Nonoperative management of lisfranc injuries - A systematic review of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Historically, most Lisfranc injuries have been considered to be unstable and treated with surgical intervention. However, with better access to cross-sectional imaging, stable injury patterns are starting to be recognised. The aims of the current study were to perform a systematic review of outcomes of Lisfranc injuries treated non-operatively. METHODS: A literature review was performed of studies reporting nonoperative management of Lisfranc injuries (PROSPERO registered and following PRISMA guidelines). Following exclusions, 8 papers were identified: 1 prospective and 7 retrospective studies. A total of 220 patients were studied with a mean age of 39.8 years and a mean follow-up of 4.3 years. Outcomes included function, displacement, and rates of surgery. RESULTS: High heterogeneity was observed with variable outcomes. Four papers reported good outcomes, with adjusted functional scores ranging from 82.6 to 100 (out of 100). However, one study reported late displacement in 54 % of patients. Rates of secondary osteoarthritis ranged from 5 % to 38 %. Rates of surgical intervention were as high as 56 %. Several studies compared operative to non-operative treatment, reporting superior outcomes with surgery. Those injuries with no displacement on CT, measured at the medial cuneiform-second metatarsal had the best outcomes. CONCLUSION: Reported outcomes following nonoperative treatment of Lisfranc injuries vary widely, including high rates of conversion to surgery. In contrast, some studies have reported excellent functional outcomes. CT seems to be an important diagnostic tool in defining a stable injury. Due to limited data and lack of a clear definition of a stable injury or treatment protocol, prospective research is needed to determine which Lisfranc injuries can be safely treated nonoperatively.

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.

Arthrodesis in Acute and Chronic Lisfranc's Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Injury to Lisfranc's joint complex affects the longitudinal and transverse arches of the foot and can significantly alter its biomechanics. Some of the previous studies have suggested primary arthrodesis to be superior to open reduction and internal fixation for treating primarily ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. Additionally, arthrodesis is often used for treating chronic Lisfranc injuries, including those which previously underwent open reduction and internal fixation and subsequently developed arthrosis. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the outcomes of arthrodesis at the level of Lisfranc's articulation for both acute and chronic injuries. Patients who underwent midfoot arthrodesis surgical procedures between years 2001 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. About 187 patients with an average age of 55.9 ± 13.2 years old and a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included in the study. Median time to return to preoperative activities was 11 weeks. Overall successful joint fusion rate was 81.4%. However, concomitantly fused joints of the midfoot and hindfoot, in addition to the tarsometatarsal joints (TMTJ), were included in the overall fusion rate. Fusion rate at the first TMTJ was 90.2% (101 out of 112), second TMTJ was 94.4% (67 out of 71), and third TMTJ was 97.8% (45 out of 46). The present study demonstrates that patients who undergo arthrodesis for both acute and chronic Lisfranc injuries typically can return to activity in under approximately 3 months postoperatively (acute patients significantly faster) with a high union rate at the TMTJs. However, the overall union rate is significantly lower when concomitant proximal midfoot and rearfoot arthrodesis procedures are performed.

Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis and Biomechanical Analysis of Midfoot von Mises Stress Levels in Flatfoot, Clubfoot, and Lisfranc Joint Injury.

BACKGROUND Midfoot deformity and injury can affect the internal pressure distribution of the foot. This study aimed to use 3D finite element and biomechanical analyses of midfoot von Mises stress levels in flatfoot, clubfoot, and Lisfranc joint injury. MATERIAL AND METHODS Normal feet, flatfeet, clubfeet (30 individuals each), and Lisfranc injuries (50 individuals) were reconstructed by CT, and 3D finite element models were established by ABAQUS. Spring element was used to simulate the plantar fascia and ligaments and set hyperelastic coefficients in encapsulated bone and ligaments. The stance phase was simulated by applying 350 N on the top of the talus. The von Mises stress of the feet and ankle was visualized and analyzed. RESULTS The von Mises stress on healthy feet was higher in the lateral metatarsal and ankle bones than in the medial metatarsal bone. Among the flatfoot group, the stress on the metatarsals, talus, and navicular bones was significantly increased compared with that on healthy feet. Among patients with clubfeet, stress was mainly concentrated on the talus, and stress on the lateral metatarsal and navicular bones was significantly lower. The von Mises stress on the fractured bone was decreased, and the stress on the bone adjacent to the fractured bone was higher in Lisfranc injury. During bone dislocation alone or fracture accompanied by dislocation, the von Mises stress of the dislocated bone tended to be constant or increased. CONCLUSIONS Prediction of von Mises stress distribution may be used clinically to evaluate the effects of deformity and injury on changes in structure and internal pressure distribution on the midfoot.

Incidence and Hematological Biomarkers Associated With Preoperative Deep Venous Thrombosis Following Foot Fractures.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to investigate the incidence and hematological biomarker levels that are associated with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) following closed foot fractures (except calcaneal fractures). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data on patients presenting with closed foot fractures (excluding the calcaneus) between October 2014 and December 2018 was conducted. Duplex ultrasonography was used to screen preoperative DVT of bilateral lower extremities. Data on demographics, comorbidities, types of fracture, and laboratory biomarkers at admission were collected. Univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine the independent risk factors associated with DVT. RESULTS: A total of 537 patients were included, among whom 28 patients had preoperative DVTs, indicating a crude incidence rate of 5.2%. In isolated closed foot fractures, DVT occurred in 12 (2.9%) out of 410 patients, while in patients with concurrent fracture in other locations, 16 (12.6%) out of 127 patients developed DVT. The average interval between fracture occurrence and diagnosis of DVT was 4.2 days (median, 2 days), ranging from 0 to 17 days. Twenty-four patients (85.7%) developed DVT in the injured extremity, 3 (10.7%) in the uninjured extremity, and 1 (3.5%) in bilateral extremities. Seven risk factors were identified to be associated with DVT, including alcohol consumption, concomitant other fractures, platelet distribution width (PDW) <12%, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) <1.1mmol/L, serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) >100 U/L, serum sodium concentration (Na+) <135 mmol/L, and D-dimer >0.5 mg/L. CONCLUSION: Being aware of the prevalence of DVT in closed foot fractures can help physicians to carry out the overall assessment, risk stratification, and individual prevention programs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, a prospective cohort study.

Temporary Bridge Plating vs Primary Arthrodesis of the First Tarsometatarsal Joint in Lisfranc Injuries: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Unstable Lisfranc injuries are best treated with anatomic reduction and stable fixation. There are controversies regarding which type of stabilization is best. In the present study, we compared primary arthrodesis of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint to temporary bridge plating in unstable Lisfranc injuries. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with Lisfranc injuries were included and followed for 2 years. Twenty-four patients were randomized to primary arthrodesis (PA) of the medial 3 TMT joints, whereas 24 patients were randomized to temporary bridge plate (BP) over the first TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the second and third TMT joints. The main outcome parameter was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale and the secondary outcome parameters were the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain). Computed tomography (CT) scans pre- and postoperatively were obtained. Radiographs were obtained at follow-ups. Pedobarographic examination was performed at the 2-year follow-up. Twenty-two of 24 patients in the PA and 23/24 in the BP group completed the 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The mean AOFAS midfoot score 2 years postoperatively was 89 (SD 9) in the PA group and 85 (SD 15) in the BP group (P = .32). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to SF-36 or VAS pain scores. The alignment of the first metatarsal was better in the BP group than in the PA group measured by the anteroposterior Meary angle (P = .04). The PA group had a reduced peak pressure under the fifth metatarsal (P = .047). In the BP group, 11/24 patients had radiologic signs of osteoarthritis in the first TMT joint. CONCLUSION: Both treatment groups had good outcome scores. The first metatarsal was better aligned in the BP group; however, there was a high incidence of radiographic osteoarthritis in this group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level I, prospective randomized controlled study.

Surgical Trends in the Treatment of Lisfranc Injuries Using the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Certification Examination Database.

Background: Lisfranc joint complex injury may be managed surgically by either an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA). Published literature advocates PA for purely ligamentous injuries, but many surgeons in actuality refrain from performing PA. The purpose of the study is to assess surgeon practices and behavior in managing Lisfranc injuries due to the influence of peer reviewed literature with the help of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) database. Methods: Data were requested from the ABOS database of cases on Lisfranc joint injury requiring either an ORIF or PA from examination year 2004 to 2017 for both part II and maintenance of certification (MOC) examinees. Cases with ICD-9 code 838.03 only were considered as primarily ligamentous and all fracture codes classified under 825 with 838.03 were considered as fracture dislocation. The number of PA and ORIF were recorded for both types of examinees and specific type of Lisfranc joint injury (primarily ligamentous and fracture dislocation). Results: A total of 2010 cases of Lisfranc joint injuries managed surgically by 1230 board-eligible orthopaedic surgeons. Open fractures (93) and non-/malunion fractures were excluded. A total of 1016 primarily ligamentous and 474 fracture dislocation cases were performed by part II examinees. Overall, 288 primarily ligamentous and 139 fracture dislocation cases were performed by MOC examinees. A total of 27 PA were performed in the primarily ligamentous and 17 were performed on fracture dislocation cases. Conclusion: ORIF is commonly performed by newly trained and senior orthopaedic surgeons. There was no change in the number of PA performed on primarily ligamentous injuries in spite of the published literature.Levels of Evidence: Not applicable.

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.

Deep Peroneal Nerve Injury Following Hardware Removal for Lisfranc Joint Injury.

BACKGROUND: Surgical exposure of the Lisfranc joint complex is within close proximity to the deep peroneal nerve, which can be injured in this approach. Common clinical practice is to remove Lisfranc hardware at 3 to 4 months postoperatively. However, it is unknown if this provides a clinical benefit or risks injury to the deep peroneal nerve. The rate of nerve injury is currently unknown from the published literature. This study clarifies rates of neurological injury to the deep peroneal nerve during primary surgery and hardware removal. METHODS: This retrospective study was performed on all patients of a single surgeon from 2012 to 2018. Fixation was performed with locking plates or screws depending on the injury pattern. All patients who required open reduction and internal fixation routinely underwent hardware removal during this time. Neurological injury was assessed in a binary fashion (normal or abnormal) at 2, 6, and 12 weeks after the primary surgery and 2 and 12 weeks after hardware removal. McNemar's test was performed to compare the rates of injury. Patients were contacted at a minimum follow-up of 15 months (range, 15-87 months) to assess persistent nerve injury and satisfaction. Fifty-seven patients with an average age of 29.8 years were included in the final analysis; all had documentation at 3 months postsurgery. RESULTS: All patients had normal neurology before surgery. The rate of nerve injury for the primary surgery (11%) was significantly lower than the rate for patients with nerve injury following hardware removal (23%). However, the rate of spontaneous neurological recovery was low, with symptoms persisting in 5 of 6 patients between the primary operation and subsequent hardware removal. When these patients were excluded from the analysis, the rate of new nerve injury following hardware removal (15%) was not significantly different from the primary surgery rate. Seventy-one percent of nerve injuries persisted at the minimum 15-month final follow-up, with all patients with nerve injury being very or partially satisfied. CONCLUSION: The rate of deep peroneal nerve injury from primary Lisfranc fixation was 11%, and when routine hardware removal was planned the overall rate of nerve injury rose to 23%. This may be useful information during the patient consent process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

Flexible fixation for ligamentous lisfranc injuries.

Lisfranc injuries require anatomic reduction and stabilization of the tarsometatarsal joints. We describe a novel technique that provides flexible fixation that is simple, cost-effective and that may offer certain advantages over more traditional techniques.

Return to sport following Lisfranc injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Information regarding return rates (RR) and mean return times (RT) to sport following Lisfranc injuries remains limited. METHODS: A systematic search of nine major databases was performed to identify all studies which recorded RR or RT to sport following lisfranc injuries. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included (n=366). For undisplaced (Stage 1) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=35), RR was 100% and RT was 4.0 (0-15) wks. For stable minimally-displaced (Stage 2) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=16), RR was 100% and RT was 9.1 (4-14) wks. For the operatively-managed injuries, Percutaneous Reduction Internal Fixation (PRIF) (n=42), showed significantly better RR and RT compared to both: Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) (n=139) (RR - 98% vs 78%, p<0.019; RT - 11.6 wks vs 19.6 wks, p<0.001); and Primary Partial Arthrodesis (PPA) (n=85) (RR - 98% vs 85%, p<0.047; RT - 11.6 wks vs 22.0 wks, p<0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Stage 1 and stable Stage 2 Lisfranc injuries show good results with nonoperative management. PRIF offers the best RR and RT from the operative methods, though this may not be possible with high-energy injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. Systematic Review of Level I to Level IV Studies.

Outcomes of Hindfoot Arthrodesis Supplemented With Bioactive Glass and Bone Marrow Aspirate: A Retrospective Radiographic Study.

Foot and ankle surgeons continue to explore bone graft alternatives that will be comparable to the reference standard of autologous bone. The purpose of the present study was to consider the outcomes of hindfoot arthrodesis supplemented with bioactive glass in patients at risk of delayed union and nonunion. We performed a retrospective radiographic review of 29 consecutive patients (48 joints) who had undergone arthrodesis of ≥1 joint of the hindfoot (ankle, subtalar, talonavicular, calcaneocuboid). All patients included in the present study had a minimum of 1 documented risk factor for osseous nonunion (history of previous nonunion, trauma, smoking, diabetes, Charcot arthropathy, obesity, age >65 years at surgery). The patients were followed up for a minimum of 24 weeks or until radiographic healing had been achieved. We found 12 (25.0%) nonunions across all 48 joints supplemented with bioactive glass. We found 4 (16.7%) nonunions in the subtalar joint, 1 (11.1%) in the calcaneocuboid joint, and 1 (11.1%) in the talonavicular joint. We found that hindfoot arthrodesis procedures supplemented with bioactive glass resulted in an incidence of union comparable to that with autograft and other bone graft substitutes.

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.

Foot and Ankle Injuries in Soccer.

The ankle is one of the most commonly injured joints in soccer and represents a significant cost to the healthcare system. The ligaments that stabilize the ankle joint determine its biomechanics-alterations of which result from various soccer-related injuries. Acute sprains are among the most common injury in soccer players and are generally treated conservatively, with emphasis placed on secondary prevention to reduce the risk for future sprains and progression to chronic ankle instability. Repetitive ankle injuries in soccer players may cause chronic ankle instability, which includes both mechanical ligamentous laxity and functional changes. Chronic ankle pathology often requires surgery to repair ligamentous damage and remove soft-tissue or osseous impingement. Proper initial treatment, rehabilitation, and secondary prevention of ankle injuries can limit the amount of time lost from play and avoid negative long-term sequelae (eg, osteochondral lesions, arthritis). On the other hand, high ankle sprains portend a poorer prognosis and a longer recovery. These injuries will typically require surgical stabilization. Impingement-like syndromes of the ankle can undergo an initial trial of conservative treatment; when this fails, however, soccer players respond favorably to arthroscopic debridement of the lesions causing impingement. Finally, other pathologies (eg, stress fractures) are highly encouraged to be treated with surgical stabilization in elite soccer players.

Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries in an Athletic Population: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature and the Role of Minimally Invasive Techniques in Their Management.

Tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint complex injuries can be caused by either direct or indirect injuries. The Lisfranc joint represents approximately 0.2% of all fractures. Up to 20% of these injuries are misdiagnosed or missed on initial radiographic assessment; therefore, a high index of suspicion is needed to accurately diagnose TMT joint injuries and avoid the late sequelae of substantial midfoot arthrosis, pain, decreased function, and loss of quality of life. This review discusses the anatomy, diagnosis, and management of athletic Lisfranc injuries, including a description of the preferred minimally invasive surgical techniques used by the senior author of this article.

Cost comparison and complication rate of Lisfranc injuries treated with open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown. METHODS: A national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007 to 2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with lisfranc injuries then progressed to either nonoperative treatment, ORIF, or primary arthrodesis. Associated treatment costs were determined along with complication rate and hardware removal rate. RESULTS: 2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent nonoperative management, 670 underwent ORIF, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5005.82) than for ORIF ($3961.97,P = 0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for ORIF and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P = 0.04). Rates of hardware removal were 43.6% (292/670) for ORIF and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 2.5% (17/670) patients in the ORIF group progressed to arthrodesis at a mean of 308 days, average cost of care associated with this group of patients was $9505.12. DISCUSSION: Primary arthrodesis is both significantly more expensive and has a higher complication rate than ORIF. Open reduction and internal fixation demonstrated a low rate of progression to arthrodesis, although there was a high rate of hardware removal, which may represent a planned second procedure in the management of a substantial number of patients treated with ORIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Retrospective Cohort Study.

Comparative Nonunion Rates in Triple Arthrodesis.

The contemporary literature is unclear regarding the joint that is most "at risk" to yield a nonunion in the performance of triple arthrodesis of the foot. There is also a debate regarding the best methods of joint preparation. A retrospective radiographic review was conducted of all primary triple arthrodeses performed within in a Northern California health maintenance organization between January 2007 and June 2013. Data documenting joint preparation techniques were collected, and postoperative imaging was reviewed to measure time to osseous union. Patient demographics were also collected. One hundred fifty-two patients (157 procedures) met the inclusion criteria. The overall nonunion rate for triple arthrodesis in this series was 29.9% (47/157). The nonunion rate of the talonavicular joint was 20.4% (32/157); the nonunion rate of the calcaneocuboid joint was 17.2% (27/157); and the nonunion rate of the subtalar joint was 8.9% (14/157). In conclusion, we found the most likely joint to obtain nonunion during triple arthrodesis was the talonavicular joint. Furthermore, the most efficacious joint preparation technique was a combination joint resection or curettage with fish scaling.

Combined Medial Column Arthrodesis with Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Central Column for Treatment of Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation: A Review of Consecutive Cases.

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations can be devastating injuries with significant long-term sequelae with or without surgical intervention. The main goal of treatment is to minimize the common long-term complications including pain, progressive arch collapse, degenerative joint disease, hardware failure, and reoperation. Partial primary fusion involving the first, second, and third tarsometatarsal joints has become a common approach for primarily dislocation injuries, with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) favored for Lisfranc injuries involving fracture. ORIF commonly requires revision surgery for hardware removal or delayed fusion. Major revision creates hardship for the patient due to the prolonged recovery required, and even "simple" hardware removal can be traumatic to local nerve, artery, and tendon structures. A common injury pattern includes the findings of primary dislocation and instability of the first tarsometatarsal joint with oftentimes comminuted fracture to the second and third tarsometatarsal joints, which does not fit the standard surgical approach. We report a review of our preferred surgical approach consisting of medial column primary arthrodesis combined with central column ORIF and lateral column temporary pinning. We undertook an institutional review board-approved review of 35 consecutive Lisfranc injuries treated with this hybrid approach. Mean follow-up time was 22.14 ± 22.39 (range 2.5 to 84) months. All but 2 (5.71%) patients had radiographic evidence of union at 10 weeks. Complications included 3 with neuritis, 1 with medial column nonunion that was treated with a bone stimulator, and 1 with revision of second metatarsal nonunion. The present retrospective series highlights our experience with isolated primary fusion of the medial column in both subtle and obvious Lisfranc injuries.