Lisfranc Injury

2022 ◽  
pp. e4
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Funatomi ◽  
Akira Kuriyama
Keyword(s):  
Injury ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (7) ◽  
pp. 856-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamer I. Sherief ◽  
Brian Mucci ◽  
Magdi Greiss
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0013
Author(s):  
Ming-Zhu Zhang ◽  
Guang-rong Yu ◽  
Mark Myerson

Category: Trauma Introduction/Purpose: The first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint is very crucial for midfoot stability. To address its importance, retrospective analyses of treatment for the first TMT joint dislocation with Lisfranc injury was performed in a multi-center manner. Comparison of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis was conducted for the injury. Methods: This multi-center study was involved ten clinical institutions in different area of China. .From January 2003 to June 2015, 126 Lisfranc injuries with first TMT joint dislocation underwent surgical intervention. Of this group, forty one (32.5%) feet were first TMT joint dislocation only. Eighty five feet were first TMT joint dislocation and fractures. They were 76 males (60.3%) and 50 females (39.7%) with a mean age of 45.5 (range, 20-87) years. The duration from injury to surgery is 11.7 (range, 4-26) days. Two groups were divided by surgery methods as open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) group and primary arthrodesis group. Ninety two patients were performed by ORIF, while primary arthrodesis group including 34 cases. Outcome measures included clinical examination, radiographs, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scores, visual analogue scale (VAS) and SF-36 scores. Complications and revision rate were analyzed as well. Results: 126 patients were followed up for 29.5 months. At 1.5 years postoperatively, the AOFAS score was 79 and 85 in ORIF group and arthrodesis group.The VAS score was 3.1 separately in two groups.The mean Physical Functioning sores of SF-36 was 80.3 points and 83.5• points. The Bodily Pain score of SF-36 was 76.1 points and 84.6• points.Redislocation of first tarsometarsal joint were observed in 16 cases among ORIF group.36 patients in ORIF group had pain in midfoot, eight of them had persistent pain with the development of deformity or osteoarthrosis.No redislocation and no hardware failure was identified in arthrodesis group Conclusion: Primary stable arthrodesis of the first ray gives a better short and medium term outcome than open reduction and internal fixation for Lisfranc injury with the first ray dislocation. Possible complication and revision could be avoided by primary arthrodesis for dislocated first ray injuries.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-151
Author(s):  
Gregory R. Waryasz ◽  
Stephen Marcaccio ◽  
Joseph A. Gil

Lisfranc injury fixation or arthrodesis typically involves the reduction and fixation of several tarsometatarsal joints with either screws or a plate and screw constructs. A successful fixation or arthrodesis of the Lisfranc joint requires proper screw placement from the medial cuneiform to the base of the second metatarsal. This is typically done free-hand; however, we describe use of an anterior cruciate ligament guide to help maintain reduction and assist with drill trajectory for more accurate screw or suture button construct placement. Levels of Evidence: Level V


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011419S0007
Author(s):  
Mingzhu Zhang ◽  
Guangrong Yu

Category: Midfoot/Forefoot, Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Prospective analyses of treatment for the first tarsometatarsal joint dislocation with Lisfranc injury. Comparison of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis was conducted for the injury. Methods: 78 Lisfranc injuries with first tarsometatarsal joint dislocation underwent surgical intervention. They were 46 males and 32 females with mean age of 41.2 years. Two groups were randomized by ORIF group and primary arthrodesis group. 43 patients were performed by ORIF, while primary arthrodesis group including 35 cases. Outcome measures included radiographs, AOFAS scores, VAS and SF-36 scores. Complications and revision rate were analyzed also. Results: 73 patients were followed up for 21 months. At 1.5 years postoperatively, the AOFAS score was 75 and 83 in ORIF group and arthrodesis group. The VAS score was 3.0 and 2.1 separately in two groups. The mean Physical Functioning sores of SF- 36 was 81.2 points and 84.1 points. The Bodily Pain score of SF-36 was 79.3 points and 85.2 points. Redislocation of first tarsometarsal joint were observed in 11 cases among ORIF group.31 patients in ORIF group had pain in midfoot, six of them had persistent pain with the development of deformity or osteoarthrosis. No redislocation and no hardware failure was identified in arthrodesis group. Conclusion: Primary stable arthrodesis of the first ray gives a better short and medium term outcome than open reduction and internal fixation for Lisfranc injury with the first ray dislocation. Possible complication and revision could be avoided by primary arthrodesis for dislocated first ray injuries.


2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyriacos I. Eleftheriou ◽  
Peter F. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0029
Author(s):  
Christopher Kreulen ◽  
Eric Giza ◽  
Eva Escobedo ◽  
Cyrus Bateni ◽  
Michael Doherty

Category: Sports Introduction/Purpose: Subtle Lisfranc ligamentous injuries are difficult to diagnose and magnetic resonance is becoming a useful tool. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the diagnosis of injuries of the Lisfranc ligament complex. Methods: The radiology database was searched between Jan 1, 2010 and Mar 10, 2015 to identify patients over the age of 18 years who had MR imaging of the foot for suspected injury of the Lisfranc ligament complex. MR images were reviewed by 2 fellowship trained musculoskeletal radiologists, whom were blinded to the original radiology reports. Findings were categorized as: no injury or injury present. Injury was deemed to be present if 2 of the 3 components of C1-M2 ligament showed disruption or signal alterations on T1 and T2 weighted images. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Correlation was made with surgical findings whenever performed. In patients not undergoing surgery, the presence or absence of injury was determined by clinical examination performed by an orthopedic surgeon and follow-up. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value(PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of MR for diagnosis of Lisfranc ligament complex injury was determined. Results: Of 60 patients, 9 were excluded due to a lack of follow-up. Lisfranc injury was determined to be present on MR in 26 patients and 18 underwent surgery. Injury was confirmed in 16, and 2 were intact. 2 patients underwent closed reduction and were clinically determined to be injured. 6 of the injured 26 patients were sprained and not injured/torn on clinical evaluation. Of the 25 patients determined to have no injury on MR, 24 were intact clinically. 1 patient had a Lisfranc injury on follow-up. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of MR for detection of significant Lisfranc injury were 94.7% (CI: 73.9% to 99.9%), 75% (CI: 56.6% to 88.5%), 69.2% (CI: 55% to 80.5%) and 96% (CI: 77.9% to 99.4%) respectively. Conclusion: MR has a high sensitivity and negative predictive value for diagnosis of injury to the Lisfranc ligament complex. MR of the foot should be considered in patients with clinical suspicion of injury to the Lisfranc ligament complex, and it is highly accurate in excluding such injuries.


2017 ◽  
pp. 355-358
Author(s):  
Melvin C. Makhni ◽  
Eric C. Makhni ◽  
Eric F. Swart ◽  
Charles S. Day
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document