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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Factors influencing postoperative residual diastasis after the operative treatment of acute Lisfranc fracture dislocation.

INTRODUCTION: Clinically, surgeons may frequently encounter residual diastasis between the medial cuneiform and 2nd metatarsal base after the operative treatment of acute Lisfranc fracture dislocations. The purpose of this study was to identify factors influencing postoperative residual diastasis. We specifically focused on the preoperative fracture pattern using 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiographic and clinical findings of 66 patients who underwent operative treatment for acute Lisfranc fracture dislocation were reviewed. Patients were grouped according to residual diastasis evaluated by weight-bearing anteroposterior radiograph of the foot at the final follow-up. Residual diastasis was defined as distance between the medial cuneiform and 2nd metatarsal base greater than the distance on the contralateral side by 2 mm or more. Demographic parameters and fracture patterns based on preoperative foot 3D-CT were compared. A paired t test was used to compare continuous numeric parameters, while a Chi-square test was used for the proportional parameters. Statistical significance was set at P value less than 0.05 for all analyses. RESULTS: The mean age at operation, sex, body mass index, and the rate of underlying diabetes were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05 each). Preoperative foot 3D-CT evaluation showed that the rate of large (> 25% of 2nd tarsometatarsal joint involvement), displaced (> 2 mm) fracture fragments on the plantar side of the 2nd metatarsal base was more pronounced in the group with residual diastasis (P = 0.001), while medial wall avulsion of the 2nd metatarsal base was more frequent in the group without residual diastasis (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While treating acute Lisfranc injuries, surgeons should be aware of the presence of a 2nd metatarsal base plantar fracture. A dorsoplantar inter-fragmentary fixation can be considered if the fragment is large and displaced.

Outcome after nonoperative treatment of stable Lisfranc injuries. A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome after nondisplaced and stable Lisfranc injuries. METHODS: 26 patients with injuries to the Lisfranc joint complex detected on CT scans, but without displacement were tested to be stable using a fluoroscopic stress test. The patients were immobilized in a non-weightbearing short leg cast for 6 weeks. The final follow-up was 55 (IQR 53-60) months after injury. RESULTS: All the Lisfranc injuries were confirmed to be stable on follow-up weightbearing radiographs at a minimum of 3 months after injury. Median American Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score at 1-year follow-up was 89 (IQR 84-97) and at final follow-up 100 (IQR 90-100); The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1-year (P=.005). The median visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was 0 (IQR 0-0) at the final follow-up. One patient had radiological signs of osteoarthritis at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Stable Lisfranc injuries treated nonoperatively had an excellent outcome in this study with a median follow-up of 55 months. The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1 year.

Ultrasound as a Diagnostic Tool in the Assessment of Lisfranc Joint Injuries.

OBJECTIVES: Ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are frequently overlooked because of subtle clinical presentations and diagnostic difficulties. The dorsal Lisfranc ligament (DLL) is easily visualized with ultrasound (US), which can provide quick, cost-effective diagnoses of disorders but is not considered standard clinical practice. This study sought to compare DLL measurement accuracy between US and cadaveric dissection. METHODS: Ultrasound images of 22 embalmed cadaveric feet were obtained with an M-Turbo US machine and a 6-13-MHz linear array (FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc, Bothell, WA). Images were measured in the US unit and again with ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD). Specimens were dissected, and DLL morphologic characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-two specimens were scanned, however 4 were excluded, leaving a sample of 11 male and 7 female cadaveric specimens (mean age ± SD, 80.3 ± 14.03 years). The DLL length differences between SonoSite (8.39 ± 1.27 mm) and ImageJ (8.25 ± 1.84 mm) were not significant (P > .05). Both US DLL measurements significantly differed from the gross dissection measurement (10.8 ± 1.85 mm; P < .001). The morphologic characteristics of the DLL at dissection were consistent. Overall, 70% to 80% of the ligament length was represented by US compared to dissection. The dorsal joint space did not differ significantly between SonoSite (2.19 ± 0.49 mm) and ImageJ (2.05 ± 0.52; P > .05). Both US measurements were also significantly larger than dissection measurements (1.04 ± 0.24; P < .001). Intraclass correlation coefficients indicated good reliability for the DLL length (0.835) and moderate reliability for the dorsal joint space (0.714). CONCLUSIONS: The DLL is underrepresented but easily distinguished by US, demonstrating its utility in Lisfranc injury diagnosis. Thus, we propose a 4-component assessment involving US, which may provide more rapid, cost-effective diagnoses of subtle Lisfranc injuries.

Imaging in Lisfranc injury: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review current diagnostic imaging options for assessment of the Lisfranc joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed and ScienceDirect were systematically searched. Thirty articles were subdivided by imaging modality: conventional radiography (17 articles), ultrasonography (six articles), computed tomography (CT) (four articles), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (11 articles). Some articles discussed multiple modalities. The following data were extracted: imaging modality, measurement methods, participant number, sensitivity, specificity, and measurement technique accuracy. Methodological quality was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Conventional radiography commonly assesses Lisfranc injuries by evaluating the distance between either the first and second metatarsal base (M1-M2) or the medial cuneiform and second metatarsal base (C1-M2) and the congruence between each metatarsal base and its connecting tarsal bone. For ultrasonography, C1-M2 distance and dorsal Lisfranc ligament (DLL) length and thickness are evaluated. CT clarifies tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint alignment and occult fractures obscured on radiographs. Most MRI studies assessed Lisfranc ligament integrity. Overall, included studies show low bias for all domains except patient selection and are applicable to daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: While conventional radiography can demonstrate frank diastasis at the TMT joints; applying weightbearing can improve the viewer's capacity to detect subtle Lisfranc injury by radiography. Although ultrasonography can evaluate the DLL, its accuracy for diagnosing Lisfranc instability remains unproven. CT is more beneficial than radiography for detecting non-displaced fractures and minimal osseous subluxation. MRI is clearly the best for detecting ligament abnormalities; however, its utility for detecting subtle Lisfranc instability needs further investigation. Overall, the available studies' methodological quality was satisfactory.

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.

Lisfranc injuries: Incidence, mechanisms of injury and predictors of instability.

BACKGROUND: In Lisfranc injuries the stability of the tarsometatarsal joints guides the treatment of the injury. Determining the stability, especially in the subtle Lisfranc injuries, can be challenging. The purpose of this study was to identify incidence, mechanisms of injury and predictors for instability in Lisfranc injuries. METHODS: Eighty-four Lisfranc injuries presenting at Oslo University Hospital between September 2014 and August 2015 were included. The diagnosis was based on radiologically verified injuries to the tarsometatarsal joints. Associations between radiographic findings and stability were examined. RESULTS: The incidence of Lisfranc injuries was 14/100,000 person-years, and only 31% were high-energy injuries. The incidence of unstable injuries was 6/100,000 person-years, and these were more common in women than men (P = 0.016). Intraarticular fractures in the two lateral tarsometatarsal joints increased the risk of instability (P = 0.007). The height of the second tarsometatarsal joint was less in the unstable injuries than in the stable injuries (P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: The incidence of Lisfranc injuries in the present study is higher than previously published. The most common mechanism of injury is low-energy trauma. Intraarticular fractures in the two lateral tarsometatarsal joints, female gender and shorter second tarsometatarsal joint height increase the risk of an unstable injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, cross-sectional study.

Comparison of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction with internal fixation for Lisfranc injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Multiple studies have compared primary arthrodesis versus open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) for surgical treatment of fractures of the Lisfranc joint, but their results have been inconsistent. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical efficacy of arthrodesis versus ORIF for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Methods: Through searching the Embase, PubMed, PMC, CINAHL, PQDT, and Cochrane Library databases (from July 1998 to July 2018), we identified five case-controlled trials and two randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical efficacy of primary arthrodesis and ORIF for treating Lisfranc injuries. The extracted data were analyzed using Review manager 5.3 software. Results: Through comparisons of data for primary arthrodesis and ORIF groups, we found no significant differences in the anatomic reduction rate, revision surgery rate, and total rate of complications between the different treatment approaches. However, arthrodesis was associated with a significantly better American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, return to duty rate, and visual analog scale score with a lower incidence of hardware removal compared with ORIF. Conclusions: For the treatment for Lisfranc injuries, primary arthrodesis was superior to ORIF based on a higher AOFAS score, better return to duty rate, lower postoperative pain, and lower requirement for internal fixation removal. Further evidence from future randomized controlled trials with higher quality and larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.

Biomechanical comparison of fixation stability using a Lisfranc plate versus transarticular screws.

BACKGROUND: To obtain adequate fixation in treating Lisfranc soft tissue injuries, the joint is commonly stabilized using multiple transarticular screws; however iatrogenic injury is a concern. Alternatively, two parallel, longitudinally placed plates, can be used to stabilize the 1st and 2nd tarsometatarsal joints; however this may not provide adequate stability along the Lisfranc ligament. Several biomechanical studies have compared earlier methods of fixation using plates to the standard transarticular screw fixation method, highlighting the potential issue of transverse stability using plates. A novel dorsal plate is introduced, intended to provide transverse and longitudinal stability, without injury to the articular cartilage. METHODS: A biomechanical cadaver model was developed to compare the fixation stability of a novel Lisfranc plate to that of traditional fixation, using transarticular screws. Thirteen pairs of cadaveric specimens were tested intact, after a simulated Lisfranc injury, and then following implant fixation, using one method of fixation randomly assigned, on either side of each pair. Optical motion tracking was used to measure the motion between each of the following four bones: 1st metatarsal, 2nd metatarsal, 1st cuneiform, and 2nd cuneiform. Testing included both cyclic abduction loading and cyclic axial loading. RESULTS: Both the Lisfranc plate and screw fixation method provided stability such that the average 3D motions across the Lisfranc joint (between 2nd metatarsal and 1st cuneiform), were between 0.2 and 0.4mm under cyclic abduction loading, and between 0.4 and 0.5mm under cyclic axial loading. Comparing the stability of fixation between the Lisfranc plate and the screws, the differences in motion were all 0.3mm or lower, with no clinically significant differences (p>0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Diastasis at the Lisfranc joint following fixation with a novel plate or transarticular screw fixation were comparable. Therefore, the Lisfranc plate may provide adequate support without risk of iatrogenic injury to the articular cartilage.