A Comparison of Complications and Reoperations Between Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis Following Lisfranc Injury

There is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding optimal treatment methods for Lisfranc injuries, and recent literature has emphasized the need to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA). The purpose of the current study is to compare reoperation and complication rates between ORIF and PA following Lisfranc injury in a private, outpatient, orthopaedic practice. A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing operative intervention for Lisfranc injury between January 2009 and September 2015. A total of 196 patients met the inclusion criteria (130 ORIF, 66 PA), with a mean follow-up of 61.3 and 81.7 weeks, respectively. The ORIF group had a higher reoperation rate than the PA group, due to hardware removal. When hardware removals were excluded, the reoperation rate was similar. Postsurgical complications were compared between the 2 groups with no significant difference. In conclusion, ORIF and PA had similar complication rates. When hardware removals were excluded, the reoperation rates were similar, although hardware removals were more common in the ORIF group compared with the PA group. Levels of Evidence: Level III

Clinical outcomes of Tightrope system in the treatment of purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries

Background Purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are mainly caused by low energy damage and often require surgical treatment. There are several operative techniques for rigid fixation to solve this problem clinically. This study evaluated the effect of using the Tightrope system to reconstruct the Lisfranc ligament for elastic fixation. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 11 cases with purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries treated with the Tightrope system from 2016 to 2019, including 8 male and 3 female. X-ray was performed regularly after operation to measure the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate pain relief. American orthopedic foot & ankle society (AOFAS) and Maryland foot score were recorded at the last follow-up. Results The average follow-up time was 20.5 months (range, 17–24). There was statistically significant difference in the distance between the first and second metatarsal joint and VAS score at 3 months, 6 months, and the last follow-up when compared with preoperative values (P < 0.05).Mean of postoperative AOFAS mid-foot scale and Maryland foot score were 92.4 ± 4.3, 94.1 ± 3.5, respectively. The Tightrope system was not removed and the foot obtained better biomechanical stability. No complications occurred during the operation. Conclusion Tightrope system in the treatment of purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries can stabilize the tarsometatarsal joint and achieve satisfactory effect.

Homolateral Lisfranc Dislocation 1-5 in a Collegiate Quarterback: A Case Study

Background: Lisfranc injuries encompass a spectrum of injuries to the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint complex from ligamentous sprains to fractures with dislocation. While studies have shown it is possible to return to sport (RTS) after low-energy injuries, no literature exists demonstrating RTS after homolateral fracture/dislocation of all 5 metatarsals. Indications: We present a novel technique for repair of homolateral Lisfranc fracture/dislocation of metatarsals 1-5 which may be used in high-level athletes attempting to return to competition. Technique Description: A dual approach is utilized, with a dorsal approach to allow for fusion of the 2nd and 3rd TMT joints and medial approach for internal bracing of the 1st TMT joint. The 2nd and 3rd metatarsals were denuded of all cartilage and the fusion site was fully prepared. Rigid fixation was applied to the fusion sites and then stability of the 1st TMT was reassessed. A guidewire for the cannulated InternalBrace (Arthrex; Naples, FL) system is initially inserted into the base of the 1st metatarsal. Positioning is confirmed with fluoroscopic imaging and the 3.4 mm drill is passed over the wire, followed by the cannulated tap. A 4.75 mm SwiveLock anchor (Arthrex; Naples, FL) with FiberTape suture (Arthrex; Naples, FL) is then inserted into the metatarsal base. The guidewire is placed in a reciprocating position on the medial cuneiform. The 2.7 mm drill is passed over the wire, followed by the 3.5 mm tap. A 3.5 mm SwiveLock anchor is then loaded with the FiberTape suture from the 1st metatarsal. Tensioning is performed, and the 3.5 mm SwiveLock anchor is inserted into the medial cuneiform. Results: The athlete was cleared to return to full competition 9 months following surgery. Physical examination demonstrated stability in dorsiflexion and abduction. Both weight-bearing x-rays and computed tomography scans showed no evidence of hardware failure, no instability of the 1st TMT joint, and solid fusion of the 2nd and 3rd TMT joints. Discussion/Conclusion: Current literature demonstrates that RTS is possible for athletes suffering from low-energy Lisfranc injuries. This novel surgical technique is the first to demonstrate return to sport of a high-level athlete from homolateral fracture/dislocation of all 5 metatarsals.

Lisfranc injuries: fix or fuse?

Aims This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available. Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis. Results A total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively. Conclusion This is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):842–849.

Retrospective analysis of treatment decisions and clinical outcome of Lisfranc injuries: operative vs. conservative treatment

Purpose Lisfranc injuries are rare and often pose a challenge for surgeons, particularly in initially missed or neglected cases. The evidence on which subtypes of Lisfranc injuries are suitable for conservative treatment or should undergo surgery is low. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze treatment decisions of Lisfranc injuries and the clinical outcome of these patients within the last ten years. Methods All patients treated due to a Lisfranc injury in a German level I trauma centre from January 2011 until December 2020 were included in this study. Radiologic images and medical data from the patient files were analyzed concerning the classification of injury, specific radiologic variables, such as the Buehren criteria, patient baseline characteristics, and patient outcome reported with the Foot Function Index (FFI). Results Ninety-nine patients were included in this study (conservative = 20, operative = 79). The overall clinical outcome assessed by the FFI was good (FFI sum 23.93, SD 24.93); patients that were identified as suitable for conservative treatment did not show inferior functional results. Qualitative radiological factors like the grade of displacement and the trauma mechanism were more strongly associated with the decision for surgical treatment than quantitative radiologic factors such as the distance from the first to the second metatarsal bone. Conclusion If the indication for conservative or operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries is determined correctly, the clinical outcome can be comparable. These decisions should be based on several factors including quantitative and qualitative radiologic criteria, as well as the trauma mechanism.