High risk and low incidence diseases: Lisfranc injury.

INTRODUCTION: Lisfranc injuries are uncommon but frequently misdiagnosed and carry a high rate of morbidity. OBJECTIVE: This review highlights the pearls and pitfalls of Lisfranc injuries, including presentation, diagnosis, and management in the emergency department (ED) based on current evidence. DISCUSSION: Lisfranc injuries are caused by high- or low-energy trauma to the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint complex. The severity of injury exists on a spectrum, ranging from minor subluxations to fractures and dislocations involving the TMT joint complex. They can be complicated by compartment syndrome, neurovascular compromise, and open fractures. Prompt diagnosis is critical in preventing chronic pain and mobility challenges, as even small subluxations can result in significant morbidity. Lisfranc injuries should be considered in all patients with a foot injury. Patients with Lisfranc injuries most commonly present with midfoot pain, swelling, or ecchymosis. Despite the importance of a timely diagnosis, Lisfranc injuries are commonly missed on plain radiographs due to their often subtle findings. When x-rays are negative but there is significant clinical suspicion, emergency clinicians should obtain advanced imaging such as computed tomography to aid in diagnosis. All Lisfranc injuries should be discussed with orthopedic surgery to determine definitive management. Patients who can be discharged should be made non-weightbearing and placed in a short-leg splint. CONCLUSION: The consideration of Lisfranc injuries can help emergency clinicians make a timely diagnosis to prevent future complications.

Cone-beam computed tomography imaging and three-dimensional analysis of midfoot joints during non-weightbearing and weightbearing in 11 healthy feet.

BACKGROUND: Studies report that Lisfranc injury is more common than thought. Several imaging methods for assessing the stability of Lisfranc injury have been described but many are impossible to standardize and not accurate enough. PURPOSE: To present a three-dimensional (3D) method for analyzing the changes in the joint space width of the midfoot joint and the joints of the medial part of the Lisfranc complex in healthy individuals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Non-weightbearing and weightbearing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 11 healthy feet were acquired and analyzed with 3D software. The mean range of joint space width changes of each joint was computed from the changes in individual image pairs. RESULTS: 3D analysis software was used to analyze the medial part of the Lisfranc complex. In this sample of healthy feet, the changes in the joint spaces in the medial part of Lisfranc complex, calculated with 3D analysis software, was less than 0.6 mm. The distance between bones increased or decreased, depending on which part of the joint surface the measurements were taken. CONCLUSION: In this study, we present a 3D analysis method to evaluate midfoot joint space width changes. Our analysis revealed that in healthy feet there are only minimal changes in the joint space width between weightbearing and non-weightbearing indicating minimal movement of the midtarsal joints. The 3D analysis of weightbearing CBCT data provides a promising tool for analyzing the small midfoot joints in a variety of conditions.

The utility of point-of-care dynamic ultrasonography for the diagnosis of subtle isolated ligamentous Lisfranc injuries: a cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess if Lisfranc injury can be detected by US with and without abduction stress. METHODS: Eight cadaveric feet were obtained. The following measurements were obtained in the uninjured feet: C1M2 and C1C2 intervals and TMT1 and TMT2 dorsal step-off distances. Measurements were obtained both with and without abduction stress using ultrasound. The injury model was created by transecting the Lisfranc ligament complex, after which the observers performed the measurements again. Statistical analysis was used to identify differences between intact and injured models, to determine diagnostic cut-off values for identifying Lisfranc injuries, and to assess interobserver/intraobserver reliability. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the mean C1M2 interval, both with and without abduction stress, between the intact and torn Lisfranc ligament (p < 0.001). A C1M2 interval with stress of > 2.03 mm yielded 81% sensitivity and 72% specificity for Lisfranc disruption. There was no significant difference in the mean C1C2 interval of the torn versus intact Lisfranc ligament without stress (p = 0.10); however, the distance was significantly different with the application of stress (p < 0.001). The C1C2 interval of > 1.78 mm yielded 72% sensitivity and 69% specificity for Lisfranc injury under stress. There were no significant differences in the mean TMT1 or TMT2 dorsal step-off measurements between the intact and torn Lisfranc ligaments. All observers showed good intraobserver ICCs. The interobserver ICCs for all measurements were good or excellent, except for TMT1, which was moderate. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography is a promising point-of-care imaging tool to detect Lisfranc ligamentous injuries when measuring C1M2 and C1C2 distances under abduction stress.

Effect of dorsoplantar miniscrew fixation of the second metatarsal base fracture on residual diastases in acute lisfranc fracture-dislocation.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinico-radiographic outcomes between two techniques for acute Lisfranc fracture-dislocation with a large, displaced second metatarsal base plantar fracture: isolated Lisfranc screw fixation versus Lisfranc joint fixation with dorsoplantar miniscrew fixation of the second metatarsal base. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the clinico-radiographic outcome between patients who underwent isolated Lisfranc screw fixation (Group 1, 26 patients) and those who underwent Lisfranc joint fixation with dorsoplantar miniscrew fixation of the second metatarsal base (Group 2, 23 patients). The main outcome measurements were the postoperative distance between the medial cuneiform and second metatarsal base on standing anteroposterior foot radiographs, known as the C1-M2 distance. Residual diastasis was defined as C1-M2 distance ≥ 2 mm on the affected side compared with that on the contralateral side. We also assessed the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM)-activities of daily living (ADL) and sports subscale scores at three, six and ≥ 18 months postoperatively. RESULTS: At the final follow-up, the mean C1-M2 distance on the affected side compared with that on the contralateral side was significantly greater in Group 1 than in Group 2 (3.9 versus 0.7 mm, P = 0.027). Furthermore, Group 1 showed a higher incidence of residual diastases at the final follow-up (69.2%) than the Group 2 (13.0%, P < 0.001). The FAAM-ADL scores at the final follow-up did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.518), but the FAAM Sports score was significantly higher in Group 2 than in Group 1 (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative C1-M2 distance was better maintained with Lisfranc joint fixation with dorsoplantar miniscrew fixation of the second metatarsal base than with isolated Lisfranc screw fixation. We recommend that surgeons exercise caution when dealing with a second metatarsal plantar fracture and consider performing secure fixation using the dorsoplantar miniscrew technique for improved clinical outcomes.

Can Early Treatment of Lisfranc Injuries Without Planned Re-Intervention be Safely Performed.

The Lisfranc complex is a unique combination of ligamentous and osseous relationships between the medial cuneiform and second metatarsal base that is often injured by high energy mechanisms. Fixation for these injuries is often operative; however, the optimal timing of surgical treatment has been debated. All patients who underwent operative fixation of a Lisfranc injury at a single urban tertiary care center were reviewed. Patient were split into two groups based on timing to fixation with one group being less than 24 hours from presentation and a second group being greater than 24 hours. There were 58 patients who underwent what was planned as final operative stabilization of their Lisfranc injury in less than 24 hours and 41 patients who underwent fixation after more than 24 hours. The early treatment of Lisfranc injuries did not lead to significant increases in follow up time, infections, time to weight bearing, union rates, or time to union compared patients treated with delayed fixation. There was a higher rate of superficial infection in the early intervention group, but it did not reach statistical significance. We believe our findings demonstrate that delayed fixation is not superior to early treatment of Lisfranc injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3 Therapeutic retrospective comparative study.

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

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

Nonunion Rate Following Primary Arthrodesis for Acute Lisfranc Injuries.

Injury to the tarsometatarsal joint (TMT) results in instability throughout the midfoot that does not often improve with conservative management. If instability is identified, surgical intervention is frequently recommended, either open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA). These 2 treatment options have been compared in the literature multiple times, often reporting similar outcomes. Due to this, as well as the need for subsequent hardware removal after ORIF has led many surgeons towards PA at the index surgery. Concern for nonunion is a leading concern with surgeons who advocate instead for ORIF. The purpose of this study is to review patients who underwent PA and observe nonunion rates. Nonunion at the TMT has been previously studied, but only in the chronic setting. We performed a retrospective study of 34 patients who had PA in the management of an acute Lisfranc injury. The average age in our study was 43.9 years old (range 19-72, SD 17.4) with an average follow-up of 9.4 months (range 4-33, SD 6.2). Radiographs were evaluated for signs of nonunion at regular postoperative intervals. Within the patients included in the study, a total of 71 TMT joints were fused. Overall successful fusion rate was 95.8% at an average of 7.9 weeks (range 6-12, SD 1.4) postoperatively. Individual nonunion rates at the first, second, and third TMT were 0%, 1.4% and 2.8% respectively. Our study demonstrates that primary arthrodesis provides a predictable outcome with low nonunion rates in the management of acute Lisfranc injury.

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.

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

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

Morphology of the Lisfranc Joint Complex.

Lisfranc injuries are complicated injuries of the tarsometatarsal joint with high rates of sequelae. Both anatomy and injury of the Lisfranc joint are variably documented. Descriptions of these injuries and their associated structures vary greatly. The most injured structures are those of the Lisfranc joint complex, which involves the medial cuneiform, second and third metatarsals, and the dorsal, interosseous, and plantar Lisfranc ligaments. This study sought to examine morphology of the Lisfranc joint in cadavers. Twenty-two embalmed cadaveric feet were dissected (13 male, 9 female, 80.3 years ± 14.03) to isolate the bones and ligaments of the Lisfranc joint complex. The dorsal, interosseous, and plantar Lisfranc ligaments were present in each specimen. Each ligament was measured and morphology noted. The dissected dorsal Lisfranc ligament had consistent morphology (mean = 10.8 mm ± 1.79). The interosseous Lisfranc ligament had a consistent path, but 11/17 of specimens possessed a connection to the plantar Lisfranc ligament. The plantar Lisfranc ligament demonstrated wide variability with a Y-variant (n = 3) and a fan-shaped variant (n = 14). Ligament thickness was greatest in the interosseous Lisfranc ligament (mean = 13.74 ± 3.08) and least in the dorsal Lisfranc ligament (mean = 1.36 ± 0.42). While the objective of defining joint and ligament morphology was achieved, further questions were raised. Variations of the interosseous and plantar Lisfranc ligament may play a role in susceptibility to joint injury, and arthritic changes to the joints examined raise questions regarding the prevalence of arthritis in the uninjured Lisfranc joint.

Screws Alone for Acute Lisfranc Injuries Fixed Without Arthrodesis: A Better "Value" Than Plating in the Short Term.

This study compares outcomes of patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with screw only fixation constructs to those treated with dorsal plate and screw constructs. Seventy patients who underwent surgical treatment for acute Lisfranc injury without arthrodesis and minimum 6-month (mean >1-year) follow-up were identified. Demographics, surgical information, and radiographic imaging were reviewed. Cost data were compared. The primary outcome measure was the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Surgery (AOFAS) midfoot score. Univariate analysis through independent sample t tests, Mann-Whitney U, and chi-squared compared the populations. Twenty-three (33%) patients were treated with plate constructs and 47 (67%) with screw only fixation. The plate group was older (49 ± 18 vs 40 ± 16 years, p = .029). More screw constructs treated isolated medial column injuries compared to plate constructs (92% vs 65%, p = .006). At latest follow-up (mean 14 ± 13 months), all tarsometatarsal joints were aligned. There was no difference in AOFAS midfoot scores. Plate patients experienced longer operations (131 ± 70 vs 75 ± 31 minutes, p < .001) and tourniquet time (101 ± 41 vs 69 ± 25 minutes, p = .001). Plate constructs were more expensive than screw ($2.3X ± $2.3X vs $X ± $0.4X, p < .001) ($X is the mean cost of screws alone). Plate patients had a higher incidence of wound complications (13% vs 0%, p = .012). Treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocation injuries with screws only demonstrated a higher value procedure as similar outcomes were found amidst lower implant costs. Screw only fixation required a shorter operative and tourniquet time with less frequent wound complications. Screw only fixations proved mechanically sound enough to achieve goals of repair without inferior outcomes.

Correlation of Lisfranc Injuries With Regional Bone Density.

Lisfranc injuries present a challenge due to their ubiquity though frequent missed diagnoses. A paucity of data exists associating the contribution of bone density to injury type. This investigation compares the regional bone density between Lisfranc injury types using computed-tomography (CT)-derived Hounsfield units. A retrospective chart review identified patients with gross ligamentous and avulsion-type Lisfranc injuries determined by CT examination of the second metatarsal base and medial cuneiform. Regional bone density was assessed by averaging the Hounsfield units of the first metatarsal base, navicular, cuboid, calcaneus, and talus between 2 reviewers. Density was compared between injury type, isolated concomitant forefoot, and mid/hindfoot fractures. One hundred thirty-four patients were separated into avulsion (n = 85) and ligamentous (n = 49) groups. No statistically significant difference in patient body mass index, age, smoking status, or Quenu and Kuss injury pattern was observed between groups. The regional bone density of the cuboid (p = .03) and talus (p = .04) was greater in the ligamentous group. Lower extremity concomitant mid/hindfoot fracture patients exhibited greater regional bone density in the ligamentous group in all assessed bones (p ≤ .04) except the calcaneus. Ligamentous injuries of the Lisfranc complex are associated with increased regional bone density among patients sustaining concomitant mid/hindfoot fractures. This study expands the utility of regional bone density analysis in foot and ankle trauma.

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.

Retrospective chart review: Weightbearing CT scans and the measurement of the Lisfranc ligamentous complex.

BACKGROUND: Lisfranc Ligamentous Complex (LLC) injuries are commonly misdiagnosed due to their unreliable projection on plain films. Weightbearing CT (WBCT) scans are a relatively new imaging modality that has not yet been utilized to establish widely referenced baseline anatomic positions. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients who had undergone weightbearing CT of the bilateral lower extremities with one-hundred and twelve being included (56 patients). Measurements of the Lisfranc joint were collected by two independent reviewers. Uninjured symmetric anatomy was used to describe a baseline for normal anatomic variation and to evaluate for sex-based or age-related differences. These measurements were then compared against the injured side. RESULTS: In patients without Lisfranc injury, the 1st metatarsal base to 2nd metatarsal base distance (Base M1-M2) was 2.7 + /- 0.7 mm; 2nd metatarsal base to medial cuneiform (M2-C1) was 3.7 + /- 0.7 mm; intercuneiform distance was 1.2 + /- 0.3 mm; and sagittal descent 12.2 + /- 5.4 mm. Patients with injury to LLC had a larger M1-M2 base distance (Δ = 0.5903, p < 0.0001) and M2-C1 interval (Δ = 1.8008, p < 0.0001) compared to uninjured side. Males had significantly higher M2-C1 (p = 0.0031), intercuneiform distance (p = 0.0039), and sagittal descent (p = 0.0008) compared to female patients. No significant differences were found between left versus right side in any of the measurements. Intercuneiform distance (p = 0.0039) was found to significantly decrease as age increased, while sagittal descent significantly increased with increased age (p = 0.0066). CONCLUSION: Weightbearing CT has high utility in identification of Lisfranc injuries particularly when comparing injured and uninjured sides, which may be its greatest utility in defining injuries. This is evident in the excellent diagnostic ability of the M2-C1 measurement. By defining baseline anatomic measurements for Lisfranc complex parameters in our patient population, we provide normal parameters for comparison when evaluating potential subtle injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Does temporary bridge plate fixation preserve joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury?

BACKGROUND: Recently, temporary bridge plate fixation has gained popularity in the treatment of unstable Lisfranc injuries. The technique aims to reduce the risk of posttraumatic osteoarthritis, and after plate removal, the goal is to regain joint mobility. Here we explore marker-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure motion in the 1st tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint and asses the radiological outcome in patients treated with this surgical technique. METHOD: Ten patients with an unstable Lisfranc injury were included. All were treated with a dorsal bridge plate over the 1st TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the 2nd and 3rd TMT joints. The plate was removed four months postoperatively. Non- and weight-bearing RSA images were obtained one and five years postinjury to assess joint mobility and signs of osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Detectable 1st TMT joint motion was observed in 2/10 patients after one year, and 6/9 patients after five years. At the final follow-up, mean 1st TMT dorsiflexion was 2.0°. Radiologically, the incidence of posttraumatic osteoarthritis was present in 4/10 patients after one year, and 5/9 patients after five years. All patients had observed TMT joint stability throughout the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Preservation of joint motion can be achieved with a temporary bridge plate fixation over the 1st TMT joint. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective cohort study/Therapeutically level IV.

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.

Radiographic outcomes of cortical screw fixation as an alternative to Kirschner wire fixation for temporary lateral column stabilization in displaced Lisfranc joint fracture-dislocations: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Injuries of the tarsometatarsal joint complex ranging from purely ligamentous to multidirectionally unstable midfoot fracture-dislocations are anatomically fixed to minimize long-term sequelae including post-traumatic arthritis, pes planus deformity, and chronic pain. Lateral column disruption is commonly treated with temporary Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation, maintaining alignment during healing and allowing resumption of physiologic motion after hardware removal. More unstable fracture patterns may require temporary cortical screw fixation to maintain adequate reduction. We evaluated the efficacy of temporary lateral column screw fixation compared to K-wire fixation for Lisfranc fracture-dislocation treatment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study reviewed 45 patients over fourteen years who underwent Lisfranc fracture-dislocation fixation at a level-one trauma center. All patients underwent medial and middle column fixation; 31 underwent lateral column fixation. Twenty six patients remained after excluding those without electronic records or follow-up. The primary outcome was radiographic lateral column healing before and after hardware removal; secondary outcomes included pain, ambulation, and return to normal shoe wear. RESULTS: Twenty patients were male, with mean age 41 years. Thirteen patients underwent cortical screw fixation and twelve K-wire fixation. One had both implants. Twenty four patients underwent lateral column hardware removal; all had radiographic evidence of bony healing before hardware removal. Mean follow-up was 88.2 ± 114 weeks for all patients. The cortical screw cohort had significantly longer mean time to hardware removal (p = 0.002). The K-wire cohort had significantly more disuse osteopenia (p = 0.045) and postoperative pain (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic and clinical outcomes of unstable Lisfranc fracture-dislocation treatment support temporary lateral column screw fixation as an alternate technique. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: 3 (retrospective cohort study).

Reliability of various diastasis measurement methods on weightbearing radiographs in patients with subtle Lisfranc injuries.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of the diastasis measurements between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal on weightbearing radiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined 18 patients who underwent open surgery for subtle Lisfranc injuries. Preoperative weightbearing radiography of the affected and unaffected feet was evaluated in all patients. The diastasis between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal was measured in both feet using the following four methods: diastasis between parallel lines, distal point diastasis, middle point diastasis, and proximal point diastasis. Intraclass correlation coefficients with consistency of agreement were calculated to evaluate inter- and intraobserver reliability. RESULTS: The intra- and interobserver reliabilities of all four methods were good. Intraclass correlation coefficients for intraobserver reliability ranged from 0.87 to 0.93. Those for interobserver reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: The reliabilities of the diastasis measurement methods between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal on weightbearing radiography were good. Measuring the diastasis between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal on weightbearing radiography is useful in evaluating subtle injuries when uniform measurement methods are used.

Lisfranc injuries with dislocation the first tarsometatarsal joint: primary arthrodesis or internal fixation (a randomized controlled trial).

BACKGROUND: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a popular method for treatment of displaced Lisfranc injuries. However, even with anatomic reduction and solid internal fixation, treatment does not provide good outcomes in certain severe dislocations. The purpose of this study was to compare ORIF and primary arthrodesis (PA) of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint for Lisfranc injuries with the first TMT joint dislocation. METHODS: Seventy-eight Lisfranc injuries with first TMT joint dislocation were finally enrolled and analyzed in a prospective, randomized trial comparing ORIF and PA. They were 50 males and females with a mean age of 40.7 years and randomized to ORIF group and PA group. Outcome measures included radiographs, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports subscale, visual analog scale (VAS), and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Complications and revision rate were also analyzed. RESULTS: Forty patients were treated by ORIF, while PA group includes 38 cases. Patients were followed up for 37.8(range, 24-48) months. At final follow-up, the mean AOFAS midfoot score (P < 0.01), the FAAM Sports subscale (P < 0.01), the physical function score (P < 0.05), and the Bodily Pain score of SF-36 (P < 0.05) after ORIF treatment were significantly lower than PA group. The mean VAS score in ORIF group was higher (P < 0.01). In ORIF group, redislocation of the first TMT joint was observed in ten cases, and thirteen patients had pain in midfoot. No redislocation and no hardware failure were identified in PA group. CONCLUSION: PA of the first TMT joint provided a better medium-term outcome than ORIF for Lisfranc injuries with the first TMT dislocation. Possible complications and revision could be avoided by PA for dislocated first ray injuries.

History of bone acoustic in fracture diagnosis: crepitus in antiquity; bone percussion with Auenbrugger; bone auscultation with Laennec and Lisfranc; monitoring cementless hip arthroplasty fixation with acoustic and sensor.

PURPOSE: The problems posed by trauma, fractures, and dislocations have not changed in human history. The traumas of prehistoric persons were similar to those observed by Imhotep, Hippocrates, and Galen or, more recently, by Ambroise Paré, Watson Jones, and Böhler. And the current road traumas are probably no more severe than those caused by mammoths, the construction of the pyramids, or middle age wars. Diagnostic methods have evolved, and the advent of radiography has revolutionized the diagnosis of traumatology. Before discovering radiography, another physical phenomenon made it possible to help in the diagnosis of fractures. This physical phenomenon is acoustic. METHODS: Curiously, no history of acoustics in fracture diagnosis has been published so far. This article proposes briefly reviewing the history and evolution of acoustics in orthopaedic surgery from antiquity to the present day. RESULTS: Before the invention of radiography by Conrad Roentgen in 1895, the surgeons described crepitus as the most critical sign of fractures in antiquity. Surgeons remarked during the eighteenth and nineteenth century that bone was a good sound-conductor. Physicians improved first the diagnosis of fractures by using percussion established by Auenbrugger in 1755. The principle of chest mediate auscultation with a stethoscope was described by Laennec in 1818. Lisfranc used the stethoscope to amplify the crepitus sound of fractures. Surgeons also developed association of percussion and auscultation with a stethoscope to diagnose and reduce fracture. Recently, acoustic emission technology has seen a recent increase in applications to prevent femur fractures during cementless fixation. CONCLUSION: The acoustic properties of bones were known to a prehistoric person who knew how to make flutes from animal or human bones. Surgeons used them for the diagnosis of fractures before radiography. Acoustic properties of bones currently remain a subject of research for the prevention of fractures.