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

[Lisfranc injuries]

Lisfranc injuries are rare but severe injuries of the foot. They range from ligament sprain to complex fracture dislocations. Etiologically, a distinction is made between indirect and direct force and between high-energy and low-energy trauma. Inadequate diagnostics (injuries overlooked or misinterpreted) can lead to painful posttraumatic osteoarthritis, chronic instability and deformity of the foot. A fracture, malalignment and unclear findings in conventional radiological diagnostics necessitate computed tomography imaging including 3D reconstruction. Lisfranc injuries are often associated with accompanying pathologies of the foot that also need to be addressed. Only stable non-displaced fractures can be treated conservatively. Depending on the injury pattern, surgical treatment is performed percutaneously, minimally invasive or open. The prognosis following Lisfranc injury is determined by the severity of damage and the quality of reconstruction.

Open Reduction And Internal Fixation of Tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) Fracture Dislocations-Is Arthrodesis Necessary?

INTRODUCTION

Controversy remains regarding the optimal management of tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) fracture dislocations. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and ORIF with primary arthrodesis (PA) have been described in the treatment of these injuries, although adverse sequelae remain problematic. Previous work has yielded small cohorts with heterogenous results. We aimed to describe the outcomes of Lisfranc fracture dislocations managed with ORIF and/or PA to identify risk factors for complications, such as nonunion and revision surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 206 consecutive tarsometatarsal fracture dislocations that underwent surgical repair between 2015 and 2021 was performed. Time to radiographic union was noted. Complications were recorded, including revision surgery, infection, symptomatic implant removal, posttraumatic arthritis, secondary arthrodesis, and nonunion. A comparative subgroup analysis of outcomes by treatment modality (ie, PA versus ORIF) and by injury severity (isolated injury versus concomitant lower extremity fracture) were performed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with revision surgery.

RESULTS

104 patients met the inclusion criteria with a mean 13-month follow-up. Ninety-three (n = 93) patients underwent ORIF, and 11 patients underwent PA. Radiographic union was achieved in 94.2% of cases (98/104) at an average 106 days. Complications included superficial infection (3.8%), deep infection (7.7%), symptomatic implant removal (19.2%), posttraumatic arthritis (12.5%), secondary arthrodesis (4.8%), and nonunion (2.9%). No difference existed in the complication rates between those who underwent ORIF and those who underwent PA ( P = 0.50). Revision surgery rates were similar between patients who sustained isolated injuries and those with concomitant lower extremity fractures ( P = 0.31). Risk factors for revision surgery included open fractures (OR 4.01, P = 0.042) and previous psychiatric illness (OR 5.77, P = 0.016).

DISCUSSION

The vast spectrum of injury in Lisfranc fracture dislocations makes uniform treatment challenging. In this large consecutive series, few failed to achieve union or required secondary arthrodesis. Open fractures and previous psychiatric illness portended worse clinical outcomes. ORIF without PA remains a viable treatment in these injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Suspensory Device Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries in a Southeast Asian Urban Population: Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes

Introduction Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis are two conventional options for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, they are associated with implant-related complications. An alternative suspensory device construct using interosseous nonabsorbable sutures with endobuttons has been described with satisfactory results. This study aims to explore functional outcomes after suture button fixation of Lisfranc injuries in a Southeast Asian population. Methods This was a single-surgeon retrospective study of patients with Lisfranc injuries treated surgically using a suture button fixation technique between 2017 and 2019. Data collected included demographic information, pre-injury levels of activity, nature of injury, and type of surgery performed. The minimum postoperative follow-up was one year. The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) were used to evaluate patient-reported outcomes. Scores were reported in percentage (%) with median and interquartile range. Results Twenty-nine patients with a mean age of 29 years (21-76) were recruited. Sixteen underwent suture button fixation only (SB), and 13 underwent suture button fixation with intercuneiform screw fixation and plating (SBM). The median scores for the FAOS and FAAM questionnaires were at least 80% in all domains. Twenty-eight patients (97%) were able to return to pre-injury activity level, 27 patients (93%) were able to return to sports. Only one patient was not satisfied with the outcomes of surgery. No patients had post-traumatic arthritis or hardware failure necessitating implant removal at the final follow-up. Conclusion This study has demonstrated that treatment of Lisfranc injuries with a suspensory device construct resulted in good outcomes with 97% of patients being able to return to pre-injury activity levels, and 93% of patients being able to return to sports. It may not be necessary to perform primary arthrodesis in uncomplicated Lisfranc injuries. This technique is also advantageous as implant removal is not routinely required due to the design and biomechanical properties of suspensory devices.

Simulated Weightbearing and Articular Injury From Transarticular Screws in a Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury Model

BACKGROUND

Transarticular screw fixation is a common surgical treatment for tarsometatarsal ligamentous (Lisfranc) injuries. Iatrogenic damage to articular cartilage from screw placement, however, has been thought to potentially lead to increased risk of tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint arthritis after initial injury. To date, no study has evaluated the effect of weightbearing on articular cartilage after screw fixation. The aim of this study was to create a Lisfranc injury and quantify and compare articular damage due to screw fixation before and after simulated weightbearing.

METHODS

A ligamentous Lisfranc injury was created in 10 cadaveric specimens and treated with transarticular screws. Specimens were cycled for 1000 cycles at 250 N to simulate 2 weeks of physiologic weightbearing. Rotation and diastasis across the Lisfranc complex were measured. Articular injury as a percentage of total articular surface was measured using digital imaging of the first and second TMT joint before and after simulated weightbearing. Comparisons between articular damage were made and statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Simulated partial weightbearing increased articular injury 1.44-fold (P < .001). The second metatarsal (M2) showed the greatest increase (1.54-fold, P = .0047), whereas the first (M1) showed the least (1.35-fold, P = .0083). Increases seen at the medial (1.43-fold, P = .0387) and middle cuneiform (1.44-fold, P = .0292) were intermediate between the values seen at M2 and M1.

CONCLUSION

Articular damage from transarticular screw fixation significantly increased after simulated partial weightbearing. This may increase the risk of arthritis and future morbidity when using transarticular screws for the treatment of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Iatrogenic damage to articular cartilage due to screw fixation of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries may be increased with weightbearing.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Lisfranc Injury: Recent Trends in Management

Lisfranc injury refers to a group of bony or ligamentous injuries in which one or more of the metatarsals are displaced with respect to the tarsus. These injuries can occur as a result of either high-energy trauma like motor vehicle accidents and falls from height, or low-energy trauma from sports activities. A significant proportion of Lisfranc injuries are missed initially. The effects of delayed and missed diagnosed cases can be devastating as patients may develop progressive midfoot instability, collapse of arch, abduction of forefoot, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis, which can cause chronic pain, stiffness, and foot and ankle complex dysfunction. Favourable outcomes are associated with early diagnosis and prompt treatment. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with arthrodesis has better results than ORIF alone in functional outcomes. Dorsal bridge plates are currently the preferred mode of fixation due to advantages over trans-articular screws.

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.

Luxación medial y plantar del hueso navicular asociada a fractura-subluxación calcaneocuboidea. Presentación de un caso

Las luxaciones del escafoides aisladas y sin fractura son poco frecuentes. Por lo general, se presentan asociadas a fracturas del escafoides o a diversos patrones de lesión de la columna lateral. Presentamos el caso de un paciente con luxación medial y plantar del hueso navicular y fractura conminuta del proceso anterior del calcáneo y subluxación calcaneocuboidea. En el Servicio de Urgencia, se procedió a la reducción cerrada y la estabilización con agujas de Kirschner y, como tratamiento diferido, se colocaron placas en puente astragalonaviculo-cuneiforme y calcaneocuboidea de 2,0 mm, en forma transitoria, y el material de osteosíntesis se retiró a los 5 meses. El puntaje de la escala de la AOFAS fue excelente al año de seguimiento. Conclusiones: Es necesario llegar a un diagnóstico adecuado descartando lesiones de la columna lateral y reducir esta lesión en la atención de urgencia. La estabilización con placas en puente es una opción válida que podría evitar la pérdida de la reducción que se observa al retirar los clavos de Kirschner y permite una carga precoz.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective cohort study/Therapeutically level IV.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Large single-center retrospective case series.

SETTING

Level-1 Trauma Center, London, United Kingdom.

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTION

Open reduction and DBP fixation with implants not routinely removed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Surgical controversies and current concepts in Lisfranc injuries

INTRODUCTION

Lisfranc injuries, not as rare as previously reported, range from ligamentous to complex fracture-dislocations. Anatomical studies have identified a complex of discrete structures, and defined the anatomical characteristics of the Lisfranc joint.

SOURCES OF DATA

A narrative evidence-based review encompassed and analyzed published systematic reviews. Outcomes included clinical and surgical decision-making, including clinical-presentation, diagnosis, pathological-assessment, surgical-management techniques and indications, post-surgical care and comparative outcomes.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Better understanding of the Lisfranc complex anatomy aids surgical treatment and tactics. Prognosis is related to injury severity, estimated by the number of foot columns affected. Surgical outcome is determined by anatomical reduction for most fixation and fusion techniques. Appropriate treatment allows return to sport, improving outcome scores.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Identification of Lisfranc injuries may be improved by imaging modalities such as weight-bearing computer tomography. Recent evidence supports dorsal plate fixation as a result of better quality of reduction. In complex injuries, the use of combined techniques such as trans-articular screw and plate fixation has been associated with poorer outcomes, and fusion may instead offer greater benefits.

GROWING POINTS

Open reduction is mandatory if closed reduction fails, highlighting the importance of understanding surgical anatomy. If anatomical reduction is achieved, acute arthrodesis is a safe alternative to open reduction internal fixation in selected patients, as demonstrated by comparable outcomes in subgroup analysis.

AREAS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The current controversies in surgical treatment remain around techniques and outcomes, as randomized controlled trials are infrequent.

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

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

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

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

A Systematic Review of Outcomes Following Lisfranc Injury Fixation: Removal vs Retention of Metalwork

Background

Following Lisfranc injury fixation, no consensus exists on whether to routinely remove metalwork. The aim of this study was to evaluate functional outcomes and complications in patients following routine removal of metalwork and in those with retained metalwork.

Methods

A systematic review of literature (1999-2020) reporting results of metalwork removal vs retention following Lisfranc injury fixation, was undertaken. The primary outcome was functional outcomes at 1 year following index surgery. Secondary outcomes were rates of complications including unplanned removal of metalwork.

Results

No studies directly comparing routine metalwork removal vs retention were found. A total of 28 studies reporting on 1069 patients were included. Of these, 10 studies (317 patients) reported on retention and 18 (752 patients) on routine removal of metalwork. The difference in the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score between removal and retention groups was 3.38 (95% CI 6.3-0.48), P = .02 (removal 79.97 [±16.09; 71-96]; retention 76.59 [±20.36; 65.4-94]). No difference in reported rates of infection was found between the 2 groups (0%-12% for both groups). Of the 317 patients in the retention group, metalwork was removed in 198 cases, resulting in a 62.5% unplanned removal rate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this systematic review found limited evidence comparing different strategies of metalwork management after Lisfranc injury fixation. A randomized controlled trial is necessary to elucidate if routine removal of metalwork confers any true benefit.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review including case series.

Primary fusion versus open reduction internal fixation for purely ligamentous lisfranc injuries: A Prospective comparative study and analysis of factors affecting the outcomes

BACKGROUND

The studies evaluating the outcomes of treatment of purely ligamentous unstable Lisfranc injuries are scarce. This study aimed at comparing outcomes of primary tarso-metatarsal joints fusion versus open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of such condition and determining the possible factors that may alter the outcomes.

METHODS

This study comprised 30 patients; 16 in fusion group and 14 in ORIF group. One column was operated on in 2 patients, two columns in 21, and three columns in 7. The mean follow-up period was 36 months.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding patients or injury characteristics. The mean AOFAS and FFI-Rs scores were 88.9 and 22.7 in the fusion group, compared to 61.7 and 34.5 in the ORIF group (P = .03,.04 respectively). At final follow-up all patients in the primary arthrodesis group were maintaining an anatomical reduction versus 71.5% in the ORIF group. Sixteen patients (53%) reported prominent hardware troubles that required removal. Five patients in ORIF group developed osteoarthritis, and four of them underwent secondary fusion. There was significantly higher incidence of posttraumatic osteoarthritis in patients with non-anatomical reduction and complete injuries. Better mean AOFAS and FFI-Rs scores occurred with non-smokers and with anatomical reduction.

CONCLUSION

Based on this limited case series, purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries were found to have better outcomes when managed with a primary fusion as compared to ORIF. Achieving and maintaining anatomical reduction was the most important factor that is significantly attributed to improved outcomes. Possible arthritic changes and additional surgeries apart from implant removal could be avoided by primary fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

level I- prospective comparative case study.

Lisfranc injuries with dislocation the first tarsometatarsal joint: primary arthrodesis or internal fixation (a randomized controlled trial)

BACKGROUND

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a popular method for treatment of displaced Lisfranc injuries. However, even with anatomic reduction and solid internal fixation, treatment does not provide good outcomes in certain severe dislocations. The purpose of this study was to compare ORIF and primary arthrodesis (PA) of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint for Lisfranc injuries with the first TMT joint dislocation.

METHODS

Seventy-eight Lisfranc injuries with first TMT joint dislocation were finally enrolled and analyzed in a prospective, randomized trial comparing ORIF and PA. They were 50 males and females with a mean age of 40.7 years and randomized to ORIF group and PA group. Outcome measures included radiographs, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports subscale, visual analog scale (VAS), and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Complications and revision rate were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty patients were treated by ORIF, while PA group includes 38 cases. Patients were followed up for 37.8(range, 24-48) months. At final follow-up, the mean AOFAS midfoot score (P < 0.01), the FAAM Sports subscale (P < 0.01), the physical function score (P < 0.05), and the Bodily Pain score of SF-36 (P < 0.05) after ORIF treatment were significantly lower than PA group. The mean VAS score in ORIF group was higher (P < 0.01). In ORIF group, redislocation of the first TMT joint was observed in ten cases, and thirteen patients had pain in midfoot. No redislocation and no hardware failure were identified in PA group.

CONCLUSION

PA of the first TMT joint provided a better medium-term outcome than ORIF for Lisfranc injuries with the first TMT dislocation. Possible complications and revision could be avoided by PA for dislocated first ray injuries.

Lisfranc complex injuries management and treatment: current knowledge

Lisfranc complex injuries are a spectrum of midfoot and tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint trauma, more frequent in men and in the third decade of life. Depending on the severity of the trauma can range from purely ligamentous injuries, in low-energy trauma, to bone fracture-dislocations in high-energy trauma. A quick and careful diagnosis is crucial to optimize management and treatment, reducing complications and improving functional outcomes in the middle and long-term. Up to 20% of Lisfranc fractures are unnoticed or diagnosed late, above all low-energy trauma, mistaken for simple midfoot sprains. Therefore serious complications such as post-traumatic osteoarthritis and foot deformities are not uncommon. Clinically presenting with evident swelling of the midfoot and pain, often associated with joint instability of the midfoot. Plantar region ecchymosis is highly peculiar. First level of examination is X-Ray performed in 3 projections. CT scan is useful to detect nondisplaced fractures and minimal bone sub-dislocation. MRI is the gold standard for ligament injuries. The major current controversies in literature concern the management and treatment. In stable lesions and in those without dislocation, conservative treatment with immobilization and no weight-bearing is indicated for a period of 6 weeks. Displaced injuries have worse outcomes and require surgical treatment with the two main objectives of anatomical reduction and stability of the first three cuneiform-metatarsal joints. Different surgical procedures have been proposed from closed reduction and percutaneous surgery with K-wire or external fixation (EF), to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with transarticular screw (TAS), to primary arthrodesis (PA) with dorsal plate (DP), up to a combination of these last 2 techniques. There is no superiority of one technique over the other, but what determines the post-operative outcomes is rather the anatomical reduction. However, the severity of the injury and a quick diagnosis are the main determinant of the biomechanical and functional long-term outcomes.

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.

Retrospective analysis of treatment decisions and clinical outcome of Lisfranc injuries: operative vs. conservative treatment

Purpose

Lisfranc injuries are rare and often pose a challenge for surgeons, particularly in initially missed or neglected cases. The evidence on which subtypes of Lisfranc injuries are suitable for conservative treatment or should undergo surgery is low. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze treatment decisions of Lisfranc injuries and the clinical outcome of these patients within the last ten years.

Methods

All patients treated due to a Lisfranc injury in a German level I trauma centre from January 2011 until December 2020 were included in this study. Radiologic images and medical data from the patient files were analyzed concerning the classification of injury, specific radiologic variables, such as the Buehren criteria, patient baseline characteristics, and patient outcome reported with the Foot Function Index (FFI).

Results

Ninety-nine patients were included in this study (conservative = 20, operative = 79). The overall clinical outcome assessed by the FFI was good (FFI sum 23.93, SD 24.93); patients that were identified as suitable for conservative treatment did not show inferior functional results. Qualitative radiological factors like the grade of displacement and the trauma mechanism were more strongly associated with the decision for surgical treatment than quantitative radiologic factors such as the distance from the first to the second metatarsal bone.

Conclusion

If the indication for conservative or operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries is determined correctly, the clinical outcome can be comparable. These decisions should be based on several factors including quantitative and qualitative radiologic criteria, as well as the trauma mechanism.

Lisfranc Fixation Techniques and Postoperative Functional Outcomes: A Systematic Review

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

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

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

[Indirect fixation of the third tarsometatarsal joint for high-energy Lisfranc injury]

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of indirect fixation of the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint in the treatment of high-energy Lisfranc injury.

Methods

Between February 2015 and February 2019, 15 patients with high-energy Lisfranc injury were treated. There were 12 males and 3 females with an average age of 44.8 years (range, 29-73 years). The average time from injury to admission was 8.8 hours (range, 2-28 hours). According to Myerson classification, there were 6 cases of type A, 4 cases of type B2, 1 case of type C1, and 4 cases of type C2; 8 cases were open injury. The 3rd tarsometatarsal joint was injured in all patients, including intact intermetatarsal ligament in 7 cases, the 2nd-3rd intermetatarsal ligament injury in 6 cases, the 3rd-4th intermetatarsal ligament injury in 1 case, and the 2nd-3rd-4th intermetatarsal ligament injury in 1 case. Among them, the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint was not fixed directly and indirectly fixed by stabilized the 2nd and 4th tarsometatarsal joints in 13 cases. The 3rd tarsometatarsal joint was fixed with Kirschner wire in 2 cases for 1 patient had complete injury of the intermetatarsal ligament and the other 1 had comminuted fracture of the base of the 3rd metatarsal. The reduction of fracture and dislocation was evaluated by X-ray films, focusing on the re-displacement of the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint. The effectiveness was evaluated by American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and visual analogue scale (VAS) score.

Results

Thirteen of the 15 patients were followed up 12-26 months, with an average of 15.6 months. One case had superficial infection of the incision and healed after symptomatic treatment; the other incisions healed by first intention. At last follow-up, the VAS score was 0-3 (mean, 1.1) and the AOFAS score was 70-99 (mean, 87.5). Twelve patients achieved anatomical reduction and 1 patient had increased talar-first metatarsal angle and the mild forefoot abduction. During the follow-up, no loss of reduction of the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint was found, while the spontaneous fusion of the joint was observed in 2 patients.

Conclusion

In high-energy Lisfranc injury, as long as the intermetatarsal ligament is not completely destroyed and the bony structure of the tarsometatarsal joint is intact, the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint does not need to be fixed routinely, the stability of the joint can be obtained indirectly by fixing the adjacent tarsometatarsal joint.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Sports-Related Lisfranc Injuries and Recognition of Lisfranc Variants: Surgical Strategies for Stabilization

Much has changed since Lisfranc described lesions at the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint in 1815. What was considered an osseous high-energy condition nowadays is understood as myriad possible presentations, occurring in minor and inconspicuous traumas. Advancements in diagnostics of Lisfranc injury allow recognizing many variants of this trauma presentation, most of them with a focus on ligaments. This perception shifted trends in surgical planning, especially for implants and fixation techniques. These revolutions established a new and evolving universe around TMT lesions, different from what was known only a few years ago and still not enough to completely settle the disease scenario.

Pediatric and adolescent Lisfranc injuries - Presentation, treatment and outcomes

PURPOSE

Lisfranc fracture dislocations are rare injuries and even more so in the pediatric population. The main purpose of our study is to present a descriptive analysis of Lisfranc injuries in pediatric patients to add to the current sparse literature on this topic. In addition, our secondary outcome was to analyze any differences in patients treated conservatively versus operatively, and those with isolated Lisfranc injuries versus those with associated foot injuries.

METHODS

Charts of patients with Lisfranc injury treated at a tertiary pediatric hospital from January 2010 to July 2019 were reviewed to analyze their demographics, injury characteristics, management details and rehabilitation protocol. Functional outcome was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale of Pain (VAS) and the Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire for Children (OxAFQ-C).

RESULTS

30 patients/cases were included with mean age of 13.6 years and mean follow up of 36 weeks. 20% of the cases were missed on initial presentation. 19 cases were managed operatively while 11 were managed conservatively. The average OxAFQ-C and VAS pain scores were 83% and 1.3, respectively at mean follow-up of 36 weeks. The functional outcomes between conservative and operative cases or between those with isolated Lisfranc injuries and those with associated foot injuries were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lisfranc injury in pediatrics can be easily missed. High index of suspicion, a thorough clinical examination and the use of advanced imaging is warranted. Various modalities like K-wires, screws and suture-buttons can be used for fixation. Early to mid-term functional outcomes are satisfactory provided that adequate reduction is obtained.

Updates on Lisfranc Complex Injuries

Lisfranc injuries are a disruption of one or more of the tarsometatarsal joints and have an estimated incidence of 1/55 000 people. However, the total number of Lisfranc injuries could be underreported, because almost 20% of these injuries are initially missed. Because of the relative infrequency of these injuries, the current literature is inconsistent in regard to proper treatment. This article provides a review of Lisfranc complex injuries including relevant anatomy, diagnosis, treatment, classifications, operative approaches, and outcomes and complications. Based on existing evidence, it also proposes an algorithm the authors prefer for the evaluation and treatment of Lisfranc complex injuries.

Subtle Lisfranc Injuries: Fix It, Fuse It, or Bridge It?

The management of Lisfranc injuries is challenging considering the broad spectrum of energy involved and highly variable clinical presentation. Despite the advances in surgical techniques, subtle Lisfranc injuries can lead to chronic pain and permanent disability. Surgical treatment is mandatory for all the unstable injuries; however, the best surgical technique remains controversial. The most predictive factor for a successful outcome is the maintenance of anatomic alignment; therefore, the selection of the appropriate surgical technique is of paramount importance. This article reviews the current treatment options and describes the selection of the surgical technique based on the different clinical presentations.

Bipolar Dislocation of the Proximal Phalanx of Toe: A Rare Injury

We report a very rare case of bipolar fracture with dislocation of the proximal phalanx or floating proximal phalanx of the toe. The literature has shown that closed reduction gives a lesser chance of success considering the inherent anatomy of the foot. We report a case of a 40-year-old male with an open injury to his right foot involving bipolar dislocation of the proximal phalanx of the third toe with extensor digitorum longus tendon injury and fracture of the neck of the fourth proximal phalanx of the right foot. With the realization that open reduction and Kirschner wire fixation are good options in patients with such a presentation, a prompt and accurate diagnosis with a treatment plan was made, which lead to clinical success.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level I, prospective randomized controlled study.

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

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

Rates of Displacement and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Conservative Treatment of Minimally Displaced Lisfranc Injury

BACKGROUND

While surgery is indicated in Lisfranc fracture-dislocations, the natural history and optimal management of minimally displaced injures are unclear. The aim of this study was to define the rate of subsequent displacement and to determine the clinical outcome after conservative treatment of minimally displaced Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Over a 5-year period (2011-2016), 26 consecutive patients with minimally displaced Lisfranc injuries presenting to a single university teaching hospital were identified retrospectively using hospital electronic records. Patient demographics, injury mechanism, and radiological outcomes were recorded. Patient-reported outcome scores (PROMS) were collated at least 1 year postinjury and included the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ).

RESULTS

The rate of displacement was 54% (14/26). The median time to displacement was 18 days (range, 2-141 days). Forty-six percent (12/26) of the Lisfranc injuries remained minimally displaced after 12 weeks of conservative treatment. Initial weightbearing status was not associated with the risk of subsequent displacement (P = .9). At a mean follow-up of 54 months, PROMS were comparable between patients whose injury remained minimally displaced and those that required surgery for further displacement, despite the delay to surgery (AOFAS 78.0 vs 75.9, MOXFQ 24.8 vs 26.3, P > .1).

CONCLUSION

There was a high rate of displacement after initial conservative management of the minimally displaced Lisfranc injuries. Subsequent surgical management of displaced injuries resulted in outcomes comparable to those that remained minimally displaced.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative series.

Primary arthrodesis versus open reduction internal fixation for complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations: a retrospective study comparing functional and radiological outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aims of this retrospective study were to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of primary arthrodesis and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 39 patients treated for a complete Lisfranc fracture dislocation, defined as Myerson types A and C2, over a period of 8 years at a level 1 trauma centre was performed. Of these, 18 underwent primary arthrodesis, and 21 ORIF. The primary outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score, the validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire functional tool, and the secondary outcome was the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical reduction.

RESULTS

Significantly better functional outcomes were seen in the primary arthrodesis group. These patients had a mean Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire score of 30.1 points, compared with 45.1 for the ORIF group (P = 0.017). Similarly, the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score was 71.8 points in the fusion group versus 62.5 in the ORIF group (P = 0.14). Functional outcome was dependent on the quality of final reduction (P < 0.001). Primary arthrodesis achieved good initial reduction in 83% cases compared to 62% with ORIF (P = 0.138). There was a loss of reduction quality of 47% in the ORIF group over time.

CONCLUSION

Primary arthrodesis for complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations resulted in improved functional outcomes and quality of reduction compared to open reduction and internal fixation.

Percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc joint injuries: A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to present the outcome of Lisfranc joint injuries treated with closed reduction and screw percutaneous fixation.

METHODS

We searched in Pubmed and Google Scholar Databases for articles regarding screw percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc injuries. Seven studies in total were found to be compatible to our search, according to PRISMA guidelines. Four of those met the criteria of the review and they were included in the meta-analysis. A total number of 106 patients were separated into five groups according to the type of injury and the mean AOFAS score of each group was calculated. Cases in which percutaneous fixation was converted to open treatment due to poor reduction were not included in the study. In addition we compared the outcome score between types of injury according to Myerson classification as well as between purely ligamentous and osseoligamentous injuries. The characteristics of all seven selected studies, such as kind of screw used for fixation, post operative protocol, complications and outcome are mentioned as well.

RESULTS

Average AOFAS score was 86,2 for type A, 87,54 for type B, and 85 for type C injuries respectively. In pure dislocation group the average AOFAS score was 86,43 and in fracture dislocation group was 87,36. Good to excellent outcome can be expected in patients with different types of injury according to Myerson classification following percutaneous fixation of lisfranc joint injury. Patients with type B injury or a fracture dislocation injury might have better outcome, although this difference was not found to be statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous fixation of tarsometatarsal joint injuries is a relatively simple and safe method of treatment, leading to a good functional outcome, especially for Myerson type B as well as for fracture dislocation type of injuries, provided that an anatomical reduction has been achieved.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Therapeutic Study.

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

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

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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