Subtle injuries to the lisfranc joint

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

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

Comparison of diagnostic performance of X‑ray, CT and MRI in patients with surgically confirmed subtle Lisfranc injuries

The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of three imaging tests: X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for subtle Lisfranc injuries and three anatomical subtype injuries. The non-weight-bearing X-ray, CT and MRI imaging results of patients with subtle Lisfranc injuries from September 2013 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Subtle Lisfranc injuries and three anatomical subtypes (first, second and cuneiform rays) were diagnosed based on the surgical reports. The diagnostic performance of X-ray, CT and MRI was compared. The sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value, negative predictive value, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and κ coefficient were reported. A total of 31 patients were included in the study. The correct diagnosis was made in 48.4% (15/31), 87.1% (27/31) and 96.8% (30/31) of patients by X-ray, CT and MRI, respectively. A total of 54 different anatomical injuries were found intraoperatively in all patients, with MRI and CT having high agreement (Sn, 72.2 and 87.0%; κ, 0.69 and 0.78, respectively) and X-ray having a low agreement (Sn, 29.6%; κ, 0.26) with the surgical findings. Regarding the first-ray injuries, CT had the highest Sn (76.9%), Sp (100%) and AUC (0.885) in diagnosing subtle Lisfranc injuries. MRI showed the best Sn (88.5 and 93.3%, respectively) and AUC (0.942 and 0.904, respectively) in both second and cuneiform rays. In conclusion, non-weight-bearing X-rays had poor diagnostic accuracy for subtle Lisfranc injuries and their subtypes. CT was superior to X-rays and MRI in diagnosing first-ray injuries. Although not significantly different from CT in terms of overall diagnosis, MRI was superior to X-ray and CT in diagnosing second and cuneiform-ray injuries.

Defining Reference Values for the Normal Adult Lisfranc Joint Using Weightbearing Computed Tomography

The uninjured contralateral feet of consecutive patients undergoing cone-beam weightbearing computed tomography for acute Lisfranc injury between July 2017 and October 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Of these, any cases with history or radiological evidence of trauma to the Lisfranc interval were excluded. The area of the non-weightbearing (NWBA) and weightbearing (WBA) Lisfranc joint was calculated (in mm²) using a novel technique. Area difference (AD) was calculated as WBA-NWBA. Area ratio (AR) was calculated as WBA/NWBA. A subset of cases was double-measured by 2 technologists to evaluate inter- and intraobserver variability. A total of 91 patients aged 15 to 74 years were included in the study. The measurement technique was reproducible with excellent intraobserver correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.998, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.996-0.999) and high interobserver correlation (ICC: 0.964, CI: 0.939-0.979). The median NWBA was 83 (range 52-171) and median WBA was 86 (range 52-171). Median AD was 1 mm² (range -3 to 10) and median AR was 1.01 (range 0.96-1.11). No significant difference was identified in AD or AR when adjusted for age, gender, patient-weight or weight put through the foot. Both AD and AR distributions were highly skewed toward 0 and 1, respectively. Based on 95% CI, normal reference range for AD is -1 to 7 mm² and for AR is 0.98 to 1.09. Absolute area of the Lisfranc joint is highly variable between individuals. The Lisfranc joint is rigid with little to no physiologic widening in most subjects. The normal upper limit of widening of the Lisfranc area on weightbearing was 9%. Differences in age, sex, patient-weight or weight put through the foot were not significantly associated with the extent of joint widening.

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.

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.

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.

Lisfranc injuries in adolescents: A case report and literature review

Lisfranc injuries result if bones or ligaments that support the midfoot are torn. In children and adolescents these injuries are not only rare, but are also similar to adult Lisfranc injuries, in that they are often mistaken especially if the injury is a result of a straightforward twist and fall. The goal of surgical treatment is to realign the joints. However, few studies related to Lisfranc injuries in pediatric patients exist. A case of 15 years old patient treated using an Arthrex mini tight rope is described.

Case Study: The Conservative Management of a Complex Mid Foot Injury in an Elite Professional Footballer

Lisfranc injuries, often accompanied with tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) disruption, are not well documented in football despite becoming increasingly more prevalent within other athletic populations. Currently there is a paucity of evidence documenting prognosis, rehabilitation strategy and outcome. The presented case summarizes the conservative rehabilitation and return to play of a 26-year-old elite professional footballer who presented with a Lisfranc injury alongside a 3^rd TMTJ coalition stress response. Injury was sustained when landing awkwardly from a jump causing the midfoot to be forced into a hyper-plantarflexed position. Palpation identified tenderness over the 2^nd and 3^rd MT, with a positive piano key test. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), stork view x-ray and review from a leading foot and ankle specialist confirmed diagnosis, post-contradictory MRI results. Presented is a summary of the assessment process, conservative management of the injury and the resultant rehabilitation process followed, which led to the successful return to play of the athlete.

Primary Arthrodesis for High-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

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

Incidence and Characteristics of Midfoot Injuries

BACKGROUND:

The epidemiology of midfoot injuries is poorly known. It has been estimated that the incidence of Lisfranc injuries (intra-articular injury in the tarsometatarsal joint) is 1/55 000 person-years and the incidence of Chopart injuries (intra-articular injury in the talonavicular and calcaneocuboidal joint) 4/100 000 person-years. The purpose of our study was to assess the computed tomography (CT) imaging-based incidence (per 100 000 person-years) and trauma mechanisms of midfoot injuries.

METHODS:

All CT studies performed due to acute injury of the foot and ankle region between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, at Tampere University Hospital were reviewed. Patients presenting with an injury in the midfoot region in the CT scan were included in this study, and their records were retrospectively evaluated to assess patient characteristics.

RESULTS:

During the 5-year study period, 953 foot and ankle CT scans were obtained because of an acute injury of the foot and ankle. Altogether, 464 foot injuries were found. Of these, 307 affected the midfoot area: 233 (75.9%) the Lisfranc joint area, 56 (18.2%) the Chopart joint area, and 18 (5.9%) were combined injuries or miscellaneous injuries in the midfoot. The incidence of all midfoot injuries was 12.1/100 000 person-years. The incidence of Lisfranc injuries was 9.2/100 000 person-years. The incidence of Chopart injuries was 2.2/100 000 person-years.

CONCLUSIONS:

The incidence of Lisfranc injuries was higher and the incidence of Chopart injuries lower than previously estimated. More than two-thirds of the midfoot injuries in this study were nondisplaced (<2 mm displacement in fracture or joint) and were caused by low-energy trauma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Level III, epidemiologic study.

Lisfranc injury: assessment and management in emergency departments

Injuries to the tarsometatarsal joint complex, also referred to as a Lisfranc injury, are relatively uncommon presentations to emergency departments (EDs), however accurate diagnosis is vital to prevent the risk of long-term disability. Advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs) must use a broad range of clinical skills to manage patients' injuries effectively. A high level of suspicion, recognition of the clinical manifestations of Lisfranc injury and appropriate radiographic images are required to formulate a correct diagnosis. This article describes Lisfranc injuries, revises the anatomy of the midfoot, and discusses diagnosis and management. It includes a case study to illustrate assessment and management of a patient who presented to an ED with a Lisfranc injury following a fall from a height and considers the diagnostic decisions and management options available to ANPs.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the Lisfranc ligament

Background

The Lisfranc joint has complex structures, and articular surfaces overlap on conventional X-ray radiographs. Hence, there is no available auxiliary examination for diagnosing related injuries. At present, few studies on the imaging of Lisfranc ligaments have been reported, and related imaging data are rare. Therefore, no imaging reference can be used for related diagnosis and repair operations. This study aims to observe and describe the morphology and structure of Lisfranc ligaments using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in order to provide imaging reference for the diagnosis and repair of Lisfranc joint injuries.

Methods

MRI scanning was performed on 60 sides of normal feet of 30 healthy adult volunteers. In the MRI scanning on the Lisfranc joint, sagittal scanning was focused on the area between the lateral margin and medial margin of the Lisfranc joint, while oblique coronal scanning was focused on the area parallel to the Lisfranc joint clearance. After acquisition of MRI images, data were burned into a CD, and the morphology and structure of the Lisfranc ligament on the MRI image were observed and described. Hence, the imaging parameters of the Lisfranc ligament were acquired, providing an imaging reference for the diagnosis and repair of Lisfranc joint injuries.

Results

By observing the obtained images of the Lisfranc ligament through appropriate MRI scanning, it was found that the Lisfranc ligament originates at the site 12.63 ± 1.20 mm from the lateral side of the base of the medial cuneiform bone, with a length of 8.02 ± 1.5 mm, a width of 2.53 ± 0.61 mm, a height of 6.96 ± 1.01 mm, forms an included angle of 46.79 ± 3.47° with the long axis of the first metatarsal bone, and finally ends at the base of the second phalanx. Detailed imaging parameters of the Lisfranc joint and ligament were obtained from the present imaging experiment, providing an imaging reference for the diagnosis and repair of Lisfranc joint injuries.

Conclusions

On the MRI images, the sagittal section can clearly display the corresponding situation of the Lisfranc joint bone and longitudinal arch of the foot, tolerably display the Lisfranc joint dorsal ligaments and metatarsal ligaments, and poorly display the Lisfranc ligament. The oblique coronal section can clearly display the transverse arch of the foot and clearly display the cross-section of the Lisfranc ligament. The oblique crosssection can clearly display the horizontal arch of the Lisfranc joint and more clearly display its surrounding ligaments and tendons, especially the entire Lisfranc ligament and its attachment points. This is an important section for the diagnosis of Lisfranc ligament injuries. This study provides a certain imaging reference for the MRI scanning, diagnosis, and repair of Lisfranc joint injuries. Further research with large sample size is still needed to confirm the conclusions.

Nonweightbearing Radiographs in Patients With a Subtle Lisfranc Injury

BACKGROUND

A midfoot sprain can be easily missed because of minimal findings on initial radiographs, which are almost universally nonweightbearing. We investigated preoperative nonweightbearing plain radiographic images in patients who were found to have unstable subtle Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 51 patients who were operated on between February 2004 and March 2015. Abnormal preoperative radiographic findings and intraoperative instability were compared. The relationship was calculated with Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Based on intraoperative findings, medial cuneiform (C1)-second metatarsal (M2) instability was observed in 50 cases (98%), which was the most common. Thirty-nine cases (76.4 %) had multiple joint (at least 2) instability. In the preoperative radiologic findings, C1-M2 diastasis was the most common abnormal finding, in 46 cases (90.1%). Specificity and positive predictive value were 1.0 in C1-M2 avulsion, diastasis, and C1-intermediate cuneiform (C2) diastasis. Abnormal findings of C1-C2, C1-M1, and C2-M2 showed a significant relationship with intraoperative instability ( P < .05).

CONCLUSION

C1-M2 avulsion and diastasis and C1-C2 diastasis were definite preoperative predictors of instability. In unstable subtle Lisfranc injuries, 90% had at least a minor radiographic abnormality at the C1-M2 joint on nonweightbearing radiographs. However, caution should be exercised to identify instability without radiographic abnormality in the C1-M2 joint.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

Is Pes Cavus Alignment Associated With Lisfranc Injuries of the Foot?

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc (tarsometatarsal joint) injuries are relatively rare, accounting for less than 1% of all fractures, and as many as 20% of subtle Lisfranc injuries are missed at the initial patient presentation. An undiagnosed Lisfranc injury can have devastating consequences to the patient. Therefore, any factor that can raise a clinician's index of suspicion to make this diagnosis is potentially important. The cavus foot has been associated with various maladies of the lower extremity, but to our knowledge, it has not been reported to be associated with Lisfranc injury.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Do patients who experience a low-energy Lisfranc injury have greater talar head coverage and a greater talo-first metatarsal angle than control subjects?

METHODS

A retrospective, case-control study was conducted from September 2011 to December 2014 to identify patients diagnosed and treated for a low-energy Lisfranc injury. Twenty-three adult patients with an average age of 42.6 years (SD, 16.3 years) were identified and compared with 61 adult control subjects with an average age of 49.4 years (SD, 14.1 years). Control subjects came from the practice of a fellowship-trained foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeon. Control subjects underwent a history and physical, clinical examination, and diagnostic imaging to confirm that they had no prior foot disorder, no prior foot surgeries, were within 3 years of age of a patient with a Lisfranc injury, and were independent ambulators. Two authors (DSD and JDP) measured the talonavicular and talo-first metatarsal angles on weightbearing AP and lateral radiographs of the foot. The intrarater reliability and interrater reliability for the talo-first metatarsal angle and the talonavicular angle showed high agreement. The intrarater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of the talo-first metatarsal angle were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.9-0.96). For the talonavicular angle the ICCs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.92) for Raters 1 and 2 respectively. The interrater ICCs were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69-0.96) for the talo-first metatarsal angle and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94) for the talonavicular angle. The patients and controls were compared to determine if the patients who sustained a Lisfranc injury were more likely to have a pes cavus foot alignment. We performed a mixed modeling analysis to control for potential cofounding variables and determine if there was an association of Lisfranc injury with the talo-first metatarsal angle and the talonavicular angle.

RESULTS

After controlling for confounding variables such as the effect of the measurement round effect and the effect of the rater, our repeated measures analysis via mixed model showed patients were associated with a higher talo-first metatarsal angle than control subjects (adjusted least square mean for patients = 3.05; for controls = -2.65; mean difference, 5.7; p = 0.001). Repeated measures analysis via mixed model showed that patients also were associated with a more positive talonavicular angle than control subjects (adjusted least square mean for patients = -4.83, for controls = -11; mean difference, 6.17; p = 0.002). Patients with Lisfranc injuries had a higher mean talo-first metatarsal angle than did control subjects (1.9° ± 7.9° versus -2.2° ± 7.3°; mean difference, 4.1°; 95% CI, -7.7° to -0.5°; p = 0.028), and less talar uncovering (-4.2° ± 9.7° versus -11° ± 8°; mean difference, 6.7°; 95% CI, -6.7° to -10.8°; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that cavus midfoot alignment was more prevalent among patients with Lisfranc injuries than among individuals with no foot injury or disorder. Although this does not suggest that cavus alignment causes or predisposes patients to this injury, we believe the finding is important because this provides a radiographic parameter that clinicians can use to raise their index of suspicion for a Lisfranc injury and aggressively pursue this diagnosis. Future studies would benefit from obtaining contralateral foot imaging at the time of injury in all patients with Lisfranc injury or prospectively following patients with foot imaging and recording the incidence of future foot injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, prognostic study.

Lisfranc injuries in children and adolescents

In this descriptive analysis of pediatric Lisfranc injuries, records of 56 children treated for bony or ligamentous Lisfranc injuries over a 12-year period were reviewed. Overall, 51% of fractures and 82% of sprains were sports-related (P=0.03). A total of 34% of the cohort underwent open reduction internal fixation, which was more common among patients with closed physes (67%). Full weight bearing was allowed in open reduction internal fixation patients at a mean of 14.5 weeks, compared to 6.5 weeks in the nonoperative group. Complications were rare (4%) and included physeal arrest in one patient and a broken, retained implant in one patient.

Combined Innovative Portal Arthroscopy and Fluoroscopy-Assisted Reduction and Fixation in Subtle Injury of the Lisfranc Joint Complex: Analysis of 10 Cases

Subtle injuries of the Lisfranc joint complex are uncommon and difficult to diagnose clinically and thus are easily missed even by experienced orthopedic doctors. Misdiagnosed injuries can lead to chronic disability until eventual fusion surgery. We describe 10 cases diagnosed with subtle injury of the Lisfranc joint that were treated with combined innovative portal arthroscopy and fluoroscopy-assisted reduction and percutaneous screw fixation in an interfragmentary fashion. The distance between the first and second metatarsals (the Lisfranc distance) and that between the medial cuneiform and fifth metatarsal base (foot arch height) was measured before and after surgery. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society function score was evaluated perioperatively. The average preoperative and postoperative Lisfranc distance was 4.38 ± 0.39 mm and 2.68 ± 0.9 mm, the foot arch height was 12.63 ± 2.75 mm and 21.80 ± 3.50 mm, and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score was 59.1 ± 5.69 and 86.8 ± 10.1, respectively. Of the 10 patients, 3 had excellent outcomes, 6 had good outcomes, and 1 had a fair outcome. In conclusion, we report a useful and minimally invasive surgery for acute, subacute, and even chronic subtle injury of the Lisfranc joint. The Lisfranc distance, foot arch height, and function of the foot were restored clinically, and all measurements showed statistically significant differences.

Lower Extremity Injury Patterns in Elite Ballet Dancers: Ultrasound/MRI Imaging Features and an Institutional Overview of Therapeutic Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Interventions

BACKGROUND

Altered biomechanics from repetitive microtrauma, such as long practice hours in en pointe (tip of the toes) or demi pointe (balls of the feet) predispose ballet dancers to a multitude of musculoskeletal pathologies particularly in the lower extremities. Both ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are radiation-sparing modalities which can be used to confidently evaluate these injuries, with ultrasound (US) offering the added utility of therapeutic intervention at the same time in experienced hands.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purposes of this paper were: (1) to illustrate the US and MRI features of lower extremity injury patterns in ballet dancers, focusing on pathologies commonly encountered at a single orthopedic hospital; (2) to present complementary roles of both ultrasound and MRI in the evaluation of these injuries whenever possible; (3) to review and present our institutional approach towards therapeutic ultrasound-guided interventions by presenting explicit cases.

METHODS

Online searches were performed using the search criteria of "ballet biomechanics" and "ballet injuries." The results were then further narrowed down by limiting articles published in the past 15 years, modality (US and MRI), anatomical region (foot and ankle, hip and knee) and to major radiology, orthopedics, and sports medicine journals.

RESULTS

Performing ballet poses major stress to lower extremities and predisposes dancer to several musculoskeletal injuries. These can be adequately evaluated by both US and MRI. US is useful for evaluating superficial structures such as soft tissues, tendons, and ligaments, particularly in the foot and ankle. MRI provides superior resolution of deeper structures such as joints, bone marrow, and cartilage. In addition, US can be used as a therapeutic tool for providing quick symptomatic improvement in these athletes for who "time is money".

CONCLUSION

Performing ballet may cause major stress to the lower extremities, predominantly affecting the foot and ankle, followed by the knee and hip. US and MRI play complementary roles in evaluating various orthopedic conditions in ballet dancers, with US allowing for dynamic evaluation and guidance for interventions.

Lisfranc injuries

Lisfranc injuries are commonly asked about in FRCS Orthopaedic trauma vivas. The term "Lisfranc injury" strictly refers to an injury where one or more of the metatarsals are displaced from the tarsus. The term is more commonly used to describe an injury to the midfoot centred on the 2nd tarsometatarsal joint. The injury is named after Jacques Lisfranc de St. Martin (1790-1847), a French surgeon and gynaecologist who first described the injury in 1815. 'Lisfranc injury' encompasses a broad spectrum of injuries, which can be purely ligamentous or involve the osseous and articular structures. They are often difficult to diagnose and treat, but if not detected and appropriately managed they can cause long-term disability. This review outlines the anatomy, epidemiology, classification, investigation and current evidence on management of this injury.

Lisfranc injury in a west point cadet

Background:

Lisfranc joint injuries are fairly uncommon; however, few injuries hold such an elevated potential for devastating chronic secondary pain and disability. It is imperative when evaluating an injury to the ankle or foot to have a high clinical index of suspicion for Lisfranc injury, as physical examination findings are often subtle.

Case Description:

An 18-year-old military cadet reported to a direct-access sports physical therapy clinic with foot pain. Despite negative radiographic findings, there was a high suspicion for Lisfranc injury based on the injury mechanism and physical examination. A computed tomography scan demonstrated an oblique fracture through the base of the third metatarsal, a small marginal fracture at the plantar base of the second metatarsal, and a subtle diastasis. Two days following his injury, he underwent an open reduction and internal fixation, completed subsequent rehabilitation, and returned to full activity approximately 1 year following injury.

Conclusion:

Early diagnosis of Lisfranc injuries is imperative for proper management and prevention of a poor functional outcome. If a strong clinical suspicion exists, negative radiographic findings are insufficient to rule out a Lisfranc injury, and therefore, advanced imaging is required.

Lisfranc injuries: an update

Lisfranc injuries are a spectrum of injuries to the tarsometatarsal joint complex of the midfoot. These range from subtle ligamentous sprains, often seen in athletes, to fracture dislocations seen in high-energy injuries. Accurate and early diagnosis is important to optimise treatment and minimise long-term disability, but unfortunately, this is a frequently missed injury. Undisplaced injuries have excellent outcomes with non-operative treatment. Displaced injuries have worse outcomes and require anatomical reduction and internal fixation for the best outcome. Although evidence to date supports the use of screw fixation, plate fixation may avoid further articular joint damage and may have benefits. Recent evidence supports the use of limited arthrodesis in more complex injuries.

Age, sex, causal and injury patterns in tarsometatarsal dislocations: a literature review of over 2000 cases

BACKGROUND

The causes and mechanisms of tarsometatarsal (TMT) dislocations are poorly characterized. Unfortunately, the rarity of these injuries makes it difficult and costly to gather the epidemiological data needed to better understand the populations at risk and the circumstances under which injury is most likely to occur.

METHODOLOGY

To address this issue, literature reports of TMT dislocations were identified and analyzed to generate statistical descriptions of the common causes of injury, the age and sex of those injured, and the pattern of injury. Over 2000 injuries were identified from 187 articles.

RESULTS

The analysis reveals that over 40% of injuries were related to traffic accidents. Based on the Hardcastle classification system, more than 60% of TMT dislocation were partial (type B) injuries. Over 55% of the injured were between 15 and 35 years of age, and males were injured more than twice as frequently. Conversely, the victims of falls tended to be older and represented a larger proportion of females. The age and sex of those injured by TMT dislocations vary by cause.

CONCLUSION

An improved understanding of the epidemiologic patterns will benefit research into the mitigation and prevention of these injuries.