Screw and wire fixation for Lisfranc fracture dislocations

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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.

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.

Arthrodesis or Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Meta-analysis

The purpose of this study is to determine if arthrodesis, compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), produces favorable American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and to determine if differences in complication, revision surgery, and secondary arthrodesis rates exist for patients with Lisfranc fracture/dislocation injuries. Searches were performed in PubMed using the keywords "Lisfranc fracture," "metatarsal fracture," "ORIF," "open reduction internal fixation," "arthrodesis," and "fusion." These criteria left 183 articles for review. Exclusions left 21 articles and 2 translations of Chinese abstracts. Data analysis was performed using Student's 2-sample t test for samples of equal variance, and chi-square test for goodness of fit. The t test revealed a significant difference (P = .03) between the average AOFAS score for patients who underwent primary arthrodesis (84.7 ± 6.14) compared with those who were treated with ORIF (78.9 ± 5.09). There was no significant difference for the average VAS scores (P = .33) of the arthrodesis and ORIF groups. The complication rate of arthrodesis patients was significantly lower than ORIF patients (P = .04), and the rates of revision surgery (P = .22) and secondary arthrodesis (P = .53) were not significant between the groups. The results of this study indicate that arthrodesis may be a better surgical option than ORIF, due to the higher functional scores and the lower complication rate.Levels of Evidence: Level III: A meta-analysis.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Percutaneous Reduction and 2.7-mm Cortical Screw Fixation for Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

To use the advantages of transarticular screw fixation while minimizing iatrogenic involved joint damage and screw irritation, it is important to determine the screw size. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation for low-energy Lisfranc injuries and determine whether the procedure is a safe alternative to traditional screw fixation using a larger screw size. A review was performed for all patients who underwent percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation for low-energy Lisfranc injuries at a single institution over a 6-year period. Thirty-one patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were assessed clinically and radiographically for demographics, foot function index (FFI), numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, patient satisfaction, and complication rates. Factors affecting screw breakage and its clinical relevance were also analyzed. The FFI and NRS for pain were 17.2 ± 14.7 (range 0.8 to 57.8) and 3.1 ± 2.3 (range 0 to 8) points, respectively, at the 12-month follow-up visit. One patient (3.2%) underwent arthrodesis for the development of posttraumatic arthritis; all other patients recovered without sequelae. Screw breakage was identified in 7 patients (22.6%). There was no significant difference between patients with and without screw breakage in terms of FFI, NRS for pain, patient satisfaction, or complication rate. Body mass index (BMI) was significantly higher in patients with screw breakage than in those without screw breakage. Receiver operator characteristics curve analysis demonstrated a strong relationship between BMI and screw breakage (area under the curve = 90%, p < .001), and the potential BMI cutoff value was 27.8 kg/m². After considering the incidence of screw breakage, percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation can be a viable option for treating low-energy Lisfranc injuries in nonobese patients, especially those with BMI <27.8 kg/m².

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries: A Single Centre Experience

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries are uncommon and can be challenging to manage. There is considerable variation in opinion regarding the mode of operative treatment of these injuries, with some studies preferring primary arthrodesis over traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). We aim to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of the patients treated with ORIF in our unit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study, in which all 27 consecutive patients treated with ORIF between June 2013 and October 2018 by one surgeon were included with an average followup of 2.4 years. All patients underwent ORIF with joint-sparing surgery by a dorsal bridging plate (DBP) for the second and third tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint, and the first TMT joint was fixed with transarticular screws. Patients had clinical examination and radiological assessment and completed American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Foot Function Index (FFI) questionnaires.

RESULTS

Our early results of 22 patients (5 lost to followup) showed that 16 (72%) patients were pain free, walking normally without aids, and wearing normal shoes and 68% were able to run or play sports. The mean AOFAS midfoot score was 78.1 (63-100) and the average FFI was 19.5 (0.6-34). Radiological assessment confirmed that only three patients had progression to posttraumatic arthritis at the TMT joints though only one of these was clinically symptomatic.

CONCLUSION

Good clinical and radiological outcomes can be achieved by ORIF in lisfranc injuries with joint-sparing surgery using DBP.

Deep Peroneal Nerve Injury Following Hardware Removal for Lisfranc Joint Injury

BACKGROUND

Surgical exposure of the Lisfranc joint complex is within close proximity to the deep peroneal nerve, which can be injured in this approach. Common clinical practice is to remove Lisfranc hardware at 3 to 4 months postoperatively. However, it is unknown if this provides a clinical benefit or risks injury to the deep peroneal nerve. The rate of nerve injury is currently unknown from the published literature. This study clarifies rates of neurological injury to the deep peroneal nerve during primary surgery and hardware removal.

METHODS

This retrospective study was performed on all patients of a single surgeon from 2012 to 2018. Fixation was performed with locking plates or screws depending on the injury pattern. All patients who required open reduction and internal fixation routinely underwent hardware removal during this time. Neurological injury was assessed in a binary fashion (normal or abnormal) at 2, 6, and 12 weeks after the primary surgery and 2 and 12 weeks after hardware removal. McNemar's test was performed to compare the rates of injury. Patients were contacted at a minimum follow-up of 15 months (range, 15-87 months) to assess persistent nerve injury and satisfaction. Fifty-seven patients with an average age of 29.8 years were included in the final analysis; all had documentation at 3 months postsurgery.

RESULTS

All patients had normal neurology before surgery. The rate of nerve injury for the primary surgery (11%) was significantly lower than the rate for patients with nerve injury following hardware removal (23%). However, the rate of spontaneous neurological recovery was low, with symptoms persisting in 5 of 6 patients between the primary operation and subsequent hardware removal. When these patients were excluded from the analysis, the rate of new nerve injury following hardware removal (15%) was not significantly different from the primary surgery rate. Seventy-one percent of nerve injuries persisted at the minimum 15-month final follow-up, with all patients with nerve injury being very or partially satisfied.

CONCLUSION

The rate of deep peroneal nerve injury from primary Lisfranc fixation was 11%, and when routine hardware removal was planned the overall rate of nerve injury rose to 23%. This may be useful information during the patient consent process.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Bioabsorbable implants in foot trauma surgery

BACKGROUND

Resorbable osteosynthesis has been used in orthopaedic surgery for many years. However, indications for the use of these implants in the surgery of traumatic lesions of the foot have not yet been clearly defined. The aim of this study is to analyse reported experiences with the bioabsorbable devices and to suggest guidelines for their use in foot trauma surgery METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify known indications for the use of absorbable devices in traumatic lesions of the foot. We also conducted a retrospective analysis of our registry, reviewing patients with traumatic lesions of the foot who were treated surgically with absorbable devices from November 2005 to January 2017. To this end, we analysed for each case the indication for the use of resorbable devices and the incidence of related complications.

RESULTS

Only 14 relevant studies were found. In the selected period, 76 patients were treated using bioabsorbable devices for a traumatic lesion of the foot. Nine patients were lost to follow-up or did not satisfy the inclusion criteria. Therefore, the final size of the registry was 67 patients. The average follow-up was 20.5 months (range 6-66). All the bioabsorbable devices used were screws and bars of poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA). The indications identified in the literature review and in our registry were osteosynthesis of small periarticular fragments in talus and calcaneus fractures, preliminary stabilisation of articular fragments in Sanders III calcaneal fractures and fracture-dislocations of the Lisfranc or Chopart joints. No foreign-body reactions occurred. However, in one case we registered a late mobilisation of a PLLA bar in a healed calcaneal fracture, probably as a consequence of surgical malpositioning of the device. All the operated lesions demonstrated a normal healing time, and the complication rate was comparable with those of other types of osteosynthesis.

CONCLUSION

In foot trauma surgery the use of absorbable devices can give advantages. The most clearly defined indications are osteosynthesis of peri-articular or articular fragments in talus and calcaneus fractures, Sanders III calcaneal fractures and fracture-dislocations of Lisfranc's or Chopart's joints. Foreign-body reactions are rare and seem not to present a problem.

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.

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.

Efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation with a miniplate and hollow screw in the treatment of Lisfranc injury

PURPOSE

To investigate efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation with the miniplate and hollow screw in the treatment of Lisfranc injury.

METHODS

Ten cases of Lisfranc injury treated by open reduction, miniplate and hollow screw in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. There were 6 males and 4 females with age ranging from 25 to 45 years (mean 32 years). Among them, one case was classified as Type A, six Type B and three Type C. Injury mechanism included road traffic accidents (3 cases), fall from height (5 cases) and hit by heavy object (2 cases). All injuries were closed without cerebral trauma or other complicated injuries. The time interval between injury and operation was 6-10 days (average 6.6 days). Postoperatively, the foot function was assessed using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Scales. Healing time and complications were observed.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up for 18-24 months (average 20 months). Anatomic reduction was achieved in all patients on images. There was statistical significance between preoperative score (7.89 ± 0.34) and score at postoperative 8 weeks (0.67 ± 0.13). According to the AOFAS score, 5 cases were defined as excellent, 3 cases as good and 2 cases as fair. During follow-up, there was no wound infection or complications except for osteoarthritis in 2 cases. Healing time ranged from 3 to 6 months with an average of 3.6 months.

CONCLUSION

Anatomical reduction of Lisfranc injury can be achieved by open reduction and internal fixation with the miniplate and hollow screw. Normal structure of Lisfranc joint is regained to a great extent; injured ligaments were also repaired. Therefore, this method offers excellent curative effect and can avoid postoperative complications and improve the patients' quality of life.

Functional Outcomes After Temporary Bridging With Locking Plates in Lisfranc Injuries

The standard operative treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocations currently consists of open reduction and transarticular fixation. Recently, bridge plating has been used more often. Using joint spanning, the reduced fracture dislocation is temporary stabilized to minimize articular damage. The present study describes the outcomes of patients treated with bridge plating after tarsometatarsal fracture dislocations compared with transarticular screw fixation. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients with an isolated tarsometatarsal injury who had been treated operatively from June 2000 to October 2013 were included. The primary functional outcome was measured using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society midfoot score and the Foot Function Index. The secondary outcome was patient satisfaction, which was measured using the EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire and a visual analog scale. A total of 34 patients were included. Bridge plating was used in 21 patients. In 13 patients, Kirschner wires or transarticular screws or a combination were used. The median follow-up period was 49 (interquartile range 18 to 89) months. The implants were removed in 10 of 13 patients in the transarticular group and 17 of 21 patients in the bridge plating group. The incidence of wound complications was comparable in both groups. The median American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score was lower in the transarticular group (77 versus 66). The Foot Function Index score was 18 in both groups. Patient satisfaction was 90% in the bridge plating group and 80% in the transarticular group. Bridge plating for Lisfranc injuries led to at least similar results compared with transarticular fixation in terms of functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. Longer follow-up is necessary to determine whether the prevention of secondary damage to the articular surface leads to less post-traumatic arthritis and better functional outcomes.

Does Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis Improve Patient Outcomes for Lisfranc Trauma? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although Lisfranc injuries are uncommon, representing approximately 0.2% of all fractures, they are complex and can result in persistent pain, degenerative arthritis, and loss of function. Both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary fusion have been proposed as treatment options for these injuries, but debate remains as to which approach is better.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked whether ORIF or primary fusion led to (1) fewer reoperations for hardware removal; (2) less frequent revision surgery; (3) higher patient outcome scores; and (4) more frequent anatomic reduction.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Three trials met the criteria for inclusion within the meta-analysis. Qualifying articles for the meta-analysis had data extracted independently by two authors (NS, AF). The quality of each study was assessed using the Center for Evidence Based Medicine's evaluation strategy; data were extracted from articles rated as good and fair: two and one article, respectively.

RESULTS

The risk ratio for hardware removal was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.45; p < 0.001) indicating more hardware removal for ORIF than fusion. For other revision surgery, the risk ratio for ORIF was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.08-1.59; p = 0.18) favoring neither. Similarly, neither was favored using patient-reported outcomes; the standard mean difference was calculated to be 0.50 (95% CI, -2.13 to 3.12; p = 0.71). When considering the risk of nonanatomic alignment, neither was favored (risk ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.34-6.38; p = 0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgeon should consider the increased risk of hardware removal along with its associated morbidity and discuss this with the patient preoperatively when considering ORIF of Lisfranc injuries. Because no new trials have been performed since 2012, further randomized controlled trials will be needed improve our understanding of these interventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Biomechanical study of tarsometatarsal joint fusion using finite element analysis

Complications of surgeries in foot and ankle bring patients with severe sufferings. Sufficient understanding of the internal biomechanical information such as stress distribution, contact pressure, and deformation is critical to estimate the effectiveness of surgical treatments and avoid complications. Foot and ankle is an intricate and synergetic system, and localized intervention may alter the functions to the adjacent components. The aim of this study was to estimate biomechanical effects of the TMT joint fusion using comprehensive finite element (FE) analysis. A foot and ankle model consists of 28 bones, 72 ligaments, and plantar fascia with soft tissues embracing all the segments. Kinematic information and ground reaction force during gait were obtained from motion analysis. Three gait instants namely the first peak, second peak and mid-stance were simulated in a normal foot and a foot with TMT joint fusion. It was found that contact pressure on plantar foot increased by 0.42%, 19% and 37%, respectively after TMT fusion compared with normal foot walking. Navico-cuneiform and fifth meta-cuboid joints sustained 27% and 40% increase in contact pressure at second peak, implying potential risk of joint problems such as arthritis. Von Mises stress in the second metatarsal bone increased by 22% at midstance, making it susceptible to stress fracture. This study provides biomechanical information for understanding the possible consequences of TMT joint fusion.