Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management

Factors Influencing PROMIS Scores and Patient Reported Outcomes Following Surgical Intervention of Isolated Lisfranc Injury: Minimum 2 Year Follow-up

Lisfranc injuries are rare but significant foot injuries, as they often result from polytrauma patients, and are often misdiagnosed, which further complicate their evaluation and contribute to their propensity towards disability. It is recommended that, on diagnosis, Lisfranc injuries be treated as soon as possible to decrease the risk of future chronic pain, disability, or osteoarthritis. Our study evaluated patients who completed the patient reported outcome measurement information systems (PROMIS) along with the foot function index (FFI) following operative fixation for Lisfranc injury. Fifty-one patients between 2010 and 2020 met inclusion criteria and were selected for this study, with completion. Utilizing the electronic medical record (EMR), patient charts were reviewed to obtain basic patient demographic information and comorbidities. Operative reports were reviewed to determine which procedure was performed for definitive fixation. Primary arthrodesis was associated with a significant decrease in complication rates (p = .025) when compared to ORIF. Females, arthrodesis, and procedures using a home run (HR) screw were independent risk factors for significantly higher reports of PROMIS pain interference. Arthrodesis also was associated with lower PROMIS pain interference scores. Arthrodesis and males exhibited higher scores in all FFI categories. Our results provide evidence that patient reported outcomes following Lisfranc surgery reported via PROMIS, FFI and VAS scores are independently influenced by patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical variables. Analysis of potential associations between these patient characteristics and PROMIS and FFI scores provides evidence for physicians to manage patient expectations prior to operative treatment of a nonpolytraumatic Lisfranc injury.

Effective Rehabilitation of a Lisfranc Fracture in a 25-Year-Old Male Patient: A Case Report

A dislocation or break of the tarsometatarsal joint in the foot is referred to as a Lisfranc fracture, sometimes called a Lisfranc injury. It can be caused by less stressful mechanisms like a twisting fall as well as high-energy events like car crashes or falls from heights. Swelling, bruises, and midfoot pain that gets worse when standing or walking are some of the symptoms. The damage may only affect the ligaments or the foot's bony structures. Nonoperative or surgical treatment may be part of the management, depending on how severe the injury is. In order to realign and stabilize the bones, open reduction internal fixation with Kirschner wires (K-wires) is a common surgical procedure. In this case, a 25-year-old male patient complained of left foot pain and wound. He gave a history of a left leg stuck in the harvester. Immediately, he was taken to a local hospital, where a dressing of his left foot was done. He was referred to a super specialty hospital where an investigation, like an X-ray, was done, which revealed a Lisfranc fracture. K-wire was applied to fix the Lisfranc fracture. Further on, rehabilitation was started to restore mobility, regain full range of motion, and develop muscle strength. American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) and Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) were used as outcome measures.

Nonunion Rate Following Primary Arthrodesis for Acute Lisfranc Injuries

Injury to the tarsometatarsal joint (TMT) results in instability throughout the midfoot that does not often improve with conservative management. If instability is identified, surgical intervention is frequently recommended, either open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA). These 2 treatment options have been compared in the literature multiple times, often reporting similar outcomes. Due to this, as well as the need for subsequent hardware removal after ORIF has led many surgeons towards PA at the index surgery. Concern for nonunion is a leading concern with surgeons who advocate instead for ORIF. The purpose of this study is to review patients who underwent PA and observe nonunion rates. Nonunion at the TMT has been previously studied, but only in the chronic setting. We performed a retrospective study of 34 patients who had PA in the management of an acute Lisfranc injury. The average age in our study was 43.9 years old (range 19-72, SD 17.4) with an average follow-up of 9.4 months (range 4-33, SD 6.2). Radiographs were evaluated for signs of nonunion at regular postoperative intervals. Within the patients included in the study, a total of 71 TMT joints were fused. Overall successful fusion rate was 95.8% at an average of 7.9 weeks (range 6-12, SD 1.4) postoperatively. Individual nonunion rates at the first, second, and third TMT were 0%, 1.4% and 2.8% respectively. Our study demonstrates that primary arthrodesis provides a predictable outcome with low nonunion rates in the management of acute Lisfranc injury.

Comparison of 4 Different Fixation Strategies for Midfoot Arthrodesis: A Retrospective Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Midfoot arthrodesis is a common procedure performed both for arthritis and correction of deformity. The optimal fixation for midfoot arthrodesis has not been established, though numerous studies have been investigating the fixation techniques of midfoot arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the union rate of midfoot arthrodesis using 4 different fixation strategies and investigate risk factors of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent midfoot joint arthrodesis between January 2014 and May 2019. The rates of nonunion and postoperative complication were compared among 4 different fixation constructs: staple fixation, compression plate fixation, compression plate with lag screw fixation, and compression screw fixation. Predictors of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis were investigated through a multivariable logistic regression analysis. A total of 95 patients (99 feet), including 240 midfoot joints were included in this study. The mean follow-up period was 78.4 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, bony union was achieved in 86 out of 99 (86.9%) patients, which included 218 out of 240 (90.8%) midfoot joints. A significant difference in the nonunion rate according to the type of fixation construct was found (P = .011); the compression screw alone fixation construct was noted to have a significantly higher nonunion rate than other fixation constructs. Diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] = 0.179 [95% CI: 0.059, 0.542]), the type of fixation construct (compression screw alone; OR =1.789 [95% CI: 1.071, 2.978]), lack of adjuvant bone graft (OR = 2.803 [95% CI: 1.081, 7.268], and postoperative nonanatomical alignment (OR = 3.937 [95% CI: 1.278, 12.126]) were identified as independent predictors of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis.

CONCLUSION

The rate of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis among 4 different commonly used fixation constructs was compared in this study. Risk factors of nonunion were investigated revealing that diabetes mellitus, compression screw fixation alone, lack of adjuvant bone graft, and postoperative nonanatomical alignment are independent predictors of nonunion following midfoot arthrodesis.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level III: Comparative cohort study.

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.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVES

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

EVIDENCE REVIEW

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

FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Inconsistent radiographic diagnostic criteria for lisfranc injuries: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the radiographic diagnostic criteria and propose standardised radiographic criteria for Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The various radiographic criteria for the diagnosis of Lisfranc injuries were extracted. Descriptive statistics were presented for all continuous (as mean ± standard deviation) and categorical variables (as frequencies by percentages).

RESULTS

The literature search included 29 studies that totalled 1115 Lisfranc injuries. The risk of bias ranged from "Low" to "Moderate" risk according to the ROBINS-I tool. The overall recommendations according to the GRADE assessment ranged from "Very Low" to "High". 1st metatarsal to 2nd metatarsal diastasis was the most common of the 12 various radiographic diagnostic criteria observed, as was employed in 18 studies. This was followed by 2nd cuneiform to 2nd metatarsal subluxation, as was employed in 11 studies.

CONCLUSION

The radiographic diagnostic criteria of Lisfranc injuries were heterogeneous. The proposition for homogenous radiographic diagnostic criteria is that the following features must be observed for the diagnosis of Lisfranc injuries: 1st metatarsal to 2nd metatarsal diastasis of ≥ 2 mm on anteroposterior view or 2nd cuneiform to 2nd metatarsal subluxation on anteroposterior or oblique views. Further advanced imaging by CT or MRI may be required in patients with normal radiographs but with continued suspicion for Lisfranc injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4, systematic review.

Lisfranc Sports Injuries: What Do We Know So Far?

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

Outcomes of Surgically Treated Purely Ligamentous Stage II Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Low-energy stage II Lisfranc injuries are rare, and treatment can be operative or nonoperative based on a surgeon's assessment of midfoot stability. No previously published patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data for Lisfranc injuries isolates purely ligamentous stage II injuries. The purpose of this study was to analyze PROMs for patients who underwent operative management of stage II Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients (39 feet) with confirmed Nunley-Vertullo stage II Lisfranc injuries between May 2012 and February 2022 were identified through a retrospective chart review. PROMs that were analyzed were the visual analog scale (VAS) pain scale, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Thirty-two open reduction internal fixations (ORIFs) and 7 fusions were performed. The mean latest follow-up was 44.6 (range, 12-92) months. There were 2 complications (5%, 2/39) that required a revision procedure. Twenty-six patients (67%, 26/39) underwent secondary surgery to remove retained hardware. The mean time to hardware removal was 3.97 (range, 2.70-7.47) months. The overall mean patient satisfaction score with overall medical care including clinical visits and interactions with medical staff personnel was 93.6/100. All PROMs (VAS, VR-12, FAAM) demonstrated statistically significant improvement (P < .05) from preoperative (injury) values to latest follow-up postinjury values.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were treated surgically with stage II purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries via the methods used were found to mostly undergo hardware removal and have high levels of overall satisfaction with their process of medical care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

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

BACKGROUND

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

QUESTION/PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

The feasibility study of stress position device simulating standing weight-bearing applied in computed tomography examination

BACKGROUND

In order to simulate weight-bearing Computed Tomography (CT) examination, this study designed a simple stress position device. By analyzing the relevant data of stress position footprints and weight-bearing position footprints, the feasibility of the stress position device to simulate standing weight-bearing was verified.

METHODS

This study randomly selected 25 volunteers for standing weight-bearing and stress position footprints collection, and measured the relevant indicators of stress position footprints and standing weight-bearing position footprints. Two foot and ankle surgeons conducted two measurements respectively on the footprints. Intra-observer and inter-observer reliability were calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Pearson correlation coefficient, ICC, scatter plot analysis, and paired t-test were used to analyze the stress and weight-bearing position data.

RESULTS

The intra-observer and inter-observer measurement values were reliable. There was a certain degree of correlation between the stress position footprints and weight-bearing position footprints in terms of Pearson correlation coefficient, ICC, and scatter plot analysis. Paired t-tests showed significant differences in Clarke angle (t 2.636, p .012), C-S index (t 10.568, p .000), arch indx (t 2.176, p .035), and arch lower angle (t 6.246, p .000).

CONCLUSION

The stress position device can generate a certain degree of stress, and after further optimization and improvement of the stress position device, it is feasible to apply it to weight-bearing CT examination in clinical settings.

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.

Various Flexible Fixation Techniques Using Suture Button for Ligamentous Lisfranc Injuries: A Review of Surgical Options

Contrary to Lisfranc joint fracture-dislocation, ligamentous Lisfranc injury can lead to additional instability and arthritis and is difficult to diagnose. Appropriate procedure selection is necessary for a better prognosis. Several surgical methods have recently been introduced. Here, we present three distinct surgical techniques for treating ligamentous Lisfranc employing flexible fixation. First is the "Single Tightrope procedure", which involves reduction and fixation between the second metatarsal base and the medial cuneiform via making a bone tunnel and inserting Tightrope. Second is the "Dual Tightrope Technique", which is similar to the "Single Tightrope technique", with additional fixation of an intercuneiform joint using one MiniLok Quick Anchor Plus. Last but not least, the "internal brace approach" uses the SwiveLock anchor, particularly when intercueniform instability is seen. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of surgical complexity and stability. These flexible fixation methods, on the other hand, are more physiologic and have the potential to lessen the difficulties that have been linked to the use of conventional screws in the past.

Six-Week Old Neglected Homolateral Lisfranc Injury - A Case Report

Introduction

Lisfranc injury is relatively rare and is commonly missed at the initial presentation as these injuries are easily misdiagnosed as a foot sprain. We report a case of chronic foot pain following an injury which was later diagnosed to be a neglected 6 weeks old complex Lisfranc fracture dislocation.

Case Report

A 53-year-old man presented with chronic foot pain and swelling which was diagnosed to be a neglected 6-week-old homolateral type of Lisfranc injury (type A Hard castle and Meyerson). We treated him with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws and achieved excellent functional outcome at 6-month follow-up period.

Discussion

Lisfranc injuries are frequently undetected with estimates ranging from 20% to 80%. Anteroposterior, lateral, and medial oblique views of the foot should be included in the radiological workup following a thorough physical examination. Our case will aid the deficient literature and guide the young surgeons in management of such cases.

Conclusion

Given the history and nature of the injury, it can be easily missed by a beginner and the clinician must keep a high index of suspicion when treating these injuries in emergency department. To prevent the many complications linked to this kind of injury, it requires a correct diagnosis and timely treatment in the form of closed/open reduction and fixation. Delayed presentation of such cases can be treated with ORIF and good functional outcome can be achieved.

Morphologic analysis of the 1st and 2nd tarsometatarsal joint articular surfaces

Tarsometatarsal joint arthrodesis is used to treat a variety of injuries and deformities in the midfoot. However, the surgical technique has not been optimized, in part due to limited knowledge of morphologic features and variation in the related joints. Previous research has relied primarily on dissection-based anatomical analysis, but quantitative imaging may allow for a more sophisticated description of this complex. Here, we used quantitative micro-CT imaging to examine dimensions, distance maps, and curvature of the four articular surfaces in the first and second tarsometatarsal joints. Image segmentation, articular surface identification, and anatomic coordinate systems were all done with semi or fully automatic methods, and distance and size measurements were all taken utilizing these anatomic planes. Surface curvature was studied using Gaussian curvature and a newly defined measure of curvature similarity on the whole joint and on four subregions of each surface. These data show larger articular surfaces on the cuneiforms, rather than metatarsals, and define the generally tall and narrow articular surfaces seen in these joints. Curvature analysis shows minimally curved opposing convex surfaces. Our results are valuable for furthering knowledge of surgical anatomy in this poorly understood region of the foot.

Nonoperative management of lisfranc injuries - A systematic review of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Historically, most Lisfranc injuries have been considered to be unstable and treated with surgical intervention. However, with better access to cross-sectional imaging, stable injury patterns are starting to be recognised. The aims of the current study were to perform a systematic review of outcomes of Lisfranc injuries treated non-operatively.

METHODS

A literature review was performed of studies reporting nonoperative management of Lisfranc injuries (PROSPERO registered and following PRISMA guidelines). Following exclusions, 8 papers were identified: 1 prospective and 7 retrospective studies. A total of 220 patients were studied with a mean age of 39.8 years and a mean follow-up of 4.3 years. Outcomes included function, displacement, and rates of surgery.

RESULTS

High heterogeneity was observed with variable outcomes. Four papers reported good outcomes, with adjusted functional scores ranging from 82.6 to 100 (out of 100). However, one study reported late displacement in 54 % of patients. Rates of secondary osteoarthritis ranged from 5 % to 38 %. Rates of surgical intervention were as high as 56 %. Several studies compared operative to non-operative treatment, reporting superior outcomes with surgery. Those injuries with no displacement on CT, measured at the medial cuneiform-second metatarsal had the best outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Reported outcomes following nonoperative treatment of Lisfranc injuries vary widely, including high rates of conversion to surgery. In contrast, some studies have reported excellent functional outcomes. CT seems to be an important diagnostic tool in defining a stable injury. Due to limited data and lack of a clear definition of a stable injury or treatment protocol, prospective research is needed to determine which Lisfranc injuries can be safely treated nonoperatively.

Is the diagnostic validity of conventional radiography for Lisfranc injury acceptable?

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries mainly involve the tarsometatarsal joint complex and are commonly misdiagnosed or missed in clinical settings. Most medical institutions prefer to use conventional radiography. However, existing studies on conventional radiographs in Lisfranc injury lack a large population-based sample, influencing the validity of the results. We aimed to determine the diagnostic validity and reliability of conventional radiography for Lisfranc injury and whether computed tomography can alter clinical decision-making.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 307 patients with, and 100 patients without, Lisfranc injury from January 2017 to December 2019. Diagnosis was confirmed using computed tomography. A senior and junior surgeon independently completed two assessments of the same set of anonymised conventional radiographs at least 3 months apart. The surgeons were then asked to suggest one of two treatment options (surgery or conservative treatment) for each case based on the radiographs and subsequently on the CT images.

RESULTS

All inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were moderate to very good (all κ coefficients > 0.4). The mean (range) true positive rate was 81.8% (73.9%-87.0%), true negative rate was 90.0% (85.0%-94.0%), false positive rate was 10.0% (6.0%-15.0%), false negative rate was 18.2% (13.0%-26.1%), positive predictive value was 96.1% (93.8%-97.8%), negative predictive value was 62.4% (51.5%-69.7%), classification accuracy was 83.8% (76.7%-88.2%), and balanced error rate was 14.1% (10.2%-20.5%). Three-column injuries were most likely to be recognized (mean rate, 92.1%), followed by intermediate-lateral-column injuries (mean rate, 81.5%). Medial-column injuries were relatively difficult to identify (mean rate, 60.7%). The diagnostic rate for non-displaced injuries (mean rate, 76.7%) was lower than that for displaced injuries (mean rate, 95.5%). The typical examples are given. A significant difference between the two surgeons was found in the recognition rate of non-displaced injuries (p = 0.005). The mean alteration rate was 21.9%; the senior surgeon tended to a lower rate (15.6%) than the junior one (28.3%) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity, specificity, and classification accuracy of conventional radiographs for Lisfranc injury were 81.8%, 90.0%, and 83.8%, respectively. Three-column or displaced injuries were most likely to be recognized. The possibility of changing the initial treatment decision after subsequently evaluating computed tomography images was 21.9%. The diagnostic and clinical decision-making of surgeons with different experience levels demonstrated some degree of variability. Protected weight-bearing and a further CT scan should be considered if a Lisfranc injury is suspected and conventional radiography is negative.

Plantar Subluxation of First Metatarsal with Intercuneiform Dislocation: A Case Report of a New Type of Lisfranc Injury

Lisfranc injuries result when the bones or ligaments that support the midfoot are torn, and the classifications of these injuries are based on the coronal displacement of the metatarsals. On the saggital plane, the first metatarsal is usually dorsally dislocated due to dorsal ligament weakness. We present a case report of a 29-year-old woman who sustained a Lisfranc injury of her right foot with plantar subluxation of the first metatarsal, which was treated with open reduction and internal fixation of the first metatarsal and fusion of the second metatarsal.

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.

Closed Reduction and Percutaneous Fixation of Lisfranc Injury Using Suspensory Fixation

Background

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

Description

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

Alternatives

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

Rationale

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

Expected Outcomes

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

Important Tips

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

Acronyms and Abbreviations

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

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.

Patient experiences and preferences during treatment and recovery of Lisfranc fractures: A qualitative interview study

AIM

To determine from a patient perspective what improves the quality of care and patient satisfaction during the treatment and recovery process of Lisfranc fractures and to reveal possible points for improvement in this process.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with patients treated for a Lisfranc fracture-dislocation in the Netherlands with either open reduction and internal fixation or primary arthrodesis, until data saturation was reached, focusing on the quality of care during treatment and recovery, from a patient perspective.

RESULTS

Data saturation was reached after interviewing 10 patients. The main themes emerging from the analysis were expectation management regarding the recovery period; communication with and between health care providers; information provided during consultations; and support during the recovery period. Participants expressed a need for improved provision of information about the different treatment options, the different kinds of pain that can arise, the expected duration of the recovery period, education on strong pain killers, likelihood of a second surgery, risks of osteoarthritis, risks of the surgery itself, allied health care and patient experiences. Participants mentioned the importance of good allied health care and a preference for starting allied health care as soon as possible. Insoles and compression socks were also appreciated by various participants. Finally, multiple patients saw a positive attitude on the part of the health care providers towards the recovery period as a key factor in recovery.

CONCLUSION

This study found that patients value more tailored approaches to the pre-and post-operative care program, more guidance regarding allied health care (physiotherapy), and a broader scope of available references and information for patients, both oral (during consultations and in informative videos) and written, such as brochures or evidence-based web pages and mobile platforms, which may be offered during consultations or when being discharged from the hospital.

The First Tarsometatarsal Joint in Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries are among the most debilitating injuries to the foot. Characterization of first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint involvement in Lisfranc injuries is limited. Multiple studies have indicated that this joint is damaged in a variety of Lisfranc injury patterns, but there is sparse information regarding how often and in what form.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of operative Lisfranc fractures from 2010 to 2020 with patients identified by Combined Procedural Terminology codes. Hardcastle and Myerson Lisfranc injury classifications and computed tomography and radiograph characterizations of the first TMT joint were evaluated by 3 foot and ankle fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons. Radiographic characteristics were collected. Light's kappa coefficient evaluated interrater reliability for injury classification. Injury mechanism and Lisfranc classification effects on the first TMT joint were further assessed using inferential statistics.

RESULTS

Of 71 patients with a Lisfranc injury of which 37 (52%) were high energy, 61 (86%) showed radiographic evidence of first TMT joint injury. A fragment was present in the TMT articular surface in 33 (47%) with median size = 8.7 mm and medial capsular avulsion in n = 25 (35%). Forty-eight patients (68%) had medial/lateral TMT joint incongruence ≥2 mm (median overhang = 4 mm), 21 (30%) had dorsal/plantar incongruence (median overhang = 6 mm). Angulation of TMT articular surfaces ≥5 degrees on the transverse/anteroposterior plane occurred in n = 32 (45%) and in n = 12 (17%) on the sagittal/lateral plane, which significantly differed between classifications (P = .020).

CONCLUSION

The overwhelming majority of Lisfranc midfoot injuries seen at our tertiary referral center had imaging evidence of damage to the first TMT joint (86%), and the incidence may be higher. The most common patterns of first TMT joint involvement we found were joint incongruity, articular surface fractures, angulation of the articular surfaces, and medial capsular ligament avulsion fractures. A better understanding of injuries to the first TMT joint can help orthopaedic surgeons with diagnosis.

Factors influencing postoperative residual diastasis after the operative treatment of acute Lisfranc fracture dislocation

INTRODUCTION

Clinically, surgeons may frequently encounter residual diastasis between the medial cuneiform and 2nd metatarsal base after the operative treatment of acute Lisfranc fracture dislocations. The purpose of this study was to identify factors influencing postoperative residual diastasis. We specifically focused on the preoperative fracture pattern using 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiographic and clinical findings of 66 patients who underwent operative treatment for acute Lisfranc fracture dislocation were reviewed. Patients were grouped according to residual diastasis evaluated by weight-bearing anteroposterior radiograph of the foot at the final follow-up. Residual diastasis was defined as distance between the medial cuneiform and 2nd metatarsal base greater than the distance on the contralateral side by 2 mm or more. Demographic parameters and fracture patterns based on preoperative foot 3D-CT were compared. A paired t test was used to compare continuous numeric parameters, while a Chi-square test was used for the proportional parameters. Statistical significance was set at P value less than 0.05 for all analyses.

RESULTS

The mean age at operation, sex, body mass index, and the rate of underlying diabetes were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05 each). Preoperative foot 3D-CT evaluation showed that the rate of large (> 25% of 2nd tarsometatarsal joint involvement), displaced (> 2 mm) fracture fragments on the plantar side of the 2nd metatarsal base was more pronounced in the group with residual diastasis (P = 0.001), while medial wall avulsion of the 2nd metatarsal base was more frequent in the group without residual diastasis (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While treating acute Lisfranc injuries, surgeons should be aware of the presence of a 2nd metatarsal base plantar fracture. A dorsoplantar inter-fragmentary fixation can be considered if the fragment is large and displaced.

The role of three dimension computed tomography in Lisfranc injury diagnosis

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pediatric Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation: A Case Report

Lisfranc injury is extremely rare in the pediatric population and little evidence exists to guide the treatment at this age.

We present a clinical case of a rare Lisfranc fracture-dislocation at pediatric age. An 11-year-old male was admitted to the emergency department, in October 2020, after a motorcycle incident. He was diagnosed with a Lisfranc fracture-dislocation of the right foot: Myerson type B2. Fourteen days after the injury, he underwent surgical treatment with open reduction and internal fixation with 3.5 mm solid fully threaded screws.

At 18 months postoperative, the patient was asymptomatic, didn’t present any limitations, presented an American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) midfoot score of 93%, and excellent results of the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - PCS-12 (Physical Score): 52.52277 and MCS-12 (Mental Score): 62.12820. The foot maintained a good configuration without significant malalignment, however, a screw breakage occurred before the implant removal, and a premature physeal arrest developed on the base of the first metatarsal bone.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Lisfranc injuries may be challenging in the pediatric population. Regarding the treatment, anatomical alignment is mandatory, and good or excellent outcomes have been achieved with anatomical reduction and internal fixation. We recommend early implant removal to avoid screw breakage and avoid the use of screws in the first metatarsal physis, due to the risk of premature physeal arrest.

An open-source OpenSim® ankle-foot musculoskeletal model for assessment of strains and forces in dense connective tissues

BACKGROUND

The ankle and foot are among the most critical load-bearing joints in the human anatomy. Anatomically accurate human body models are imperative to understanding the mechanics of injury and musculoskeletal disorders. A typical human ankle-foot anatomy consists of 25 DOFs, 112 dense connective tissues (DCTs) (92 ligaments, one capsule and 19 fasciae), 30 tendons, and 65 muscles. Existing models possess less than half of the DOFs and physiological elements. In this work, we have developed an ankle-foot joint complex musculoskeletal model for the OpenSim® platform by incorporating 24 degrees of freedom (DOF) comprising of 66 DCTs (46 ligaments, one 1 capsule and 19 fasciae), 30 tendons, and 65 muscles.

METHODS

Computed tomography (CT) data of human ankle joint-foot complex was segmented using Mimics ® (Version 17.0, Materialise, Belgium) to obtain models of the cartilages and bones of the ankle joint-foot complex. The position and resting lengths of the DCTs were attained from the MRI data and literature. Five joints, namely, tibiotalar, subtalar, chopart, tarsometatarsal (TMT), and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints and their joint axes were formulated to yield 24 DOFs. A forward simulation was carried out at each joint of the ankle-foot complex within their respective range of motions. The strains, instantaneous strain rates, and forces developed in the ligaments during the simulation were studied.

RESULTS

During plantar-dorsiflexion of the tibiotalar joint, the anterior tibio-talar ligament (aTTL) yielded the maximum strain compared to all other ligaments. Anterior tibio-fibular ligament (aTFL) experienced extreme strain during subtalar inversion. Hence, the coupled kinematics of subtalar inversion and plantar flexion are failure-prone activities for aTFL. The chopart, TMT, and MTP joints yielded maximum strains or forces for several bundles at the extremes of the range of motion. This signifies that rotations of these joints to their extreme range of motion are prone to failure for the bundles attached to the joint complex.

CONCLUSION

The results illustrate the potential application of the proposed OpenSim® ankle-foot model in understanding the ligament injury mechanism during sports activity and its prevention. Researchers can use the proposed model or customise it to study complex kinematics, understanding injury mechanisms, testing fixtures, orthosis or prosthesis, and many more in the domain of musculoskeletal research.

Clinical and Radiologic Results of a Human Bone Graft Screw in Tarsometatarsal II/+III Arthrodesis

BACKGROUND

For arthrodesis of the tarsometatarsal joints, there is the possibility of using a transplant screw made of allogenic human bone material (Shark Screw). This article investigates the clinical outcome and radiologic integration of the allogenic bone screw for arthrodesis of the tarsometatarsal joints II/+III.

METHODS

This is a prospective study involving 20 feet of 17 patients who received TMT II/+III arthrodesis with an allogenic bone screw. A visual analog scale (VAS pain and function), Foot Function Index (FFI), American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score, and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) were used as measures to compare preoperative with postoperative results. Radiologic integration in the recipient bone was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A significant mean pre- to postoperative improvement of all evaluated scores has been observed (P < .05) after a mean follow-up of 15.87 months (minimum 12 months, maximum 33 months). VAS score (pain) decreased from 7.6 to 1.4 points as well as a decrease of the VAS (function) from 7.25 to 1.8 points. Further, a reduction of the FFI from 62.3% to 16.7% and an increase from 29.7 to 79.9 points of the AOFAS was detected. Analyzing the FAOS score, in all surveyed subscales, there was an increase in the score (Symptoms: 55.2 to 85.6 points; Pain: 30.5 to 86.9 points; Function: 33.1 to 88.3 points; Quality of life: 27.8 to 79.7 points). Moreover, in all cases, a complete radiologic integration into the receiving bone was appreciated, and after a minimum follow-up time from 12 months, the screw in 19 feet (95%) was no longer distinguishable from the original bone.

CONCLUSION

With these first results of the allogenic bone screw in TMT II/+III arthrodesis, a significant improvement from preoperative to postoperative was confirmed in the collected scores, and a full radiographic integration was demonstrated in all feet.

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.

Radiographic outcomes of cortical screw fixation as an alternative to Kirschner wire fixation for temporary lateral column stabilization in displaced Lisfranc joint fracture-dislocations: a retrospective cohort analysis

Background

Injuries of the tarsometatarsal joint complex ranging from purely ligamentous to multidirectionally unstable midfoot fracture-dislocations are anatomically fixed to minimize long-term sequelae including post-traumatic arthritis, pes planus deformity, and chronic pain. Lateral column disruption is commonly treated with temporary Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation, maintaining alignment during healing and allowing resumption of physiologic motion after hardware removal. More unstable fracture patterns may require temporary cortical screw fixation to maintain adequate reduction. We evaluated the efficacy of temporary lateral column screw fixation compared to K-wire fixation for Lisfranc fracture-dislocation treatment.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study reviewed 45 patients over fourteen years who underwent Lisfranc fracture-dislocation fixation at a level-one trauma center. All patients underwent medial and middle column fixation; 31 underwent lateral column fixation. Twenty six patients remained after excluding those without electronic records or follow-up. The primary outcome was radiographic lateral column healing before and after hardware removal; secondary outcomes included pain, ambulation, and return to normal shoe wear.

Results

Twenty patients were male, with mean age 41 years. Thirteen patients underwent cortical screw fixation and twelve K-wire fixation. One had both implants. Twenty four patients underwent lateral column hardware removal; all had radiographic evidence of bony healing before hardware removal. Mean follow-up was 88.2 ± 114 weeks for all patients. The cortical screw cohort had significantly longer mean time to hardware removal (p = 0.002). The K-wire cohort had significantly more disuse osteopenia (p = 0.045) and postoperative pain (p = 0.019).

Conclusions

Radiographic and clinical outcomes of unstable Lisfranc fracture-dislocation treatment support temporary lateral column screw fixation as an alternate technique.

Level of clinical evidence

3 (retrospective cohort study)

Clinical outcomes of Tightrope system in the treatment of purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries

Background

Purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are mainly caused by low energy damage and often require surgical treatment. There are several operative techniques for rigid fixation to solve this problem clinically. This study evaluated the effect of using the Tightrope system to reconstruct the Lisfranc ligament for elastic fixation.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 11 cases with purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries treated with the Tightrope system from 2016 to 2019, including 8 male and 3 female. X-ray was performed regularly after operation to measure the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate pain relief. American orthopedic foot & ankle society (AOFAS) and Maryland foot score were recorded at the last follow-up.

Results

The average follow-up time was 20.5 months (range, 17–24). There was statistically significant difference in the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and VAS score at 3 months, 6 months, and the last follow-up when compared with preoperative values (P < 0.05).Mean of postoperative AOFAS mid-foot scale and Maryland foot score were 92.4 ± 4.3, 94.1 ± 3.5, respectively. The Tightrope system was not removed and the foot obtained better biomechanical stability. No complications occurred during the operation.

Conclusion

Tightrope system in the treatment of purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries can stabilize the tarsometatarsal joint and achieve satisfactory effect.

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.

The transverse arch in the human feet: A narrative review of its evolution, anatomy, biomechanics and clinical implications

The dominant characteristics of the human foot are its shock-absorbing capability during walking or gait cycle and its adaptation to uneven surfaces. On the stance phase of the gait, the foot has to be flexible at first for shock absorption and adapt to the terrain; whereas, during the propulsive phase, it has to be dynamically rigid to function as a lever. Foot flexibility and rigidity are mainly controlled at the subtalar and midtarsal joints by tendons and ligaments. The subtalar joint is part of the longitudinal arch, but the midtarsal joint along with the tarsometatarsal joint are components of the transverse arch. However, the existence and functional role of transverse arch in human was challenged by some authors. But recent studies have revealed that the transverse arch has a predominant role in midfoot stiffness (Venkadeshan et al., 2020, & Holowoka et al., 2017). This midfoot stiffness allows the human foot to store elastic energy at the time of heel strike, which is utilized during the push-off mechanism for propulsion, thus making bipedalism more energy-efficient. Moreover, the transverse arch allows the longitudinal arch to be flexible like a lever and, at the same time, makes the arch of the foot rigid to behave like a stiff spring lever. Understanding the role of the transverse arch is obligatory to study the biomechanics of foot injuries and Charcot or diabetic foot. Studies on diabetic foot have shown that the modulation of transverse arch biomechanics and off-loading modalities would improve outcomes in the form of wound-healing and prevention of re-ulceration.

Dislocation of the first metatarsophalangeal joint concomitant with Lisfranc joint dislocation in a 45-year-old man

A 45-year-old man presented with severe pinch-point crush injury to his left foot. Plain radiographs revealed dislocation of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and dorsolateral dislocation of the basal phalanx and sesamoids. The first tarsometatarsal joint was subluxed in the plantar direction and the second to fourth tarsometatarsal joints were subluxed dorsally. The sesamoids were displaced dorsolateral to the metatarsal head. There was a longitudinal tear of the joint capsule at the medial margin of the medial sesamoid, which was sutured together with the abductor hallucis tendon and collateral ligament. The Lisfranc and dorsal ligaments in the tarsometatarsal joint were torn and repaired after reduction and fixed with a plate. One year after surgery, there was contracture of the first metatarsophalangeal joint, but the patient had no pain and was able to run.

A mid-term follow-up retrospective evaluation of tarsometatarsal joint fracture-dislocations treated by closed reduction and percutaneous K-wires fixation

INTRODUCTION

Injuries involving the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint are relatively uncommon, and the surgical treatment is potentially characterized by a high complications rate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results of the treatment of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations treated with closed reduction and percutaneous fixation with K-wires, considering complications and re-intervantion rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on all patients undergone closed reduction and percutaneous fixation with K-wires of a Lisfranc fracture-dislocation. Patients have been clinically evaluated at last follow up by American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), as well as by radiograph assessment.

RESULTS

Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 patients have been included, with a mean age of 48.2 ± 5.6 years. Average follow-up was 3.8 ± 1.8 years (range 1-6). 7 fractures analyzed were classified as type A, 7 as type B (3 were B1, 4 were B2) and 1 as type C1. No case of loss of reduction has been observed at radiographic 1-month follow-up. At last follow-up mean AOFAS midfoot score and VAS score were respectively 82.2 ± 10.4 and 1.5 ± 1.3. Registered complications showed one deep vein thrombosis and 2 cases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). One patient subsequently underwent arthrodesis of the tarsometatarsal joint for post-traumatic arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of the fracture-dislocations of the Lisfranc joint by percutaneous reduction and fixation with K-wire can achieve good clinical outcomes with a low rate of complications and reoperations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

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.

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.

Primary Arthrodesis for High-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

The reported incidence of Lisfranc injuries is 9.2/100.000 person-years; two-thirds of the injuries are nondisplaced. Tarsometatarsal injuries range from minor sprains and isolated ligamentous injuries to grossly unstable and multiligamentous lesions. High-energy injuries are usually linked with mechanical energy dissipation through the soft tissues. Operative treatment options include open reduction and internal fixation, open reduction with hybrid internal and external fixation, closed reduction with percutaneous internal or external fixation, and primary arthrodesis. Treatment goals are to obtain a painless, plantigrade, and stable foot. Anatomic reduction is a key factor for improved outcomes and decreased rates of post-traumatic arthritis.

[Short-term effectiveness of Endobutton plate in reconstruction of Lisfranc ligament]

Objective

To observe the short-term effectiveness of Endobutton plate in the reconstruction of Lisfranc ligament in tarsometatarsal joint injury.

Methods

Between March 2015 and July 2018, 18 patients with tarsometatarsal joint injuries were treated with Lisfranc ligament reconstruction by Endobutton plate. There were 12 males and 6 females with an average age of 32.5 years (range, 16-55 years). The causes of injury were traffic accident in 8 cases, falling from height in 3 cases, crushing by a heavy objective in 4 cases, and spraining in 3 cases. There were 10 cases of Myerson type A, 4 of type B1, 2 of type B2, 1 of type C1, and 1 of type C2. The interval between injury and operation ranged from 3 to 9 days (mean, 4.9 days). X-ray examination was performed regularly after operation to measure the distance between the first and the second metatarsal joints, and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the pain relief. At last follow-up, the reduction of tarsometatarsal joint was evaluated by measuring and comparing the height of the affected and healthy arches. The foot function was evaluated according to the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score.

Results

The average follow-up time was 15.8 months (range, 10-28 months). All incisions healed by first intention. X-ray reexamination showed that there was no screw loosening or plate fracture. There were significant differences in the distance between the first and the second metatarsal joints and VAS score at 3 months after operation, before removal of the internal fixator, and at last follow-up when compared with preoperative values ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the time points after operation ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, there was no significant difference in the arch height between affected foot [(5.3±0.2) mm] and healthy foot [(5.4± 0.3) mm] ( t=1.798, P=0.810). The AOFAS score of foot function was 89.5±7.3 with excellent in 12 cases, good in 4 cases, and fair in 2 cases. The excellent and good rate was 88.9%.

Conclusion

The reconstruction of Lisfranc ligament with Endobutton plate can stabilize the tarsometatarsal joint and achieve satisfactory foot function at early stage.

Os intermetatarseum: An analysis of morphology and case reports of fracture

INTRODUCTION

The os intermetatarseum is an uncommon accessory ossicle of the foot located dorsally, between the bases of the first and second metatarsals that are usually asymptomatic. In the setting of trauma, this ossicle can clinically mimic a Lisfranc fracture-dislocation, a potentially disabling condition often requiring surgical intervention.

METHODS

In this study, 47 cases of os intermetatarseum were reviewed across several Western Australian (WA) Hospitals and characterised based on morphology. Any fractures were recorded, and their cases were reviewed.

RESULTS

The most common type of os intermetatarseum was freestanding at 63%, followed by the articulating type at 30%. Only 7% were of the fused type. Two acute fractures were identified on plain radiography and computed tomography (CT).

CONCLUSION

The distribution of os intermetatarseum subtypes in the WA population is consistent with previous radiological studies. The two cases of isolated acute os intermetatarseum fracture are described, the first to our knowledge, highlighting the need for increased awareness of this ossicle in the setting of foot trauma.

Morphological characteristics of the Lisfranc ligament

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to clarify the morphological characteristics of the Lisfranc ligament and the cuneiform 1-metatarsal 2&3 plantar ligament (CMPL).

METHODS

Forty legs from 20 cadavers were examined. Classification proceeded according to the number of fiber bundles in the Lisfranc ligament and the CMPL. Morphological features measured were fiber bundle length, width, thickness, and angle.

RESULTS

In Type I-a, the Lisfranc ligament and the CMPL were a single fiber bundle; in Type I-b, the Lisfranc ligament was a single fiber bundle, and the CMPL was two fiber bundles; in Type II-a, the Lisfranc ligament was a two fiber bundle, and the CMPL was a single fiber bundle; in Type II-b, the Lisfranc ligament and the CMPL were two fiber bundles; in Type III-a, the Lisfranc ligament was three fiber bundles, and the CMPL was a single fiber bundle; in Type III-b, the Lisfranc ligament was three fiber bundles, and the CMPL was two fiber bundles; in Type IV, the Lisfranc ligament and the CMPL could not be separated. Type I-a was seen in 37.5%, Type I-b in 10%, Type II-a in 30%, Type II-b in 7.5%, Type III-a in 7.5%, Type III-b in 2.5%, and Type IV in 5%. The Lisfranc ligament was significantly larger than the CMPL in total fiber bundle width, total fiber bundle thickness, and total fiber bundle angle.

CONCLUSION

The Lisfranc ligament had up to 3 fiber bundles and the CMPL had one or two fiber bundles; classifications were four types and two subgroups.