The midfoot sprain: a review of Lisfranc ligament injuries

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.

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.

Bilateral Lisfranc Injury in a Young Female: A Case Report

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

Classification of the interosseous tarsometatarsal ligaments of the foot

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to clarify the anatomical features of the interosseous tarsometatarsal ligaments of foot and to classify their types based on the combinations of their ligamentous components.

METHODS

Fifty feet from 27 adult Korean cadavers were dissected.

RESULTS

The interosseous tarsometatarsal ligaments were observed in the first, second, and third cuneometatarsal joint spaces. The interosseous tarsometatarsal ligament of the first cuneometatarsal space consistently connected the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal, and was accompanied by one or two accessory ligaments above (34%) and/or below (6%) the Lisfranc ligament. The interosseous tarsometatarsal ligaments of the second and third cuneometatarsal joint spaces comprised seven and five components, and were classified into five and three types depending on the number and combination of the components, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are expected to advance the current knowledge on the tarsometatarsal joint and provide helpful information for more accurate and successful diagnosis and treatment of lesions at this joint.

Suture Button vs Conventional Screw Fixation for Isolated Lisfranc Ligament Injuries

BACKGROUND

Suture buttons have been used for isolated Lisfranc ligament (ILL) fixation. However, no study has reported on its clinical and radiologic outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective comparative study, patients with ILL injuries were divided into 2 groups according to the treatment method: 32 conventional screw group and 31 suture button group. The clinical and radiologic outcomes at preoperation, 6 months and 1 year postoperation, and last follow-up period were measured. Plantar foot pressure was measured at postoperative month 6 months. Postoperative complications at the last follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

The suture button group showed better American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot scale (P < .001) and visual analog scale (P < .001) scores compared with the conventional screw fixation group at the postoperative month 6 period before screw removal. However, no significant difference in clinical outcome between the 2 groups was found at postoperative year 1 or last follow-up. No differences in radiologic outcomes were found between the 2 groups. Plantar foot pressure was significantly elevated in the conventional screw group at the great toe and first metatarsal head area compared with the contralateral foot just before screw removal. Recurrent Lisfranc joint diastasis was found in a single case in the conventional screw group and 2 cases in the suture button group.

CONCLUSION

Suture button fixation in the treatment of ILL injuries may provide comparable fixation stability and clinical outcome with conventional screw fixation in the early postoperative period.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective case-control study, therapeutic.

Biomechanical Comparison of Fibertape Device Repair Techniques of Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury in a Cadaveric Model

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc ligamentous injuries are complex, and their treatment, along with the preferred method of fixation, is controversial. Implementing a flexible synthetic augmentation device (fibertape) has been described as an alternative to traditional screw fixation. This biomechanical study evaluated two fibertape devices with interference screw fixation: InternalBrace, and InternalBrace with supplementary intercuneiform stabilization.

METHODS

The diastasis and relative angular displacement between bones were measured at three midfoot joints in the Lisfranc articulation. Measurements were obtained for the pre-injured, injured, and post-fixation stages under static loading. Specimens then underwent stepwise increases in cyclic loading performed at 1 Hz and 100 cycles, at 100 N ground reaction force intervals from 500 to 1200 N to simulate postoperative loading, and then up to 1800 N to simulate high loads. Failure of fixation was defined as diastasis greater than 2 millimeters at the second-metatarsal - medial-cuneiform joint.

RESULTS

InternalBrace specimens demonstrated failures in 3 of 9 (33%) specimens at cyclic loads of 1000 N. Conversely, InternalBrace with Supplementary Limb specimens had 1 failure at 1200 N. The difference in diastasis at the second metatarsal-medial cuneiform joint was statistically significant between the two groups at higher loads of 1600N (p = 0.019) and 1800N (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

The use of InternalBrace for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries appears to provide a biomechanically viable alternative for withstanding early postoperative protected weight bearing. Furthermore, the use of a supplementary limb in addition to the InternalBrace fibertape fixation method appears to enhance its biomechanical efficacy.

Asymmetric lambda sign of the second tarsometatarsal joint on axial weight-bearing cone-beam CT scans of the foot: preliminary investigation for diagnosis of subtle ligamentous Lisfranc injuries in a cadaveric model

BACKGROUND

Subtle Lisfranc joint injuries remain challenging to diagnose. Although of questionable accuracy, the current gold standard to assess these injuries is through bilateral weight-bearing radiography. However, weight-bearing cone beam-computed tomography (CBCT), providing clearer visualization of bony landmarks, can also be utilized for evaluation. This study aims to establish the hypothesis that a specific weight-bearing CBCT finding (asymmetric lambda sign) can serve as an independent indicator of a subtle Lisfranc injury.

METHODS

Weight-bearing CBCT images of 24 match-paired cadaveric legs were acquired, initially intact, and then following sequential dissection of each aspect (dorsal, interosseous, and plantar ligaments, respectively) of the Lisfranc ligamentous complex (LLC). All scans were taken in non- (NWB, 0 kg), partial- (PWB, 40 kg), and full-weight-bearing (FWB, 80 kg) manners. The lambda sign was then inspected axially for asymmetry (positive sign) by identifying three symmetrical joint spaces created between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal base (C1-M2), the medial and middle cuneiform (C1-C2), and the second metatarsal base and middle cuneiform (M2-C2).

RESULTS

A positive sign was observed in 25.6% (221/864) of all studies. Most notably, the fully dissected specimens demonstrated an asymmetric lambda sign in 33.3%, 72.2%, and 83.3% in NWB, PWB, and FWB conditions, respectively. The inter- and intra-observer reliability kappa value was calculated to be 0.843 and 0.912.

CONCLUSION

An asymmetric lambda sign is a simple and useful indicator for a complete LLC injury in PWB and FWB conditions using a cadaver model.

Surgical outcome of chronic Lisfranc injury without secondary degenerative arthritis: A systematic literature review✰

BACKGROUND

Chronic Lisfranc joint injuries (tarsometatarsal, TMT) can present as a variety of clinical symptoms and radiographic findings. If significant arthritis at the Lisfranc joint is present, salvage arthrodesis is an option. For patients who receive a delayed diagnosis and/or present with no signs of arthritic changes, selecting the most appropriate treatment can be challenging. This article provides a systematic review of current surgical treatment options and outcomes for patients with a chronic Lisfranc injury but no secondary degenerative changes.

METHODS

Four major medical databases were searched from inception through March 5, 2019: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase. Studies were included if they were original research studies that assessed the outcome of patients treated surgically for chronic Lisfranc injuries without secondary osteoarthritic changes. Only studies written in English and German were considered. The following data were recorded from each study: number of patients and feet included, study design (prospective vs. retrospective, single vs. multicenter, level of evidence), time between initial injury and operation, operative techniques, age, mechanism of injury, type of injury (purely ligamentous or ligamentous with concomitant bony fractures), indications for surgery, pre-operative assessment, postoperative follow-up time, time to return to activity or sport, and clinical outcome. The modified Coleman Score was used to assess the methodologic quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 6,845 screened, ten studies met the above criteria and were included. All but one were single center studies. All studies were either retrospective or prospective case series. Overall, studies generally reported low complication rates and good functional outcomes. Postoperative outcomes were most frequently measured with the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle (AOFAS) score; the overall mean preoperative AOFAS scores of 55.7 significantly improved to 88.1 at final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

No definitive consensus exists on how Lisfranc instability without concurrent osteoarthritis should be surgically managed. Despite the delay in diagnosis, patients who undergo surgical repair for chronic, unstable Lisfranc injury without osteoarthritis have improved patient outcome and few post-surgical complications. While the quality of these studies is satisfactory, a larger patient cohort and prospective analysis could further strengthen arguments for or against certain surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Systematic Review of Level IV Studies.

Advanced Ankle and Foot Sonoanatomy: Imaging Beyond the Basics

Ankle/foot pain is a common complaint encountered in clinical practice. Currently, due to the complex anatomy, the diagnosis and management of the underlying musculoskeletal disorders are extremely challenging. Nowadays, high-resolution ultrasound has emerged as the first-line tool to evaluate musculoskeletal disorders. There have been several existing protocols describing the fundamental sonoanatomy of ankle/foot joints. However, there are certain anatomic structures (e.g., Lisfranc ligament complex or Baxter nerve) which are also clinically important. As they are rarely elaborated in the available literature, a comprehensive review is necessary. In this regard, the present article aims to brief the regional anatomy, illustrate the scanning techniques, and emphasize the clinical relevance of the ankle/foot region.

[Effectiveness of open reduction and internal fixation for acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries]

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treatment of acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries.

Methods

A retrospective review of 26 patients with occult Lisfranc injuries who were treated with ORIF between July 2010 and July 2015 was applied. Fourteen patients were treated within 6 weeks after injury (acute group) and 12 patients were treated after 6 weeks of injury (delayed group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, affected sides, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and physical and mental scores of Study Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12) ( P<0.05). The joint reduction, internal fixator, and traumatic osteoarthritis were observed by X-ray films. The pain degree, midfoot function, and quality of life were evaluated with VAS score, AOFAS score, and physical and mental scores of SF-12.

Results

All incisions healed by first intention with no complications. All patients were followed up with the mean follow-up time of 15 months (range, 12-24 months) in acute group and 15 months (range, 12-23 months) in delayed group. At last follow-up, the VAS score, AOFAS score, and physical and mental scores of SF-12 were superior to those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05). And there was no significant difference in all indicators between the two groups ( P>0.05). The satisfaction rates were 100% and 83.3% (10/12) in acute group and delayed group, respectively. The internal fixators were removed in 20 patients (11 cases in acute group and 9 cases in delayed group) at 9-24 months after operation (mean, 14.5 months). The results of X-ray films showed no traumatic osteoarthritis, midfoot collapse, internal fixation failure, or reduction loss during follow-up period.

Conclusion

ORIF is an ideal method for both acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries and can obtain the similar effectiveness.

Gait analysis and functional outcome in patients after Lisfranc injury treatment

INTRODUCTION

Lisfranc injuries involve any bony or ligamentous disruption of the tarsometatarsal joint. Outcome results after treatment are mainly evaluated using patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), physical examination and radiographic findings. Less is known about the kinematics during gait.

METHODS

Nineteen patients (19 feet) treated for Lisfranc injury were recruited. Patients with conservative treatment and surgical treatment consisting of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis were included. PROM, radiographic findings and gait analysis using the Oxford Foot Model (OFM) were analysed. Results were compared with twenty-one healthy subjects (31 feet). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors influencing outcome.

RESULTS

Patients treated for Lisfranc injury had a significantly lower walking speed than healthy subjects (P<0.001). There was a significant difference between the two groups regarding the range of motion (ROM) in the sagittal plane (flexion-extension) in the midfoot during the push-off phase (p<0.001). The ROM in the sagittal plane was significantly correlated with the AOFAS midfoot score (r²=0.56, p=0.012), FADI (r²=0.47, p=0.043) and the SF-36-physical impairment score (r²=0.60, p=0.007) but not with radiographic parameters for quality of reduction. In a multivariable analysis, the best explanatory factors were ROM in the sagittal plane during the push-off phase (β=0.707, p=0.001), stability (β=0.423, p=0.028) and BMI (β=-0.727 p=<0.001). This prediction model explained 87% of patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that patients treated for Lisfranc injury had significantly lower walking speed and significantly lower flexion/extension in the midfoot than healthy subjects. The ROM in these patients was significantly correlated with PROM, but not with radiographic quality of reduction. Most important satisfaction predictors were BMI, ROM in the sagittal plane during the push-off phase and fracture stability.

Lisfranc Joint Ligament Complex Reconstruction: A Promising Solution for Missed, Delayed, or Chronic Lisfranc Injury Without Arthritis

The current classifications of "Lisfranc injury" can be purely ligamentous (low-grade midfoot sprains) or involve the osseous and articular structures (high-grade Lisfranc fracture displacements). The first type is often difficult to detect. If these patients are not properly treated, long-term disability can result. The rate of missed or delayed diagnoses has ranged from 13% to 24%, primarily owing to the subtlety of the radiographic findings. This is relatively more common in cases of subtle ligamentous injury (19%). The aim of the present report was to provide a new technique for missed or delayed Lisfranc injury without degenerative local signs. The Lisfranc ligament complex reconstruction is performed with a gracilis tendon graft and is protected by temporary screw fixation. We performed this technique in 3 patients. All 3 patients obtained good results, have been able to resume their previous activities, and have stated they would undergo this type of procedure again. The minimum follow-up length was 2 years.

Randomized, Prospective Comparison of Bioabsorbable and Steel Screw Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries

OBJECTIVE

This study's objective is to compare outcomes of bioabsorbable versus steel screws for treating Lisfranc injuries.

DESIGN

This research was conducted in a prospective and randomized manner between September 2008 and December 2013.

SETTING

This study was performed in the outpatient setting at a tertiary-level care center in a single surgeon's practice.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Forty patients with acute Lisfranc injuries, amenable to open reduction and screw fixation, enrolled and presented for final follow-up.

INTERVENTION

Through randomization, 20 and 20 patients received bioabsorbable versus steel screws, respectively.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Function and pain were graded using the Foot and Ankle Ability Measures (FAAM) and a visual analog scale of pain. Radiographs were assessed for joint stability and degeneration.

RESULTS

For those with steel screws, the mean FAAM score increased from 24.9 to 89.6 of 100 and pain score decreased from 6.5 to 1.9 of 10 by latest follow-up. For those with absorbable screws, the mean FAAM score increased from 32.5 to 91.2 and pain score decreased from 4.7 to 1.3 by latest follow-up. These differences in final mean function (P = 0.4) and pain (P = 0.25) between the study groups were not statistically significant. Final radiographs showed no Lisfranc instability in any study patients, but rather midfoot arthritis in 4 and 2 patients with steel versus bioabsorbable screws, respectively. None of the patients who received steel screws had hardware-related problems, but 1 patient who received absorbable fixation developed an inflammatory reaction at a nonresorbed screw head at 2 years after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Bioabsorbable screws provide short-term results that are comparable and not significantly different from steel screws for treating unstable Lisfranc injuries. Both methods are predictable in improving function and pain, but using absorbable screws eliminates the need for hardware removal after such trauma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.