Societal burden and quality of life in patients with Lisfranc Injuries.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of Lisfranc fractures is rising, along with the incidence of foot fractures in general. These injuries can lead to long-term healthcare use and societal costs. Current economic evaluation studies are scarce in Lisfranc fracture research, and only investigate the healthcare costs. The aim of the present study was to accurately measure the monetary societal burden of disease and quality of life in the first 6 months after the injury in patients with Lisfranc fractures in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used a prevalence-based, bottom-up approach. Patients were included through thirteen medical centres in the Netherlands. Both stable and unstable injuries were included. The societal perspective was used. The costs were measured at baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months using the iMTA MCQ and PCQ questionnaires. Reference prices were used for valuation. Quality-of-life was measured using the EQ-5D-5 L and VAS scores. RESULTS: 214 patients were included. The mean age was 45.9 years, and 24.3% of patients had comorbidities. The baseline questionnaires yielded approximately €2023 as the total societal costs in the 3 months prior to injury. The follow-up questionnaires and surgery costs assessment yielded approximately €17,083 as the total costs in the first 6 months after injury. Of these costs, approximately two thirds could be attributed to productivity losses. The EQ-5D-5 L found a mean index value of 0.449 at baseline and an index value of 0.737 at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The total monetary societal costs in the first 6 months after injury are approximately €17,083. Approximately two thirds of these costs can be attributed to productivity losses. These costs appear to be somewhat higher than those found in other studies. However, these studies only included the healthcare costs. Furthermore, the baseline costs indicate relatively low healthcare usage before the injury compared to the average Dutch patient. The mean QoL index was 0.462 at baseline and 0.737 at 6 months, indicating a rise in QoL after treatment as well as a long-lasting impact on QoL. To our knowledge, this is only the first study investigating the societal costs of Lisfranc injuries, so more research is needed.

Patient experiences and preferences during treatment and recovery of Lisfranc fractures: A qualitative interview study.

AIM: To determine from a patient perspective what improves the quality of care and patient satisfaction during the treatment and recovery process of Lisfranc fractures and to reveal possible points for improvement in this process. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with patients treated for a Lisfranc fracture-dislocation in the Netherlands with either open reduction and internal fixation or primary arthrodesis, until data saturation was reached, focusing on the quality of care during treatment and recovery, from a patient perspective. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after interviewing 10 patients. The main themes emerging from the analysis were expectation management regarding the recovery period; communication with and between health care providers; information provided during consultations; and support during the recovery period. Participants expressed a need for improved provision of information about the different treatment options, the different kinds of pain that can arise, the expected duration of the recovery period, education on strong pain killers, likelihood of a second surgery, risks of osteoarthritis, risks of the surgery itself, allied health care and patient experiences. Participants mentioned the importance of good allied health care and a preference for starting allied health care as soon as possible. Insoles and compression socks were also appreciated by various participants. Finally, multiple patients saw a positive attitude on the part of the health care providers towards the recovery period as a key factor in recovery. CONCLUSION: This study found that patients value more tailored approaches to the pre-and post-operative care program, more guidance regarding allied health care (physiotherapy), and a broader scope of available references and information for patients, both oral (during consultations and in informative videos) and written, such as brochures or evidence-based web pages and mobile platforms, which may be offered during consultations or when being discharged from the hospital.

The economic burden of the postoperative management in surgically treated trauma patients with peri- and/or intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities: A prospective multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the economic burden expressed in costs and quality of life of the post-surgical treatment of peri­ and/or intra-articular fractures in the lower extremity from a societal perspective. DESIGN: This is a quantitative study as it aims to find averages and generalize results to wider populations. The design is a cost-of-illness and quality of life study focusing on costs (in euros), Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Quality of Life (Qol) in patients with peri­ and/or intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities. SETTING: Surgically treated trauma patients with peri­ and/or intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities during 26 weeks follow-up. Patients were included from 4 hospitals in the Netherlands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, ADL and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY). METHODS: Cost of illness was estimated through a bottom-up method. The Dutch Eq-5D-5 L questionnaire was used to calculate utilities while Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) scores were used as a measure of ADL. Non-parametric bootstrapping was used to test for statistical differences in costs. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine the influence of work status and further sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Total average societal costs were € 9836.96 over six months. Unexpectedly, total societal and healthcare costs were lower for patients with a paid job relative to patients without. Sensitivity analyses showed that our choice of a societal perspective and the EuroQol as our primary utility measurement tool had a significant effect on the outcomes. The ADL at baseline was respectively; 10.4 and at 26 weeks post-surgery treatment 49.5. The QoL was at baseline respectively; 0.3 and at 26 weeks post-surgery treatment 0.7. These findings are indicative of a significantly improved ADL and QoL (p ≤ 0.05) over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveal a substantial economic burden in monetary terms and effect on QoL of patients with peri­ and/or intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities during 26 weeks follow-up. REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR6077). Date of registration: 01-09-2016.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction and internal fixation in patients with Lisfranc fracture instability (The BFF Study) study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Lisfranc injury is a complex injury of the midfoot. It can result in persistent pain and functional impairment if treated inappropriately. In Lisfranc fracture dislocation, treatment options are primary arthrodesis of the midfoot joints or open reduction and internal fixation. The purpose of the proposed study is to define the optimal treatment for the Lisfranc fracture dislocation, either primary arthrodesis or open reduction and internal fixation, in regard to quality of life, complications, functional outcomes, and cost effectiveness. METHODS: Study design: A prospective multicenter RCT. STUDY POPULATION: All patients of 18 years and older with an acute (< 6 weeks) traumatic fracture dislocation in the Lisfranc midfoot joints, displaced on static radiographic evaluation or unstable with dynamic evaluation, weight bearing radiographs or fluoroscopic stress testing under anesthesia, and eligible for either one of the surgical procedures. In total, this study will include n = 112 patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation will be randomly allocated to treatment in "The Better to Fix or Fuse Study" (The BFF Study) with either PA or ORIF. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome parameter: the quality of life. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: complications, functional outcomes, secondary surgical interventions and cost effectiveness. Nature and extent of the burden: PA is expected to have a better outcome, however both treatments are accepted for this injury with a similar low risk of complications. Follow up is standardized and therefore this study will not add extra burden to the patient. DISCUSSION: This study protocol provides a comprehensive overview of the aims and methods of the attached clinical study. Limitations of this study are the absence of patient blinding since it is impossible in surgical intervention, and the outcome measure (AOFAS) that has limited validity not for these injuries. This study will be the first with enough power to define optimal treatment for Lisfranc fracture dislocations. This is necessary since current literature is unclear on this topic. Trial registration Current controlled Trial: NCT04519242 with registration date: 08/13/2020. Retrospectively registered; Protocol date and version: Version 4 05/06/2020.