Outcome after open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc joint injuries

[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.

The Use of Knotless Suture Tape Construct vs Screw Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries are often treated with open reduction and internal fixation using rigid fixation techniques. The use of flexible fixation to stabilize the Lisfranc joint is a newer technique. The purpose of this cadaveric study is to compare the amount of diastasis at the Lisfranc interval under diminished physiologic loads when treated with a knotless suture tape construct and a solid screw.

METHODS

Ten cadavers (20 feet) had native motion at the intact Lisfranc interval assessed at multiple increasing loads (69, 138, and 207 N). The Lisfranc ligamentous complex was then disrupted, and testing repeated to evaluate the amount of diastasis. Randomization was performed to determine the type of fixation for each cadaver: solid screw or knotless suture tape construct. Once fixation was completed, specimens were cyclically loaded for 10 000 cycles at loads, and diastasis was quantified after each load cycle to compare the interventions. Diastasis was measured using motion tracking cameras and retroreflective marker sets. A non-inferiority statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Diastasis mean values were confirmed to be >2 mm for all load bearing conditions in the injury model. Posttreatment, diastasis was significantly reduced when compared to the sectioned conditions (P < .01) for both treatment options. Non-inferiority analyses showed that the knotless suture tape construct did not perform inferior to screw fixation for diastasis at the Lisfranc interval at any of the compared load states.

CONCLUSION

Under the loads tested, there is no significant difference in diastasis at the Lisfranc interval when treating ligamentous Lisfranc injuries with a knotless suture tape construct or solid screws. Both reduced diastasis from the injured state and were not different from the intact state.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In this cadaveric model with ligamentous Lisfranc injury, diastasis of a knotless suture tape construct is compared to solid screw fixation as tested.

Digital virtual reduction combined with individualized guide plate of lateral tibial condyle osteotomy for the treatment of tibial plateau fracture

BACKGROUND

Current treatments do not support direct exposure of fracture fragments, resulting in the inability to directly observe the articular surface during surgery for accurate reduction and firm fixation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore the treatment effect of digital virtual reduction combined with individualized guide plate of lateral tibial condyle osteotomy on tibial plateau fracture involving the lateral posterior condyle collapse.

METHODS

41 patients with tibial plateau fracture involving the lateral posterior condyle collapse were recruited in the trial. All patients underwent Computed Tomography (CT) scanning before operation. After operation, fracture reduction was evaluated using Rasmussen score and function of knee joint was assessed using hospital for special surgery (HSS) score.

RESULTS

41 patients were followed-up 6-26 months (mean, 15.2 months). Fracture reduction was good after operation, with an average of 13.3 weeks of fracture healing without serious complications. The excellent and good rate was 97.6%. The joint movement degree was -5∘∼0∘∼135∘ with an average of 125.5∘.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital virtual reduction combined with individualized guide plate of lateral tibial condyle osteotomy was effectively for treating tibial plateau fracture involving the lateral posterior condyle collapse.

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Displaced Lisfranc Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus whether the primary surgical method should be open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) for Lisfranc injuries. The aim of our randomized controlled trial was to compare ORIF and PA for displaced Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

This study was a national multicenter randomized controlled trial. Altogether 43 displaced Lisfranc injuries were enrolled in this trial. The primary outcome measure was Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) at a 24-months follow-up. The secondary outcome measures were VAS-FA pain, function, and other complaints subscales and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Scale. All outcomes were measured at 6, 12, and 24 months. We were unable to reach the planned sample size of 60 patients; thus, the study remains underpowered.

RESULTS

The mean VAS-FA Overall score in the ORIF group was 86.5 (95% CI 77.9, 95.1) and 80.1 (95% CI 72.0, 88.1) in the PA group at the 24-month follow-up. We did not find eligible evidence of a difference in VAS-FA Overall scores (mean between-group difference 6.5 [95% CI -5.3, 18.2], Cohen d = 0.100).

CONCLUSION

We did not find evidence of a difference in VAS-FA between ORIF and PA in patients with displaced Lisfranc injuries, and thus both are viable options for the initial surgical method. The trial is underpowered; however, the data may be included in a meta-analysis of similarly designed randomized controlled trials.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24 October 2016.

A Comparison of Complications and Reoperations Between Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis Following Lisfranc Injury

There is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding optimal treatment methods for Lisfranc injuries, and recent literature has emphasized the need to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA). The purpose of the current study is to compare reoperation and complication rates between ORIF and PA following Lisfranc injury in a private, outpatient, orthopaedic practice. A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing operative intervention for Lisfranc injury between January 2009 and September 2015. A total of 196 patients met the inclusion criteria (130 ORIF, 66 PA), with a mean follow-up of 61.3 and 81.7 weeks, respectively. The ORIF group had a higher reoperation rate than the PA group, due to hardware removal. When hardware removals were excluded, the reoperation rate was similar. Postsurgical complications were compared between the 2 groups with no significant difference. In conclusion, ORIF and PA had similar complication rates. When hardware removals were excluded, the reoperation rates were similar, although hardware removals were more common in the ORIF group compared with the PA group.Levels of Evidence: Level III.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

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

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

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

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level 4: Case Report.

A systematic analysis on global epidemiology and burden of foot fracture over three decades

PURPOSE

To comprehensively analyze the geographic and temporal trends of foot fracture, understand its health burden by age, sex, and sociodemographic index (SDI), and explore its leading causes from 1990 to 2019.

METHODS

The datasets in the present study were generated from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2019, which included foot fracture data from 1990 to 2019. We extracted estimates along with the 95% uncertainty interval (UI) for the incidence and years lived with disability (YLDs) of foot fracture by location, age, gender, and cause. The epidemiology and burden of foot fracture at the global, regional, and national level was exhibited. Next, we presented the age and sex patterns of foot fracture. The leading cause of foot fracture was another focus of this study from the viewpoint of age, sex, and location. Then, Pearson's correlations between age-standardized rate (ASR), SDI, and estimated annual percentage change were calculated.

RESULTS

The age-standardized incidence rate was 138.68 (95% UI: 104.88 - 182.53) per 100,000 persons for both sexes, 174.24 (95% UI: 134.35 - 222.49) per 100,000 persons for males, and 102.19 (95% UI: 73.28 - 138.00) per 100,000 persons for females in 2019. The age-standardized YLDs rate was 5.91 (95% UI: 3.58 - 9.25) per 100,000 persons for both genders, 7.35 (95% UI: 4.45 - 11.50) per 100,000 persons for males, and 4.51 (95% UI: 2.75 - 7.03) per 100,000 persons for females in 2019. The global incidence and YLDs of foot fracture increased in number and decreased in ASR from 1990 to 2019. The global geographical distribution of foot fracture is uneven. The incidence rate for males peaked at the age group of 20 - 24 years, while that for females increased with advancing age. The incidence rate of older people was rising, as younger age incidence rate declined from 1990 to 2019. Falls, exposure to mechanical forces, and road traffic injuries were the 3 leading causes of foot fracture. Correlations were observed between ASR, estimated annual percentage change, and SDI.

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of foot fracture remains high globally, and it poses an enormous public health challenge, with population ageing. It is necessary to allocate more resources to the high-risk populations. Targeted realistic intervention policies and strategies are warranted.

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.

Mid-term Incidence of Tarsometatarsal Joint Arthrodesis Following Open Reduction With Internal Fixation (ORIF) of Lisfranc Injuries

Open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) of Lisfranc injuries are associated with an increased risk for secondary surgery including hardware removal and salvage arthrodesis. In the current literature, rates of salvage arthrodesis vary due to small sample sizes and a low incidence of Lisfranc injuries. There is little evidence to identify specific surgical and patient-related variables that may result in later arthrodesis. The purpose of this study is to determine the rate of tarsometatarsal joint arthrodesis following Lisfranc ORIF in a relatively large sample size. This retrospective review included patients who underwent ORIF for a Lisfranc injury between January 2007 and December 2012. A total of 146 patients met our criteria. Trans-articular fixation was used in 109 (74.6%) patients, 33 (22.6%) received percutaneous fixation and 4 (2.7%) extraarticular fixation. Five out of 120 (4.2%) patients required a salvage arthrodesis for post-traumatic arthritis that had a follow-up greater than 5 y but up to 10 y. The mean age of patients who underwent arthrodesis after ORIF was 24.5 ± 11.95 (16-48) y compared to 40.9 ± 15.8 (16-85) y. Patients who required an arthrodesis also had earlier hardware removal than patients who did not have an arthrodesis, 71.2 ± 28.3 (38-100) days and 131.4 ±101.2 (37-606) days, respectively. Patients who required salvage arthrodesis tended to be younger and hardware was removed earlier compared to those patients who did not require an arthrodesis. Four of the 5 patients who underwent a secondary arthrodesis had a loss of correction after hardware removal.

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.

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.

Functional Outcomes After High-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Midfoot fractures and dislocations are infrequent and functional outcomes following Lisfranc injuries have not been well described. The purpose of this project was to explore functional outcomes following operative treatment of high-energy Lisfranc injury.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 46 adults with tarsometatarsal fractures and dislocations treated at a single Level 1 trauma center were reviewed. Demographic, medical, social, and injury features of these patients and their injuries were recorded. Foot Function Index (FFI) and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) surveys were collected after mean 8.7 years' follow-up. Multiple linear regression was performed to identify independent predictors of outcome.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients with mean age 39.7 years completed functional outcome surveys. Mean SMFA scores were 29.3 (dysfunction) and 32.6 (bothersome). Mean FFI scores were 43.1 (pain), 43.0 (disability), and 21.7 (activity), with a mean total score of 35.9. FFI pain scores were worse than published values for fractures of the plafond (33, P = .04), distal tibia (33, P = .04), and talus (25.3, P = .001). Lisfranc injury patients reported worse disability (43.0 vs 29, P = .008) and total FFI scores (35.9 vs 26, P = .02) compared with distal tibia fractures. Tobacco smoking was an independent predictor of worse FFI (P < .05) and SMFA emotion and bothersome scores (P < .04). Chronic renal disease was a predictor of worse FFI disability (P = .04) and SMFA subcategory scores (P < .04). Male sex was associated with better scores in all SMFA categories (P < .04). Age, obesity, or open injury did not affect functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported worse pain by FFI after Lisfranc injury compared to other injuries about the foot and ankle. Tobacco smoking, female sex, and preexisting chronic renal disease are predictive of worse functional outcome scores, warranting further study in a larger sample, as well as counseling of long-term consequences of this injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective, prognostic.

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.

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.

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.

CT and Functional Outcomes of Primarily Ligamentous and Combined Ligamentous-Bony Lisfranc Injuries: A Retrospective Review

Lisfranc injuries have been rising in incidence and can cause significant and lasting morbidity. There is no consensus on the optimal surgical treatment for these injuries, be they primarily ligamentous or combined (bony and ligamentous). No study has ever followed Lisfranc injury patients postoperatively using advanced imaging. The purpose of this study was to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes of primarily ligamentous and combined osseous and ligamentous Lisfranc injuries treated operatively with reduction and fixation. We performed a retrospective review of all Lisfranc injuries treated operatively in a single institution over a 6-year period. Injuries were classified as primarily ligamentous or combined by independent evaluation of available computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging. Outcomes were measured using the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA). CT of 29 patients was performed at last follow-up to evaluate reduction and degenerative changes. Of the 56 patients identified, 38 were available for follow-up. The average follow-up was 3.8 years. There were 26 combined injuries and 12 primarily ligamentous injuries. Outcomes were excellent in all patients and there was no statistical difference in SMFA scores in any category between the groups. On follow-up CT, all injuries were anatomically reduced, and 26 of 29 patients had degenerative changes. Our results support that reduction and stable fixation of Lisfranc injuries may be suitable treatment regardless of classification as combined or primarily ligamentous. Future larger-scale prospective studies should be pursued to supplement existing data.

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.

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.

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.

Lisfranc Injuries in the Athlete

LisFranc injuries in the active, athletic, and military populations can be devastating injuries. There has been much debate over open reduction and internal fixation versus arthrodesis as primary treatment in these injuries. This article aims to present the existing evidence-based medicine to help guide appropriate treatment in this population. With the introduction of flexible fixation, the variety of ways to address these injuries surgically has expanded.

Correlation of Lisfranc Injuries With Regional Bone Density

Lisfranc injuries present a challenge due to their ubiquity though frequent missed diagnoses. A paucity of data exists associating the contribution of bone density to injury type. This investigation compares the regional bone density between Lisfranc injury types using computed-tomography (CT)-derived Hounsfield units. A retrospective chart review identified patients with gross ligamentous and avulsion-type Lisfranc injuries determined by CT examination of the second metatarsal base and medial cuneiform. Regional bone density was assessed by averaging the Hounsfield units of the first metatarsal base, navicular, cuboid, calcaneus, and talus between 2 reviewers. Density was compared between injury type, isolated concomitant forefoot, and mid/hindfoot fractures. One hundred thirty-four patients were separated into avulsion (n = 85) and ligamentous (n = 49) groups. No statistically significant difference in patient body mass index, age, smoking status, or Quenu and Kuss injury pattern was observed between groups. The regional bone density of the cuboid (p = .03) and talus (p = .04) was greater in the ligamentous group. Lower extremity concomitant mid/hindfoot fracture patients exhibited greater regional bone density in the ligamentous group in all assessed bones (p ≤ .04) except the calcaneus. Ligamentous injuries of the Lisfranc complex are associated with increased regional bone density among patients sustaining concomitant mid/hindfoot fractures. This study expands the utility of regional bone density analysis in foot and ankle trauma.

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.

Lisfranc injury: Prevalence and maintaining a high index of suspicion for optimal evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the long-term prevalence of game-related Lisfranc trauma in college football on artificial turf and natural grass.

METHODS

32 universities were evaluated over 10 competitive seasons across all Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences. Outcomes of interest included injury severity, injury category, primary type of injury, player and skill position, injury mechanism and situation, elective imaging and surgical procedures, and field conditions. Injury incidence rates (IIR) were calculated using injuries per 10 games = (number of injuries) number of games) × 10.

RESULTS

Of the 1577 games documented, 783 games (49.7%) were played on a 3-layer artificial turf (≥9.0 lbs/ft²) infill system versus 794 games (50.3%) played on natural grass. In sum, 78 Lisfranc cases were documented with 34 (43.6%) occurring on artificial turf, and 44 (56.4%) on natural grass. MANOVAs indicated significant main effects by injury category (F_3,74 = 6.439; P = .001), and injury mechanism (F_5,72 = 3.372; P = .009) observed between surfaces, but not by injury severity (F_2,75 = 0.720; P = .490), primary type of injury (F_4,73 = 0.772; P = .547), overall player (F_2,75 = 0.219; P = .804) and skill positions (F_8,69 = 0.850; P = .563), injury situation (F_10,67 = 1.030; P = .428), elective imaging and surgical procedures (F_3,74 = 0.515; P = .673), or field conditions (F_2,75 = 0.375; P = .688). Post hoc analyses indicated significantly greater incidences (P < .05) of Lisfranc trauma on natural grass attributed to shoe:surface interaction during noncontact play, and during no contact, foot rotation or planting. Ligament tears (n = 8; 57.1%), with minimal cases of subluxation/dislocations (n = 4; 28.6%) and fractures (n = 2; 14.3%) comprised grade 3 cases across both surfaces.

CONCLUSION

In regards to Lisfranc trauma, a 3-layer, heavyweight artificial infill surface is as safe or safer than natural grass. The findings of this study may be generalizable only to this level of football competition.

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.

Computational analysis of Lisfranc surgical repairs

Ligamentous Lisfranc injuries cause debilitating pain and loss of function. Even small diastasis of this normally rigid joint after injury requires surgical treatment, but outcomes remain poor. Existing literature has compared the different surgical procedures using cadaveric models, but no approach has been recommended over others. This study uses a computational biomechanical approach consistent with a cadaveric study to evaluate the different procedures' ability to stabilize the Lisfranc joint without inducing secondary consequences. A validated rigid body model for the cadaver foot with a Lisfranc injury was extended to compare the stability of four different surgical repairs-three open reduction and internal fixation procedures with different hardware (cannulated screws, endobuttons, and screws with a dorsal plate) and primary arthrodesis with screws. Forces calculated from the rigid body model for 50% partial weight bearing provided boundary conditions for a finite element model of the surgical repairs. Comparing the different surgical procedures, the open reduction and internal fixation with screws and primary arthrodesis with screws showed the most stable postoperative Lisfranc joint. However, the use of cannulated screws for fixation showed regions of high stress that may be susceptible to breakage and also resulted in higher contact forces in joints adjacent to the surgery site. Endobuttons and dorsal plates did not restore sufficient stability. Since all procedures showed different points of concern that could impact outcomes, additional surgical approaches could be needed in the future. This study offers a standard protocol for benchmarking the new procedures against those currently used.

Comparing bilateral feet computed tomography scans can improve surgical decision making for subtle Lisfranc injury

INTRODUCTION

Subtle Lisfranc injuries (SLIs) are challenging to diagnose. Although weightbearing (WB) radiographs have been suggested to identify SLIs, approximately 20% are missed on initial radiographic assessment. Computed tomography (CT) has been suggested as an alternative, but has not provided any diagnostic guideline. Therefore we compared measurement techniques on radiographs and bilateral foot CT scans for the efficiency of diagnosis and making surgical decisions for SLI.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated patients diagnosed with SLIs between January 2014 and January 2020. Distances between both medial cuneiform and second metatarsal base (C1M2), and the first and second metatarsal bases (M1M2), were measured on bilateral WB radiographs. Bilateral foot CT scans were taken, and the distances between C1M2 were checked on the axial and three points of the coronal plane (top, middle, and base). The surgical indication was > 1 mm of diastasis on CT scan. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score at final follow-up. Intraobserver and interobserver agreements were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with SLIs were reviewed. Twenty-four patients underwent surgical fixation (Group A) and six patients were treated conservatively (Group B). The side-to-side difference (STSD) of C1M2 and M1M2 distances greater than 1 mm showed 91.7% and 54.2% sensitivity, and 66.7% and 16.7% specificity, respectively. Investigating STSDs of all points on CT scans were informative to discriminate both groups (P ≤ 0.038). Clinical outcomes showed no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.631). Intraclass and interclass correlation coefficient values showed good to very good reliability, except for STSD of WB M1M2 distance and the coronal top plane.

CONCLUSION

Investigating bilateral foot CT scans was significantly efficient and reliable for the diagnosis and treatment plan for SLI. On radiographs, STSD of WB C1M2 distance was more sensitive than STSD of WB M1M2 distance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case control study; III.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Biomechanical Comparison of Fiber Tape Device Versus Transarticular Screws for Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury in a Cadaveric Model

BACKGROUND

The preferred method of fixation and surgical treatment for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries is controversial. Transarticular screws, bridge plating, fusion, and flexible fixation have been described, yet none have demonstrated superiority. Furthermore, screw fixation and plating often require secondary surgery to remove implants, leading surgeons to seek alternative fixation methods.

PURPOSE

To compare transarticular screws and a fiber tape construct under a spectrum of biomechanical loads by evaluating the diastasis at 3 joints in the Lisfranc complex.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Eight matched pairs of fresh, previously frozen lower extremity cadaveric specimens were fixed with either 2 cannulated transarticular crossed screws or a fiber tape construct with a supplemental intercuneiform limb. The diastasis between bones was measured at 3 midfoot joints in the Lisfranc complex: the Lisfranc articulation, the second tarsometatarsal joint, and the intercuneiform joint. Measurements were obtained for the preinjured, injured, and fixation conditions under static loading at 50% donor body weight. Specimens then underwent cyclic loading performed at 1 Hz and 100 cycles, based on 100-N stepwise increases in ground-reaction force from 100 to 2000 N, to simulate postoperative loading from the partial weightbearing stage to high-energy activities. Failure of fixation was defined as diastasis ≥2 mm at the Lisfranc articulation (second metatarsal-medial cuneiform joint).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in diastasis detected at the Lisfranc articulation or the intercuneiform joint throughout all loading cycles between groups. All specimens endured loading up to 50% body weight + 1400 N. Up to and including this stage, there were 2 failures in the cannulated transarticular crossed-screw group and none in the fiber tape group.

CONCLUSION

The fiber tape construct with a supplemental intercuneiform limb, which does not require later removal, may provide comparable biomechanical stability to cannulated transarticular crossed screws, even at higher loads.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are common among athletes. Therefore, biomechanical evaluations are necessary to determine stable constructs that can limit the time to return to play. This study compares the biomechanical stability of 2 methods of fixation for ligamentous injury through a wide spectrum of loading, including those experienced by athletes.

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.

Salvage of Failed Lisfranc/Midfoot Injuries

Salvage of Lisfranc, or tarsometatarsal injuries, may be necessary because of a variety of clinical scenarios. Although rare, these injuries represent a broad spectrum of injury to the midfoot ranging from low-energy ligamentous injuries to high-energy injuries with significant displacement and associated fractures. Poor outcomes and complications may occur including posttraumatic arthritis, instability, pain, infection, and loss of function. Strategies and technical considerations for salvage of these complex injuries are provided.

Arthrodesis in Acute and Chronic Lisfranc's Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Injury to Lisfranc's joint complex affects the longitudinal and transverse arches of the foot and can significantly alter its biomechanics. Some of the previous studies have suggested primary arthrodesis to be superior to open reduction and internal fixation for treating primarily ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. Additionally, arthrodesis is often used for treating chronic Lisfranc injuries, including those which previously underwent open reduction and internal fixation and subsequently developed arthrosis. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the outcomes of arthrodesis at the level of Lisfranc's articulation for both acute and chronic injuries. Patients who underwent midfoot arthrodesis surgical procedures between years 2001 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. About 187 patients with an average age of 55.9 ± 13.2 years old and a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included in the study. Median time to return to preoperative activities was 11 weeks. Overall successful joint fusion rate was 81.4%. However, concomitantly fused joints of the midfoot and hindfoot, in addition to the tarsometatarsal joints (TMTJ), were included in the overall fusion rate. Fusion rate at the first TMTJ was 90.2% (101 out of 112), second TMTJ was 94.4% (67 out of 71), and third TMTJ was 97.8% (45 out of 46). The present study demonstrates that patients who undergo arthrodesis for both acute and chronic Lisfranc injuries typically can return to activity in under approximately 3 months postoperatively (acute patients significantly faster) with a high union rate at the TMTJs. However, the overall union rate is significantly lower when concomitant proximal midfoot and rearfoot arthrodesis procedures are performed.

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

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

Outcome after nonoperative treatment of stable Lisfranc injuries. A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome after nondisplaced and stable Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

26 patients with injuries to the Lisfranc joint complex detected on CT scans, but without displacement were tested to be stable using a fluoroscopic stress test. The patients were immobilized in a non-weightbearing short leg cast for 6 weeks. The final follow-up was 55 (IQR 53-60) months after injury.

RESULTS

All the Lisfranc injuries were confirmed to be stable on follow-up weightbearing radiographs at a minimum of 3 months after injury. Median American Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score at 1-year follow-up was 89 (IQR 84-97) and at final follow-up 100 (IQR 90-100); The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1-year (P=.005). The median visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was 0 (IQR 0-0) at the final follow-up. One patient had radiological signs of osteoarthritis at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Stable Lisfranc injuries treated nonoperatively had an excellent outcome in this study with a median follow-up of 55 months. The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1 year.

Occupational Outcomes and Return to Running After Operative Management of Lisfranc Injuries in a High-Demand Population

Background: Literature evaluating outcomes following operative fixation of Lisfranc injuries has demonstrated high rates of chronic disability, particularly in those returning to prior levels of physical function. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the occupational outcomes and return to running after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or arthrodesis for Lisfranc fracture-dislocations in a moderate- to high-demand military cohort. Methods: All active-duty servicemembers undergoing ORIF or primary arthrodesis (Current Procedural Terminology 28615 and 28730, respectively) for confirmed Lisfranc fracture-dislocations (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes 838.03 or 838.13) with minimum 2-year follow-up were isolated from the Military Health System. Demographic and surgical variables were recorded. Return to military function, return to running, perioperative morbidity, and rates of reoperation for complication were the outcomes of interest. Univariate analysis followed by multivariate logistic regression determined the association between patient demographics, type of fracture fixation (ie, ORIF vs arthrodesis) and functional outcomes, including medical separation. Results: Among Lisfranc injuries, 64 patients underwent ORIF while 6 underwent primary arthrodeses with a mean age of 28.1 years. At mean follow-up of 3.5 years (range, 2.0-6.3 years), 20% of servicemembers underwent medical separation due to limitations related to their injuries. body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m² (OR 17.67; 95% CI, 3.69-84.53) and Army or Marines service branch (OR 3.86; 95% CI, 1.08-13.86) were significant independent predictors for medical separation. Among servicemembers undergoing ORIF or primary arthrodeses, 69% returned to occupationally required daily running during the follow-up period. Servicemembers with a BMI <30 kg/m² were more likely to return to running (OR 13.14, 95% CI, 2.50-69.19). Radiographic evidence of posttraumatic Lisfranc osteoarthritis occurred in 10 (16%) servicemembers who underwent internal fixation, and 82% of ORIF patients underwent implant removal. Conclusions: At mean 3.5-year follow-up, 80% of servicemembers undergoing ORIF or primary arthrodeses for Lisfranc injuries remained on active duty or successfully completed their military service, and 69% were able to resume occupationally required daily running. Surgeons should preoperatively counsel patients with these injuries on the possibility of persistent long-term disability.Levels of Evidence: Level IV: Retrospective series.

Acute Carpal Tunnel Syndrome After Radial Artery Cannulation: A Case Report

CASE

A 20-year-old postpartum woman developed paresthesias and intolerable pain over the volar aspect of the first through fourth fingers, after radial artery cannulation (RAC) during cesarean section. Ultrasonography did not show any hematoma in the forearm. Urgent carpal tunnel release and median nerve decompression were performed, resulting in complete disappearance of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Acute median nerve compression is a rare injury in its own, but it is even rarer as a complication of RAC. Urgent decompression should be performed as soon as possible to avoid future neurological deficits.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI to Evaluate Acute Lisfranc Joint Injuries: Comparison With Direct Operative Observations

Background:

Early diagnosis is important in patients with Lisfranc joint injury to avoid subsequent complications. As the ligaments in the Lisfranc joint are relatively small and course obliquely, isotropic 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be beneficial to evaluate ligament injury. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI, including isotropic 3D MRI for acute injury of the Lisfranc joint, especially of the interosseous C1-M2 ligament (Lisfranc ligament), the dorsal C1-M2 ligament (dorsal ligament), and the interosseous C1-C2 ligament, compared with direct operative observations.

Methods:

This retrospective review identified 27 patients who had undergone MR examination for acute Lisfranc joint injury followed by surgery. We reviewed the operative reports that described the Lisfranc, dorsal, and interosseous C1-C2 ligaments. All patients underwent an MRI, including a 2D oblique plane image parallel to the Lisfranc ligament and an isotropic 3D MRI. An image analysis of the integrity of the 3 ligaments and other associated injuries was performed. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI was analyzed using operative findings as a reference standard.

Results:

Lisfranc and dorsal ligament injuries were identified on MRI in all patients. MRI depicted disruption of the interosseous C1-C2 ligament in 12 patients. MRI diagnostic accuracy for detection of Lisfranc, dorsal, and interosseous C1-C2 ligaments was 100% (95% CI 0.82-1.0), 74% (95% CI 0.54-0.89), and 70% (95% CI 0.50-0.86), respectively.

Conclusion:

MRI with oblique planes parallel to the Lisfranc ligament and isotropic 3D MRI was reliable for detecting Lisfranc ligament injury, whereas MRI findings of the dorsal and interosseous C1-C2 ligaments were less consistent with operative observations.

Level of Evidence:

Level IV, case series.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Persistent instability in pure ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries

INTRODUCTION

Lisfranc injuries refer to a specific group of injuries which lead to instability of the tarsalmetatarsal joint. Our hypothesis is that persistent instability is permanent and asymptomatic in subtle unstable injuries of the medial column which have been fixed percutaneously.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the persistent instability of pure ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries treated with anatomic reduction and percutaneous screws fixation by comparative radiographs of both feet.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2014 and 2018, 14 patients diagnosed with subtle unstable Lisfranc injury were evaluated. Indications for surgery included widening (diastasis) greater than 2mm between the first and second metatarsal bases, and subluxation greater than 1mm of a metatarsal base from its respective tarsal bone.

RESULTS

Persistent instability was found on the stress radiographs of 11 patients (78.57% 95% CI: 48.60-95.07%) but without clinical connotations. The average AOFAS score evaluated at 18 months post-operatively was of 97.14 (SD±4.68) points. The median follow-up was 24 (RIQ: 18-24) months. In all patients, anatomical reduction on radiographs was evident.

CONCLUSION

We observed a persistent instability of the Lisfranc joint, without clinical connotations. Subtle unstable Lisfranc injuries treated with percutaneous screw fixation have a good clinical and functional outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

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.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction and internal fixation in patients with Lisfranc fracture instability (The BFF Study) study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

The Lisfranc injury is a complex injury of the midfoot. It can result in persistent pain and functional impairment if treated inappropriately. In Lisfranc fracture dislocation, treatment options are primary arthrodesis of the midfoot joints or open reduction and internal fixation. The purpose of the proposed study is to define the optimal treatment for the Lisfranc fracture dislocation, either primary arthrodesis or open reduction and internal fixation, in regard to quality of life, complications, functional outcomes, and cost effectiveness.

Methods

Study design: A prospective multicenter RCT. Study population: All patients of 18 years and older with an acute (< 6 weeks) traumatic fracture dislocation in the Lisfranc midfoot joints, displaced on static radiographic evaluation or unstable with dynamic evaluation, weight bearing radiographs or fluoroscopic stress testing under anesthesia, and eligible for either one of the surgical procedures. In total, this study will include n = 112 patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation. Interventions: Patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation will be randomly allocated to treatment in “The Better to Fix or Fuse Study” (The BFF Study) with either PA or ORIF. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome parameter: the quality of life. Secondary outcomes: complications, functional outcomes, secondary surgical interventions and cost effectiveness. Nature and extent of the burden: PA is expected to have a better outcome, however both treatments are accepted for this injury with a similar low risk of complications. Follow up is standardized and therefore this study will not add extra burden to the patient.

Discussion

This study protocol provides a comprehensive overview of the aims and methods of the attached clinical study. Limitations of this study are the absence of patient blinding since it is impossible in surgical intervention, and the outcome measure (AOFAS) that has limited validity not for these injuries. This study will be the first with enough power to define optimal treatment for Lisfranc fracture dislocations. This is necessary since current literature is unclear on this topic.

Trial registration Current controlled Trial: NCT04519242 with registration date: 08/13/2020. Retrospectively registered; Protocol date and version: Version 4 05/06/2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01320-1.

Screw in Lisfranc Ligament

Background. Injury to the Lisfranc interosseous ligament is currently managed with a screw. However, this can potentially further disrupt the ligament. The objective of this study was to observe the proximity of the screw or disruption it can cause at the ligament attachment sites. Methods. Twenty-three feet were studied. A 40-mm, 4.0, partially threaded, cannulated screw was inserted from the base of the second metatarsal into the medial cuneiform. The relationship of the ligament attachment sites to the screw hole were measured. Results. The screw hole contacted at least 1 of the ligament attachment sites in 20 of the 23 feet. The screw hole fully penetrated it in 7 feet, partially disrupted it in 4 feet, and had less than or equal to 1 mm of contact in 9 feet. There was no contact with either of the attachment sites in 3 feet, with an average distance of 1.5 mm separating them. Conclusion. Our results show the proximity of the ligament to the screw and the disruption that can result from its insertion. This is clinically relevant as some amount ligamentous disruption is likely to occur with insertion of the "Lisfranc screw," which may interfere with its healing process.Levels of Evidence: Level V: Expert opinion includes case reports and technique tips.

Long-term Follow-up of Lisfranc Injuries Treated With Open Reduction Internal Fixation Patient-Reported Outcomes

Background:

There remains a paucity of data regarding long-term patient-reported outcomes following Lisfranc injuries. We sought to collect long-term clinical outcome data following Lisfranc injuries using PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) and visual analog scale–foot and ankle (VAS-FA).

Methods:

A chart review was performed to identify all patients who had surgical treatment of an acute Lisfranc injury at our institution from 2005 to 2014. Of the 45 patients identified, we were able to recruit 19 for a follow-up clinic visit consisting of physical examination, administration of questionnaires addressing pain and medication usage, radiographs, and completion of outcome surveys including PROMIS-Physical Function and visual analog scale–foot and ankle.

Results:

There were 14 female and 5 male patients enrolled in the study with a mean time of 6.25 years from the time of injury. Within this cohort, the mean PROMIS-PF score was 52.4±8.2 and the mean VAS–foot and ankle score was 76.6±22.3.

Conclusion:

We report satisfactory long-term patient-reported outcomes using PROMIS-PF and VAS-FA.

Level of Evidence:

Level III, retrospective cohort study.