Subtle Lisfranc Injuries: A Topical Review and Modification of the Classification System

Weightbearing Computed Tomography vs Conventional Tomography for Examination of Varying Degrees of Lisfranc Injures: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

Lisfranc injuries, if not accurately diagnosed, can result in chronic pain and instability. Previous studies have examined ultrasonographs, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and conventional computed tomography (CT) scan to differentiate Lisfranc instability, but they focused on a healthy/injured scale without differentiating subtle injury. Weightbearing CT (WBCT) has emerged as a diagnostic tool for detecting subtle Lisfranc injuries. This systematic review aimed to compare WBCT with conventional CT in diagnosing Lisfranc injury, and the ability to differentiate injuries of varying severities.

Methods

The review encompassed PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases from inception until July 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria involved studies on CT and/or WBCT for Lisfranc injuries and nonoperative studies. Exclusion criteria composed case reports, commentaries, postoperative imaging studies, pediatric patients, studies with nonobjective radiographic measurements, studies exclusively focused on injury classification, and studies with fewer than 5 patients because of poor statistical power. Data extraction focused on radiographic measurements of the Lisfranc complex, categorized into conventional CT, partial WBCT, and total WBCT.

Results

Out of the initially retrieved 489 articles, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Several studies consistently demonstrate that WBCT provides a higher level of accuracy in measuring the Lisfranc area, offering enhanced sensitivity to detect subtle alterations in joint structure. Moreover, WBCT exhibits superior sensitivity in distinguishing between healthy Lisfranc joints and those with injuries, particularly when identifying dorsal ligament damage. This imaging modality allows for the detection of significant variations in critical measurements like first-second metatarsal (M1-M2) distance, first cuneiform (C1)-M2 distance, and joint volumes, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of Lisfranc joint health especially with subtle instability.

Conclusion

This review evaluates the extant literature on WBCT's utility in diagnosing Lisfranc injuries and compares its effectiveness to CT in distinguishing between injuries of varying severity. WBCT, with reliable measurement techniques, appears more adept at detecting subtle Lisfranc instability compared to CT, likely by allowing the assessment of injury under load.

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.

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.

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.

Primary Arthrodesis Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Outcomes for Lisfranc Injuries: An Analysis of Conflicting Meta-analyses Results

INTRODUCTION

The superiority of primary arthrodesis (PA) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in Lisfranc injuries has been debated. Meta-analyses comparing these surgical options have reached contradicting conclusions. The goal of this article is to determine why different conclusions were reached and provide clarity on the comparable outcomes of PA and ORIF in Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted by searching for "meta-analysis" AND "Lisfranc" with keywords such as "ORIF" OR "open reduction" OR "arthrodesis" OR "fusion." Five meta-analysis articles discussing PA and ORIF in Lisfranc injuries were identified. Study outcomes were extracted from each article, and contradicting conclusions were identified for analysis.

RESULTS

PA had lower rates of hardware removal. There was no difference between PA and ORIF when considering revision surgery, anatomic reduction, postoperative infection, total complications, and patient satisfaction. However, contradicting conclusions were reached for return to duty, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Conclusions. There was no difference in PA and ORIF for return to work and VAS score. Repeat meta-analysis with truly equivocal outcomes would be necessary to reach a valid conclusion for return to full activity and AOFAS midfoot scores.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level II: Therapeutic studies.

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.

Clinical study on the surgical treatment of atypical Lisfranc joint complex injury

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries have not received much attention by orthopedic doctors in the past, and there is little related research on the diagnosis and treatment of these injuries. In recent years with the rise in foot and ankle surgery, doctors are now paying more attention to this type of injury. However, there is still a high rate of missed diagnosis due to insufficient attention causing treatment delays or inadequate treatments, which eventually result in greater sequelae; including long-term pain, arthritis, foot deformity etc. In particular, for cases with a mild Lisfranc joint complex injury, the incidence of sequelae is higher.

AIM

To select an active surgical treatment for an atypical Lisfranc joint complex injury and to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the surgical treatment.

METHODS

The clinical data of 18 patients, including 10 males and 8 females aged 20-64 years with Lisfranc injuries treated in our department from January 2017 to September 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were treated with an open reduction and internal fixation method using locking titanium mini-plates and hollow screws or Kirschner wires. X-ray images were taken and follow-up was performed monthly after the operation; the internal fixation was then removed 4-5 mo after the operation; and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score was used for evaluation on the last follow-up.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up for 6-12 mo. A good/excellent AOFAS score was observed in 88.9% of patients.

CONCLUSION

For atypical Lisfranc joint complex injuries, active open reduction and internal fixation can be performed to enable patients to obtain a good prognosis and satisfactory functional recovery.

Lisfranc fleck sign: characteristics and clinical outcomes following fixation using a percutaneous position Lisfranc screw

BACKGROUND

Avulsion of the Lisfranc ligament, fleck sign, results in unstable Lisfranc injuries. This cross-sectional study was conducted to investigate the characteristics of Lisfranc injuries with fleck sign and the clinical and radiological outcomes following closed reduction and percutaneous screw fixation.

METHODS

All consecutive operatively managed Lisfranc injuries with fleck sign were reviewed from 2016 to 2018. The injury pattern and characteristics of Lisfranc fleck sign were reviewed based on the preoperative CT scan. Postoperative complications besides radiological and clinical outcomes were assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) pain, American orthopedic foot and ankle society (AOFAS) midfoot scale, and foot function index (FFI).

RESULTS

Thirty patients (20 males; mean age, 36.9 ± 17.0; range, 12-69 years) with mean follow-up 16.9 ± 7.4 (range, 6-31) months were enrolled. Among 12 cases with avulsed Lisfranc ligament from the second metatarsal base, only two cases had isolated second metatarsal base fracture in plantar medial part while others had concomitant avulsion fracture of plantar aspect of the adjacent third and/or fourth metatarsal base. Mean of postoperative VAS pain, AOFAS midfoot scale, and FFI were 1.03 ± 0.29, 91.43 ± 1.43, 24.43 ± 6.66, respectively. We had seven (23.3%) removal of screws, two (6.6%) broken screws, four (13.3%) pulled-out screws, and six (20%) lost reductions in the final follow-up with good clinical functions.

CONCLUSION

Closed reduction and percutaneous fixation of the Lisfranc injuries with fleck sign by a single position screw could be a good surgical option with reliable and predictable outcomes without needing to remove the hardware, routinely.

Comparison of Suture-Augmented Ligamentplasty to Transarticular Screws in a Lisfranc Cadaveric Model

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries represent a spectrum of trauma from high-energy lesions, with significant instability of the midfoot, to low-energy lesions, with subtle subluxations or instability without gross displacement. Recently, treatment options that allow for physiologic fixation of this multiplanar joint are being evaluated. The purpose of this study was to analyze the stability of a cadaveric Lisfranc injury model fixed with a novel suture-augmented neoligamentplasty in comparison with a traditional transarticular screw fixation construct.

METHODS

Twenty-four fresh-frozen, matched cadaveric leg and foot specimens (12 individuals younger than 65 years of age) were used for this study. Two different types of Lisfranc ligament injuries were tested: partial and complete. Two different methods of fixation were compared: transarticular screws and augmented suture ligamentplasty with FiberTape. Specimens were fixed to a rotation platform in order to stress the joints while applying 400 N of axial load and internal and external rotation. Six distances were measured and compared between the intact, injured, and fixed states with a 3D Digitizer arm, in order to evaluate the stability between them. Analysis of variance was used with P < .05 considered significant.

RESULTS

Using distribution graphs and analyzing the grouped data, it was observed that there was no difference between the 2 stabilization methods, but the augmented suture ligamentplasty presented lower variability and observed distance shortenings were more likely to be around the mean. The variability of the stabilization with screws was 2.9 times higher than that with tape (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

We suggest that augmented suture ligamentplasty can achieve similar stability to classic transarticular screws, with less variability.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This cadaveric study adds new information on the debate about Lisfranc lesions treatment. Flexible fixations, such as the synthethic ligamentplasty used, can restore good stability such as conventional transarticular screws.

Inter- and intraobserver reliability of non-weight-bearing foot radiographs compared with CT in Lisfranc injuries

BACKGROUND

Injury of the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint complex, known as Lisfranc injury, covers a wide range of injuries from subtle ligamentous injuries to severely displaced crush injuries. Although it is known that these injuries are commonly missed, the literature on the accuracy of the diagnostics is limited. The diagnostic accuracy of non-weight-bearing radiography (inter- or intraobserver reliability), however, has not previously been assessed among patients with Lisfranc injury.

METHODS

One hundred sets of foot radiographs acquired due to acute foot injury were collected and anonymised. The diagnosis of these patients was confirmed with a CT scan. In one-third of the radiographs, there was no Lisfranc injury; in one-third, a nondisplaced (< 2 mm) injury; and in one-third, a displaced injury. The radiographs were assessed independently by three senior orthopaedic surgeons and three orthopaedic surgery residents.

RESULTS

Fleiss kappa (κ) coefficient for interobserver reliability resulted in moderate correlation κ = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.45- 0.55) (first evaluation) and κ = 0.58 (95% CI: 0.52-0.63) (second evaluation). After three months, the evaluation was repeated and the Cohen's kappa (κ) coefficient for intraobserver reliability showed substantial correlation κ = 0.71 (from 0.64 to 0.85). The mean (range) sensitivity was 76.1% (60.6-92.4) and specificity was 85.3% (52.9-100). The sensitivity of subtle injuries was lower than severe injuries (65.4% vs 87.1% p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosis of Lisfranc injury based on non-weight-bearing radiographs has moderate agreement between observers and substantial agreement between the same observer in different moments. A substantial number (24%) of injuries are missed if only non-weight-bearing radiographs are used. Nondisplaced injuries were more commonly missed than displaced injuries, and therefore, special caution should be used when the clinical signs are subtle.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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