Injury to the tarsometatarsal joint complex

Lisfranc Injuries

Lisfranc injuries were thought to primarily occur during high-energy events, leading to a preference for fusion treatment; however, recent data have shifted this perspective by highlighting a greater occurrence of low-energy injuries and reshaping the focus on open reduction internal fixation. This multifaceted process is guided by various factors, including the nature of the injury, specific anatomic considerations, and the involved joints. Our overarching goal remains to achieve anatomic reduction, with flexibility in hardware fixation methods. In cases of comminution, bridge plating may be warranted, potentially followed by arthrodesis in the future.

Lisfranc Sports Injuries: What Do We Know So Far?

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

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.

A Rare Case of a Lisfranc Ligament Transection

Ligamentous Lisfranc injuries, which mimic a surgical transection are rare. Left untreated or missed, these injuries may result in severe complications including long-term disability. The present case describes a unique mechanism of injury via a sharp object puncture through the plantar surface of the midfoot. It highlights the utility of planning staged procedures to remove a large foreign body object, reports notable intraoperative techniques, and provides a decision management guide for treating this type of injury. Extensive surgical planning may be required when encountering similar cases and knowledge of this may be useful to providers.

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.

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.

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.

Percutaneous Reduction and 2.7-mm Cortical Screw Fixation for Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

To use the advantages of transarticular screw fixation while minimizing iatrogenic involved joint damage and screw irritation, it is important to determine the screw size. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation for low-energy Lisfranc injuries and determine whether the procedure is a safe alternative to traditional screw fixation using a larger screw size. A review was performed for all patients who underwent percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation for low-energy Lisfranc injuries at a single institution over a 6-year period. Thirty-one patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were assessed clinically and radiographically for demographics, foot function index (FFI), numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, patient satisfaction, and complication rates. Factors affecting screw breakage and its clinical relevance were also analyzed. The FFI and NRS for pain were 17.2 ± 14.7 (range 0.8 to 57.8) and 3.1 ± 2.3 (range 0 to 8) points, respectively, at the 12-month follow-up visit. One patient (3.2%) underwent arthrodesis for the development of posttraumatic arthritis; all other patients recovered without sequelae. Screw breakage was identified in 7 patients (22.6%). There was no significant difference between patients with and without screw breakage in terms of FFI, NRS for pain, patient satisfaction, or complication rate. Body mass index (BMI) was significantly higher in patients with screw breakage than in those without screw breakage. Receiver operator characteristics curve analysis demonstrated a strong relationship between BMI and screw breakage (area under the curve = 90%, p < .001), and the potential BMI cutoff value was 27.8 kg/m². After considering the incidence of screw breakage, percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation can be a viable option for treating low-energy Lisfranc injuries in nonobese patients, especially those with BMI <27.8 kg/m².

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Dynamic MR imaging analysis of instability in the injured Lisfranc joint with an MRI-compatible foot stressor device

PURPOSE

To evaluate the applicability of an MRI-compatible foot stressor device in patients with image-proven or clinically suspected Lisfranc joint injuries.

METHOD

This prospective study evaluated Lisfranc joint injury by utilizing a joint-specific, stress device that was engineered to replicate weightbearing and physical examination maneuvers. Sixteen patients with either clinically suspected or image-proven Lisfranc joint injuries were recruited from September 2018 to November 2019 (9 men, 7 women; mean age, 39.3 years; age range, 14-68 years). Resting and stressed MR sequences of the injured and non-injured feet were obtained. Measured values for Lisfranc interval widths, dorsal tarsometatarsal subluxations, and lambda-angles were subtracted between the stressed and resting images to calculate net stress-induced changes. A graded injury schema was used to measure significance.

RESULTS

The foot stressor device reliably generated stress-induced changes in the Lisfranc joint during dynamic MRI examination. All morphologically abnormal ligaments on resting images demonstrated stress-induced changes, whereas all morphologically normal ligaments lacked evidence of instability. More severely injured Lisfranc ligaments allowed greater Lisfranc joint widening (IOL, p < 0.001; PCL, p < 0.001; DCL, p < 0.001). More highly graded DCL injuries allowed greater dorsal TMT subluxation when present (p < 0.001). Angular gain in the midfoot (lambda-angle) correlated with the graded IOL score (p < 0.001). Acute-to-subacute injuries demonstrated greater inducible changes than chronic injuries (p = 0.047). Seven patients underwent surgery and nine patients received physical therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Stress-induced changes in the midfoot provided information on the degree of ligament pathology and associated joint instability in Lisfranc joint injuries.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries: A Single Centre Experience

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries are uncommon and can be challenging to manage. There is considerable variation in opinion regarding the mode of operative treatment of these injuries, with some studies preferring primary arthrodesis over traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). We aim to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of the patients treated with ORIF in our unit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study, in which all 27 consecutive patients treated with ORIF between June 2013 and October 2018 by one surgeon were included with an average followup of 2.4 years. All patients underwent ORIF with joint-sparing surgery by a dorsal bridging plate (DBP) for the second and third tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint, and the first TMT joint was fixed with transarticular screws. Patients had clinical examination and radiological assessment and completed American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Foot Function Index (FFI) questionnaires.

RESULTS

Our early results of 22 patients (5 lost to followup) showed that 16 (72%) patients were pain free, walking normally without aids, and wearing normal shoes and 68% were able to run or play sports. The mean AOFAS midfoot score was 78.1 (63-100) and the average FFI was 19.5 (0.6-34). Radiological assessment confirmed that only three patients had progression to posttraumatic arthritis at the TMT joints though only one of these was clinically symptomatic.

CONCLUSION

Good clinical and radiological outcomes can be achieved by ORIF in lisfranc injuries with joint-sparing surgery using DBP.

Study of the functional results of the percutaneous surgical treatment of subtle injuries of the tarso-metatarsian complex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The concept subtle Lisfranc defines low energy lesions of the tarsometatarsal joint complex (TMC) that involve joint instability. Often unnoticed, with long-term sequelae. The objective is to evaluate the clinical-functional results of patients with MTC ligament damage grade II-III (Nunley and Vertullo classification) treated with percutaneous surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 16 patients who underwent percutaneous surgery for MLC ligament damage. Demographic data, days of delay in diagnosis, surgical technique, joint reduction in load (adequate if C1-M2 space is less than 2 mm) and Manchester-Oxford scale (MOXFQ) score were collected. The sample consisted of nine males and seven females, mean age 43.6 years (17-71) and mean follow-up of 22 months (12-28).

RESULTS

Diagnosis was delayed for more than 24 hours in four patients (3-6 days). In 11 patients the treatment consisted of closed reduction and percutaneous synthesis with cannulated screws from M2 to C1 and from C1 to C2. In three patients it was supplemented with Kirschner wires in the lateral radii. Two patients were treated with only M2 to C1 screws. An anatomical reduction was not achieved in six patients, with a mean of 2.6 mm between C1-M2 (2.1-3 mm); the mean functional MOXFQ score of these patients was 41.1% (IC 95% 23.1-59.1%), worse results compared to the anatomical reduction: 17.2% (IC 95% 5.7-28.7); statistically significant difference (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Subtle injuries from MTC are rare and can go unnoticed. Surgical treatment with percutaneous synthesis offers good clinical-functional results in the medium term. The anatomical reduction is a determining factor for the good functional result of our patients.

Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries: When to Fix and When to Fuse

Lisfranc injuries can be devastating to the athlete and nonathlete. In the athletic population, minor loss of midfoot stability compromises the high level of function demanded of the lower extremity. The most critical aspect of treatment is identifying the injury and severity of the ligamentous/articular damage. Not all athletes are able to return to their previous level of function. With appropriate treatment, a Lisfranc injury does not mandate the cessation of an athletic career. We focus on the diagnosis and an algorithmic approach to treatment in the athlete discussion the controversy of open reduction and internal fixation versus arthrodesis.

Dynamic Stress MRI of Midfoot Injuries: Measurable Morphology and Laxity of the Sprained Lisfranc Ligament During Mechanical Loading: A Case Report

CASE

Our 26-year-old patient is a professional ballet dancer who suffered a classic Lisfranc joint injury while performing a dancing maneuver with his foot in full plantar flexion. Initial workup with radiographs revealed borderline Lisfranc interval widening without definitive joint instability. Further evaluation with an innovative dynamic stress magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed mild interosseous Lisfranc ligament laxity and sprain, which allowed the orthopaedic surgeon to pursue conservative management, rather than surgery. After physical therapy, our patient reports a successful return to dancing.

CONCLUSIONS

Dynamic stress MRI may become a useful technique in evaluating equivocal cases of midfoot injury through the use of new imaging-based criteria.

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.

Surgical Treatment of Lisfranc Injury With Plantar Plate Approach

Midfoot injuries are the second most common athletic foot injury documented in the published data. High-energy Lisfranc dislocations are commonly seen secondary to traumatic etiologies and disrupt the strong midfoot ligaments supporting the arch. These injuries require immediate surgical intervention to prevent serious complications such as compartment syndrome and amputation. The present case series reports a new Lapidus plate system used in 3 patients who underwent arthrodesis procedures for Lisfranc joint dislocation. Three patients in their fourth to fifth decade of life presented with a traumatic injury at the Lisfranc joint and subsequently underwent open reduction and internal fixation using the plantar Lapidus Plate System (LPS; Arthrex, Naples, FL). The LPS was placed in a predetermined safe zone, with measures taken to avoid the insertional points of the tibialis anterior and peroneus longus tendons. Radiographs were obtained for ≤6 months postoperatively and revealed consolidation across the fusion site, intact hardware, and satisfactory alignment. On examination, the corrections were well maintained and free of signs of infection. Clinical evaluation showed no indication of motion within the tarsometatarsal joint and no tenderness to palpation surrounding the fusion sites. All 3 patients successfully returned to their activities of daily living without discomfort or pain. Modern surgical treatment of Lisfranc injuries most commonly includes open reduction and internal fixation, accompanied by arthrodesis. The present case series has demonstrated that the LPS provides relief, stability, and compression of the joint in our small cohort of patients who experienced a traumatic injury to the Lisfranc joint.

Nonoperative, open reduction and internal fixation or primary arthrodesis in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial - study protocol

Background

Lisfranc injuries are known to be rare and often overlooked injuries that can cause long-term disability and pain when missed or treated incorrectly. The wide variety of Lisfranc injuries ranges from subtle ligament distensions to open fracture dislocations. The treatment of Lisfranc joint injuries is still controversial and very little is known about what types of injury can be treated nonoperatively. The current literature provides only two randomized studies on dislocated Lisfranc injuries. These studies have shown that primary arthrodesis (PA) leads to a similar or better outcome and results in fewer secondary operations when compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in ligamentous injuries. There have been no previous randomized studies of the nonoperative versus operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the operative and nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries and to compare the ORIF and PA treatment of dislocated Lisfranc injuries.

Methods

This study is a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial. The trial comprises two strata: Stratum I compares cast-immobilization versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc joint injuries. Stratum II compares PA versus ORIF in the treatment of dislocated injuries of the Lisfranc joint. The main hypothesis of stratum I is that the nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries achieves a similar outcome compared with operative treatment (ORIF). The hypothesis of stratum II is that PA of dislocated Lisfranc injuries yields a similar functional outcome compared with ORIF, but that PA results in fewer secondary operations than ORIF. The main outcome measure is the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot score and the secondary outcome measures are Visual-Analogue-Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA), Visual-Analogue-Scale (VAS), rate of secondary operations and other treatment-related complications. The results will be analyzed after the 2-year follow-up period.

Discussion

This publication presents a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial study protocol. It provides details of patient flow, randomization, aftercare and methods of analysis of the material and ways to present and publish the results.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24.10.2016.

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

Lisfranc injuries are relatively uncommon. No specific incidence of subtle injuries has been reported; however, almost one-third are missed on initial review. These missed injuries are a common cause of litigation. Although seen in high-energy injuries with direct application of forces, they are also associated with lower-energy indirect mechanisms, often on the athletic field. This article provides a topical review of subtle Lisfranc disruptions, focusing on contemporary perspectives, and describes a modification to the most prevalent classification system. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(2):e168-e175.].

Functional Outcomes Post Lisfranc Injury-Transarticular Screws, Dorsal Bridge Plating or Combination Treatment?

OBJECTIVE

To identify whether transarticular screws, dorsal bridging plates or a combination of the 2 result in the best functional outcome after Lisfranc injury.

DESIGN

Case series.

SETTING

Level one trauma center.

PATIENTS

Fifty patients who underwent surgical fixation of Lisfranc injuries over a 6-year period were retrospectively reviewed.

INTERVENTION

One of 3 treatment arms: transarticular screw fixation alone, dorsal bridge plating alone or a combination of dorsal bridge and transarticular screw fixation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were 1 of 2 midfoot scores-the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Score and the Foot Function Index (FFI) Score. Secondary results included postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Quality anatomical reduction is the best predictor of functional outcomes (FFI-P = 0.008, AOFAS-P = 0.02). Functional outcomes with both FFI and AOFAS scores were not significantly associated with any of the fixation groups (FFI-P = 0.495, AOFAS-P = 0.654) on univariate analysis. Injury type by Myerson classification systems or open versus closed status was also not significantly associated with any fixation group. Open exposures were more likely to result in soft-tissue complications, but there was no significant difference in metalware failure or need for removal.

CONCLUSION

Functional outcomes after Lisfranc fractures are most dependant on the quality of anatomical reduction and not the choice of fixation implant used.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Outcomes After Percutaneous Reduction and Fixation of Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries are often missed initially or not anatomically reduced, leading to midfoot collapse, arthrosis, and pain. Operative management of these injuries is also fraught with complications, particularly with respect to the soft tissues. Wound dehiscence and infection are not uncommon. The goal of this study was to analyze the outcomes of a minimally invasive technique in reduction and percutaneous fixation of low-energy minimally displaced Lisfranc injuries and determine if it is a safe alternative to more traditional, open approaches.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for all patients who underwent minimally invasive Lisfranc treatment at a single institution over a 6-year period. Thirty-eight patients were identified in this series. All patients were skeletally mature and had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Patients were assessed clinically and radiographically, in addition to undertaking patient-centric outcome scoring using the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) activities of daily living (ADL) and sports subscales at a mean follow-up of 66 months (range, 36-100). Patients were also asked to subjectively rate their percentage return to preinjury functional level at the time of final follow-up. There were 20 males and 18 females. Seventeen patients were injured participating in sports-related activities, 19 during falls, and 2 as a result of motor vehicle accidents. The average age at the time of surgery was 34.2 (range, 16-69) years. At final follow-up, 31 patients were available for assessment (81.6%).

RESULTS

The mean FAAM-ADL score was 94.2 (range, 40.5-100), and sports score was 90.4 (range, 0-100). Percentage recovery compared to their preinjury functional level averaged 91.4% (range, 40%-100%). There were no complications in this series. Twenty-two patients underwent screw removal electively at an average of 6.9 months following the index procedure. No patients had undergone any additional operative procedures, or had any objective evidence of midfoot collapse or arthritis at the time of final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive methods of treating low-energy Lisfranc injuries with less soft tissue stripping and disruption, as described in this series, were a valuable tool to optimize outcomes while minimizing the potential morbidity of more traditional, open techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

Do columns or sagittal displacement matter in the assessment and management of Lisfranc fracture dislocation? An alternate approach to classification of the Lisfranc injury

AIM

The classification of a Lisfranc injury has conventionally been based around Myerson's system. The aims of this study were to review whether a novel classification system based on sagittal displacement of the tarsometatarsal joint and breadth of injury as determined by a columnar theory was associated with functional outcomes and thus had a greater utility.

PATIENTS

We retrospectively reviewed 54 Lisfranc injuries with a minimum follow up of two years at our Level One Trauma Centre. Each fracture was sub-classified based on our novel classification system which assessed for evidence of sagittal displacement and involvement of columns of the midfoot. Our primary outcome measures were the FFI and AOFAS midfoot scores.

RESULTS

Injuries involving all three of the columns of the midfoot were associated with significantly worse functional outcome scores (FFI p=0.004, AOFAS p=0.036). Conversely, sagittal displacement, whether dorsal or plantar, had no significance (FFI p=0.147, AOFAS p=0.312). The best predictor of outcome was the quality of anatomical reduction (FFI p=0.008, AOFAS p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Column involvement and not sagittal displacement is the most significant factor in considering the severity Lisfranc injury and long term functional outcomes. This classification system has greater clinical utility than those currently proposed.

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.

The Role of Percutaneous Reduction and Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries

To be able to perform percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc injuries, this article emphasizes that an anatomic reduction must be mandatory. When uncertainty remains as to whether closed reduction is anatomic, formal open reduction is recommended because accuracy of reduction is correlated with long-term outcome. Closed injuries with minimal displacement, bony avulsions, and skeletally immature individuals seem the most appropriate indications for percutaneous fixation. Not all injuries are ideal for this method of treatment, and this is an area that needs to be more clearly defined in the future.

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.

Severe open Lisfranc injuries: one-stage operation through internal fixation associated with vacuum sealing drainage

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the clinical feasibility of treating severe open Lisfranc injuries by means of one-stage internal fixation with k-wires associated with vacuum sealing drainage (VSD).

METHODS

The clinical outcomes of 20 cases of severe open Lisfranc joint fracture-dislocation treated by using one-stage internal fixation with k-wires associated with VSD, after debridement and suturing during emergency treatment, were reviewed.

RESULTS

At 6 and 12 months after surgery, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society midfoot scores were 69.2 and 78.2, the positive rates were 75 and 85 %, and the average visual analogue scale scores were 4.3 and 1.3, respectively. The average time of internal fixation surgery was 47 min (30-70 min). There were three cases of wound-edge necrosis; however, there were no cases of skin necrosis around the incision, or deep infection. The mean time of first hospital stay was 16.1 days (10-23 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of severe open Lisfranc fracture and dislocation through one-stage internal fixation with k-wires in association with VSD led to fast anatomical reduction, stabilized bony structure, fast soft tissue recovery, and good short-term follow-up results.

Delayed Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Missed, Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of delayed presentation (at least 6 weeks from the time of injury) of low-energy Lisfranc injuries limited to the first and second tarsometatarsal joints treated with open reduction internal fixation.

METHODS

8 patients with an average age at surgery of 39.8 years were retrospectively reviewed with a mean time to surgery from injury of 15.1 (range of 6.3 to 31.1) weeks. We used radiographic measurements, physical examination, SF-12 scores, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) scores, VAS scores and return to work or sports as outcome measures. Patients were treated with an open reduction and internal fixation as opposed to a formal arthrodesis with a variety of internal fixation. All 8 patients were available for follow-up and outcome reporting at an average of 3.1 years (minimum 2.0) postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean VAS improved from 8.5 to 2.8 postoperatively. The mean postoperative physical and mental SF-12 scores were 46.8 and 57.1, respectively. The mean postoperative overall and sports FAAM scores were 75.4 and 65.9, respectively. There were no radiographic signs of a late diastasis at the Lisfranc joint. All patients including 2 workers compensation cases returned to work and all were able to return to their prior sporting activity.

CONCLUSION

A delayed open reduction internal fixation of patients with missed, low-energy Lisfranc injury was performed and resulted in decreased pain. In this series, a fair to good functional outcome was observed, and the ability to return to work or previous sport was possible for all patients studied.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

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.

Minimally Invasive Medial Plating of Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries: Preliminary Experience with Five Cases

Fracture dislocations involving the Lisfranc joint are rare; they represent only 0.2% of all the fractures. There is no consensus about the surgical management of these lesions in the medical literature. However, both anatomical reduction and tarsometatarsal stabilization are essential for a good outcome. In this clinical study, five consecutive patients with a diagnosis of Lisfranc low-energy lesion were treated with a novel surgical technique characterized by minimal osteosynthesis performed through a minimally invasive approach. According to the radiological criteria established, the joint reduction was anatomical in four patients, almost anatomical in one patient (#4), and nonanatomical in none of the patients. At the final follow-up, the AOFAS score for the midfoot was 96 points (range, 95-100). The mean score according to the VAS (Visual Analog Scale) at the end of the follow-up period was 1.4 points over 10 (range, 0-3). The surgical technique described in this clinical study is characterized by the use of implants with the utilization of a novel approach to reduce joint and soft tissue damage. We performed a closed reduction and minimally invasive stabilization with a bridge plate and a screw after achieving a closed anatomical reduction.

Plates, Screws, or Combination? Radiologic Outcomes After Lisfranc Fracture Dislocation

Traditionally, Lisfranc fracture dislocations have been treated with transarticular screw fixation. A more recent development has been the use of dorsal bridging plates. The aim of the present study was to compare the radiologic outcomes for these 2 methods. Currently, no data comparing the outcomes of these 2 treatment options have been reported. A total of 62 patients were treated for Lisfranc fracture dislocations during a 6-year period. The inclusion criteria included ≥6 months of follow-up data available. Each fracture was classified using the Hardcastle classification system. Each fracture was also allocated into 1 of 4 groups: transarticular screw fixation, dorsal plating, a combination of plate and screw fixation, and nonoperative management. The outcome measures included the Kellgren-Lawrence grading of osteoarthritis and the Wilppula classification of anatomic reduction. In terms of results, radiologic osteoarthritis is not associated with the type of injury according to the Hardcastle classification nor with having an open or closed fracture. The Hardcastle classification is not associated with the type of fixation used. Fractures fixed with a combination of plates and screws had a 3.01 (95% confidence interval 1.036 to 8.74) increased risk of having stage 3 or 4 radiologic osteoarthritis compared with being fixed solely with bridging plates (p = .009). Multivariate analysis revealed that this increased risk of osteoarthritis was dependent on the quality of reduction, with good reductions having a 18.2 (95% confidence interval 15.9 to 21.8) times decreased risk of severe osteoarthritis compared with fair or poor reductions, independent of the type of fixation used (p < .0001). No radiologic benefits were found when comparing plate or screw fixation for Lisfranc fracture dislocations (although screw fixation might be associated with a less planus foot and fewer complications). Instead, a good anatomic reduction was the only predictor of the radiologic outcome, and the Hardcastle classification of fractures did not predict the surgery type or radiologic outcome. Finally, treatment with combination plates and screws resulted in worse radiologic outcomes, possibly owing to more complex fracture patterns.

Lisfranc fracture dislocation: a review of a commonly missed injury of the midfoot

Musculoskeletal trauma to the foot is a common presentation to EDs. A Lisfranc fracture dislocation involves injury to the bony and soft tissue structures of the tarsometatarsal joint. While it is most commonly seen post high velocity trauma, it can also present post minor trauma. It is also misdiagnosed in approximately 20% of cases. These Lisfranc injuries typically present to EDs with pain particularly with weight bearing, swelling and post a characteristic mechanism of injury. Diagnosis is via clinical examination and radiological investigation-typically plain radiographs and CTs. Once diagnosed, Lisfranc injuries can be classified as stable or unstable. Stable injuries can be immobilised in EDs and discharged home. Unstable injuries require an orthopaedic referral for consideration of surgical fixation.

Turco's injury: diagnosis and treatment

The aim of this study was to alert doctors to the existence of Turco's injury and discus the existing treatments that have been described in the worldwide literature. A bibliographic survey of Lisfranc's injury and Turco's injury covering from 1985 to 2013 was conducted in the SciELO and PubMed databases. Among the 193 articles, those relating to bone-ligament injuries of the Lisfranc joint and high-energy trauma were excluded, as were the case reports. The patients selected were professional or amateur athletes who solely presented a ligament injury to the Lisfranc joint (Turco's injury), which was diagnosed from the history, physical examination, radiographs and magnetic resonance images. Non-athletic patients and those with associated bone injuries were excluded (10). According to the injury classification, the patients were treated by means of either an open or a closed procedure and then a standard rehabilitation protocol. Out of the 10 patients, five underwent conservative treatment and five underwent surgical treatment using different techniques and synthesis materials. We obtained two poor results, one satisfactory, five good and two excellent. We conclude that the correct diagnosis has a direct influence on the treatment and on the final result obtained, and that lack of knowledge of this injury is the main factor responsible for underdiagnosing Turco's injury. There is a need for randomized prospective studies comparing the types of synthesis and evolution of treated cases, in order to define the best treatment for this injury.

Bilateral tarsometatarsal joint injuries: An unusual mechanism producing unusual variants

Tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) joint injuries are rare but potentially devastating conditions requiring anatomical reduction and internal fixation or arthrodesis. We describe an unusual mechanism involving forced eversion and dorsiflexion on both fully supinated feet resulting in bilateral tarsometatarsal joint injury. The injury pattern involved incongruity between the medial and middle columns extending between the cuneiform bones with associated fracture of the cuboid on the right and the cuboid, os calcis and talus on the left. Operative fixation is discussed and the clinical outcome was good at 4 years post-operatively. We believe this introduces an additional and potentially serious mechanism of injury and pattern of ligamentous and osseous disruption into the pantheon of injuries classed as Lisfranc, which surgeons should be aware of. Furthermore, we recommend attention to the mechanism of injury in consideration with classification to aid in operative reduction and fixation.

Anatomic Parameters of the Lisfranc Joint Complex in a Radiographic and Cadaveric Comparison

Subtle injuries to the Lisfranc joint complex are difficult to diagnose clinically and radiographically and can ultimately result in obvious disability if misdiagnosed. However, no previous study has shown the true mean average distance between the base of the first and second metatarsals (the Lisfranc distance). Therefore, in the present study, the anatomic and radiographic parameters of the Lisfranc joint were studied in detail to assist in the evaluation of Lisfranc injuries. The parameters of the Lisfranc joint complex in 100 normal volunteers and 10 cadavers were measured, including the medial, lateral depth of the mortise joint, width and height of the second metatarsal base, and distance between the base of the first and second metatarsals. The mean average Lisfranc distance was 0.24 ± 0.06 mm in the left foot and 0.25 ± 0.06 mm in the right foot for the radiographic group (p = .089) and 0.39 ± 0.04 mm in the left foot and 0.37 ± 0.04 mm in the right foot for the cadaver group (p = .129). The medial depth and Lisfranc distance in the radiographic group were smaller than the same measurements in the cadaver group, and these differences were statistically significant (medial depth, p < .001; Lisfranc distance, p < .001). The lateral depth and second metatarsal height in the radiographic group were larger than the same measurements in the cadaver group, and these differences were statistically significant (lateral depth, p < .001; second metatarsal height, p < .001). The second metatarsal width was the same in the 2 groups (p = .651). In conclusion, if the Lisfranc distance is >3.0 mm radiographically, a subtle injury to the Lisfranc joint should be highly suspected. No test of stability was performed between shallow and narrow versus deeper and broader Lisfranc mortise configurations. We merely speculated that a deeper and wider mortise is likely to be more stable than one that is shallow and narrow, probably owing to the presence of broader ligaments.

Small joint arthroscopy in foot and ankle

The clinical application of small joint arthroscopies (metatarsophalangeal joint, Lisfranc joint, Chopart joint, and interphlangeal joint) in the foot has seen significant advancements in the past decades. This article reviews the clinical indications, technical details, outcomes, and potential complications of small joint arthroscopies of the foot.

Staged treatment of high energy midfoot fracture dislocations

BACKGROUND

Staged care with interval external fixation is a successful established treatment strategy for high energy periarticular fractures with often extensive soft tissue damage such as the tibial plateau and plafond. The aim of the current study was to determine whether staged care of high energy midfoot fracture/dislocation with interval external fixation prior to definitive open reconstruction in the polytraumatized patient was both safe and efficacious.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-three patients were operated on for high energy midfoot fracture/dislocation during the 8-year study period. Eighteen polytrauma patients were selectively treated with a staged protocol. Radiographic assessment was utilized to determine if the fixator achieved gross skeletal alignment. Further, final alignment after definitive reconstruction and postoperative complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The fixator improved both length and alignment of all high energy midfoot fracture/dislocations. Loss of acceptable reduction while in the temporary frame occurred in only 1 case. Final alignment after definitive reconstruction was anatomic in all cases. No cases of wound-related complication and/or deep infection occurred.

CONCLUSION

Delayed reconstruction of high energy midfoot fracture/dislocation using interval external fixation should be an accepted care paradigm in selected polytrauma patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

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.

The effect of the Tscherne injury pattern on the outcome of operatively treated Lisfranc fracture dislocations

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc fracture dislocations cause severe tarso-metatarsal malalignment. The research question of this study was to evaluate the severity of the soft tissue injury on the final clinical outcome and compare that with the effect of various determinants on the disability in daily living activities after open reduction and internal fixation of a Lisfranc injury.

METHODS

This study consisted of a retrospective analysis of patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocations who were treated by open reduction and internal fixation beween 2004 and 2009. Evaluation focused mainly on the severity of the soft tissue injury, age, fracture classification, time to operation, posttraumatic osteoarthritis, and the results were compared with American Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). Eight patients had Tscherne Grade 1, 13 had Grade 2, and 11 had Grade 3 soft tissue injuries. Myerson classification revealed 11 type A, 8 type B and 13 type C fractures. Six patients' operations were delayed beyond 8h.

RESULTS

Of the 38 patients treated in the study period, 32 patients (11 female, 21 male; <30 y-old: 14, >30 y-old: 18) were available for complete follow-up (average, 55.5 months). The comparison of treatment results revealed that those patients with high grade soft tissue injuries had lower AOFAS and FADI scores (43.8±15.9, 53.7±9.4, respectively) when compared to Tscherne Grade 1 injuries (82.8±6.1, 109±13.9, respectively) (p<0.001). The overall negative impact of the severity of soft tissue injury on functional outcomes had similar significance with regard to post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and fracture type. There was also a statistically significant difference between outcome measures and post-reduction quality (p=0.002). Patient age (p=0.9) and delayed surgery (p=0.5) had no statistically significant effect on the final outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory results can be achieved with open reduction for Lisfranc injuries. However, despite this treatment, both the severity of the soft tissue injury and non-anatomic reduction are negative prognostic factors in the treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocations.

Lisfranc injury in the athlete: evidence supporting management from sprain to fracture dislocation

Although Lisfranc injuries are uncommon, prompt and accurate diagnosis of such injuries in athletes is essential in preventing career-ending injury. Undisplaced injuries have an excellent result with nonoperative treatment. The presence of any displacement warrants open reduction and anatomic fixation; although current evidence mostly supports screw fixation, plate fixation may avoid joint intrusion. It is imperative to warn athletes with significantly displaced injuries that there is a risk of a poor outcome, although some recent evidence suggests that return to elite competitive sports is still likely after surgical intervention. Severe injuries may have better outcomes with limited arthrodesis.

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.