stress reduction, and healing as a whole-life treatment. These data highlight the importance of a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach in the effective management of Lisfranc fracture injuries and confirm the advantages of timely intervention and physical therapy for the benefit of these patients.

Lisfranc Injury Diagnosis: What Is the Diagnostic Reliability of New Radiographic Signs Using Three-dimensional CT?

BACKGROUND

Up to one-third of Lisfranc injuries (an injury affecting the normal stability, alignment, and congruency of the tarsometatarsal joints) are misdiagnosed. Delayed diagnosis and improper treatment may lead to long-term, irreversible sequela and functional disability. Recently, the employment of three-dimensional (3D) CT demonstrated higher diagnostic reliability, but there is limited evidence on this, and radiologic features of Lisfranc injuries when using this diagnostic modality are not well described.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

What is the diagnostic performance of several novel radiographic signs on 3D CT when evaluating for Lisfranc injury, namely the Mercedes sign, the peeking metatarsal sign, and the peeking cuneiform sign, and what is the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of those diagnostic signs?

METHODS

In this retrospective, diagnostic study, video clips of 3D CT reconstructions of 52 feet with intraoperatively confirmed Lisfranc injuries and 50 asymptomatic feet with a normal appearance of the tarsometatarsal joints, as ascertained by a subspecialty-trained foot and ankle surgeon and a musculoskeletal radiologist, were analyzed by two foot and ankle specialists and three orthopaedic residents twice each, with a washout period of 2 weeks. Among the 52 patients with intraoperative evidence of Lisfranc injury, there were 27 male patients and 25 female patients, with a median (IQR) age of 40 years (23 to 58); among the 50 controls, there were 36 male and 14 female patients, with a median age of 38 years (IQR 33 to 49). For each video clip, the presence of all three radiographic signs was documented (each sign was rated in a binary yes/no fashion). Before the evaluations, all observers underwent a short training session by the head of the foot and ankle department. Later, these reading were used to assess for the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in terms of Lisfranc diagnosis against the gold standard of intraoperative testing of tarsometatarsal joint stability. Intraoperatively, the congruency and stability of the second tarsometatarsal joint had been evaluated by direct visualization and by the insertion of a probe into the joint between the base of the second metatarsus and the medial cuneiform and twisting the probe to assess for stability. The individuals evaluating the video clips were unaware of the surgically obtained diagnosis at the time they performed their evaluations.

RESULTS

All 3D radiographic signs that were examined had excellent diagnostic reliability in terms of sensitivity and specificity, ranging from 92% to 97% and from 92% to 93%, respectively. When assessing the association between the suggested 3D radiographic signs and Lisfranc injury diagnosis as a function of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, the Mercedes sign demonstrated a higher area under the curve than the other signs did (0.91 versus 0.87 versus 0.8; p < 0.001). The mean intraobserver and interobserver reliability (kappa) values were excellent for all 3D radiographic signs that were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

The proposed radiographic findings demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance and were repeatable within and among observers. Three-dimensional CT radiographic signs could function as a valuable diagnostic tool for the evaluation and initial screening for Lisfranc injury in the acute injury phase because obtaining AP bilateral standing radiographs of the foot is often impractical in the acute setting. Further research and comparison with AP weightbearing radiographs of the bilateral feet may be warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

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.

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.

Closed Reduction and Percutaneous Fixation of Lisfranc Injury Using Suspensory Fixation

Background

This closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF) technique utilizing suspensory fixation is indicated for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries with displacement or instability of the tarsometatarsal joint complex-and typically only for low-energy, purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. The goal of this procedure is to restore joint stability and prevent common complications of Lisfranc injuries (e.g., midfoot arch collapse and posttraumatic arthritis) while avoiding the complications and risks associated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis. We recommend performing the procedure within 10 to 14 days of the injury; otherwise, an open debridement may be necessary to address scar tissue formation.

Description

We start with the patient in the supine position and perform a fluoroscopic stress examination of the joint. Next, the Lisfranc joint undergoes closed reduction, which is held in place with a clamp. Following reduction, a guidewire is drilled from the lateral border of the base of the 2nd metatarsal medially through the medial cuneiform, followed by a medial-to-lateral cannulated drill. The suspensory fixation is then passed lateral-to-medial, placing the suture button on the lateral cortex of the 2nd metatarsal base. The tape is then tensioned while a bioabsorbable interference screw is inserted to maintain tension.

Alternatives

Prior studies have assessed both operative and nonoperative alternatives to CRPF with suspensory fixation for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Nonoperative treatment with closed reduction and cast immobilization of Lisfranc injuries is typically reserved for nondisplaced injuries; however, a number of studies have shown poor outcomes with use of this technique1-3. The 2 most common operative alternatives are ORIF and primary arthrodesis4.

Rationale

CRPF with suspensory fixation offers several benefits over both traditional surgical techniques such as ORIF and primary arthrodesis, as well as over percutaneous reduction and internal fixation (PRIF) with a screw. Compared with ORIF and primary arthrodesis, a number of studies have shown that percutaneous treatment of Lisfranc injuries minimizes soft-tissue trauma and reduces the risk of postoperative complications such as wound breakdown, infection, and complex regional pain syndrome, while allowing for earlier participation in rehabilitation5-10. A systematic review of outcomes following PRIF with screw fixation also showed that percutaneous treatment of Lisfranc injuries is a safe and effective technique with good functional outcomes11. When comparing PRIF with a screw to our technique of CRPF with suspensory fixation, CRPF has the added benefit of creating a nonrigid fixation in the Lisfranc joint, which allows for increased range of motion of the medial column and improved return to activity12,13. The rigid fixation in PRIF with a screw can also lead to metal irritation, intra-articular screw fracture, and impaired mobility, which often necessitate the need for screw removal13-15. This fixation-related drawback is not present with our technique, and also avoids the need for use of a biologic substitute such as tendon grafts13.

Expected Outcomes

Following CRPF with suspensory fixation, patients can expect to return to full activity at 12 to 16 weeks postoperatively. Postoperatively, patients are typically kept non-weight-bearing for 6 weeks. The operative foot is kept immobilized in a splint for the first 2 weeks, then transitioned to a boot. Between postoperative weeks 6 and 12, partial progressive weight-bearing is introduced with use of an arch support, progressing toward full weight-bearing13,16,17.For comparison, patients who underwent PRIF with screw fixation had a similar postoperative course, but almost all required screw removal at 4 to 6 months postoperatively13,16. Cho et al. retrospectively reviewed the results of 63 patients who underwent either PRIF with screw fixation (n = 32) or CRPF with a suture button (n = 31) and found that CRPF patients had significantly better American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot scale scores (81 versus 74 points) and visual analog scale scores (3.1 versus 4.6 points) at 6 months postoperatively and prior to screw removal in the PRIF group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in these scores, radiographic outcomes, weight-bearing analysis, or complications at 1 year postoperatively. The authors concluded that both techniques provided comparable fixation stability and clinical outcomes. Of note, however, the PRIF group had 4 patients whose postoperative course was complicated by screw breakage13.

Important Tips

Start with a fluoroscopic stress examination to identify all components of instability.Ensure that the reduction clamp does not interfere with or affect your guidewire path.If the joint cannot be reduced, convert to an open procedure and debride the obstruction.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ORIF = open reduction and internal fixationPRIF = percutaneous reduction and internal fixationCRPF = closed reduction and percutaneous fixationNSAID = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugOR = operating roomAP = anteroposteriorCT = computed tomographyMRI = magnetic resonance imagingAOFAS = American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle SocietyVAS = visual analog scaleROM = range of motionPT = physical therapyASA = acetyl-salicylic acid (aspirin)BID = twice dailyPRN = as needed.

The role of three dimension computed tomography in Lisfranc injury diagnosis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the intra/inter observer and diagnostic reliability of 3-dimensional (3D) model reconstruction computed tomography (CT) compared to the traditional two-dimensional (2D) CT when evaluating Lisfranc (LF) injuries.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on CT studies of patients with clinically suspected LF injuries examined in the emergency department at medium size medical center. Each CT study was evaluated for metatarsal fractures and subluxations employing both standard 2D and 3D CT model reconstruction. Four orthopaedists, 2 senior and 2 residents, were assigned to review and evaluate each CT. Each CT study was reviewed twice by each reader in a randomized order. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all measured variables. The intra-observer and inter-observer agreement Kappa coefficients were calculated to evaluate reliability and reproducibility between and within readers for each modality.

RESULTS

The study included 44 patients. Median age was 41.4 years (interquartile range, 23-58). The intra-observer and inter-observer reliability was good (intra-observer; 3D Kappa; 0.76 and 2D Kappa 0.73 p<0.001, inter-observer; 3D Kappa 0.68, 2D Kappa 0.63 and combined 2D and 3D kappa 0.68, p<0.001). Three dimensional CT was found to be more sensitive than 2D CT, specifically when evaluating for second metatarsal dislocation (sensitivity: 70% vs 47%). Combined evaluation of 2D and 3D CT, greatly improved sensitivity rate to 85.7%. In terms of fracture diagnosis, combined evaluation of 2D and 3D CT showed higher sensitivity and specificity rates as compared to 2D or 3D alone.

CONCLUSION

The employment of 3D CT in LF injury diagnosis, in isolation and in combination with 2D CT, seems to improve the diagnostic accuracy and reliability between and within observers compared to 2D CT alone.

Bilateral Lisfranc Injury in a Young Female: A Case Report

Lisfranc injuries are relatively rare, accounting for only 0.2% of all injuries. It is even rarer to have this injury bilaterally, and not many case reports have been published on this topic. In this report, we present a case of a bilateral Lisfranc injury in a healthy 17-year-old woman that fell from a flight of stairs landing on both feet. The diagnosis was made by weight-bearing x-rays and computed tomography. Weight-bearing x-rays showed a subtle Lisfranc injury in the right foot with widening between the first and second rays and a disruption involving the overlapping bases of the lesser metatarsals as well as a left comminuted fracture of the proximal third and fourth metatarsals (MT) with intra-articular extension at the proximal fourth MT. CT scan of the right foot showed a fracture of the lateral margin of the medial cuneiform with a displaced bony fragment as well as a comminuted fracture of the third and fourth metatarsals with intra-articular extension and no dislocation. Surgical management, in the form of open reduction and internal fixation, was undertaken for both feet in the same setting. She had an expected course postoperatively and has been doing well, with no pain nor limitation in her activity at her six-month postoperative visit. Moreover, we present a brief review of similar published cases and an overview of Lisfranc injuries.

Evaluating the Validity and Reliability of the Persian Version of American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Midfoot Scale

BACKGROUND

The use of a valid and reliable outcome scoring system is crucial for evaluating the result of different treatment interventions. The aims of this study were to translate and culturally adapt the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scoring system into the Persian language and assess its validity and reliability.

METHOD

In total, 57 patients with midfoot injuries were enrolled. Forward-backward translation and cultural adaptation methods were used to develop the Persian version of AOFAS midfoot scoring system. Reliability and internal consistency were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's alpha. The discriminant and convergent validities of the scoring system were assessed using the total score of the mental and physical component of SF-36.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 46.2 ± 16.3 years. The intra-observer reliability of the totals core of the Persian version of AOFAS midfoot scoring system was 0.96 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.97) and the inter-observer reliability of the scoring system was 0.90 (CI: 0.86-0.95). The Persian version of AOFAS midfoot scoring system had acceptable convergence with physical component scoring system of SF-36 and its subscales (0.57); moreover, it had acceptable discriminant validity with the mental component of SF-36 and its subscales (0.36).

CONCLUSION

The Persian version of AOFAS midfoot is a reliable and valid instrument and could be used by Persian language clinicians and researchers.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

3.