A modified three-incision approach to treating three-column Lisfranc injuries.

PURPOSE: The most popular surgical approach to manage Lisfranc fracture-dislocations is the double-incision approach, which frequently causes a variety of complications, such as skin necrosis, rotational malreduction of the first tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) and lateral column dorsoplantar malreduction of the TMTJ. We introduce a three-incision approach to treat Lisfranc fracture-dislocations with only minor postoperative complications and good foot function. METHODS: We prospectively selected 30 previously healthy patients, ranging from 18 to 60 years of age, but only 23 patients completed the follow-up and thus were finally included, with an average age of 38.1 ± 12.9 years. All patients have sustained Lisfranc fracture-dislocations involving all three-column; 13.0% (3/23) were Myerson classification type A (medial), 47.8% (11/23) were type A (lateral), and 39.1% (9/23) were type C2. All patients were treated via a three-incision approach: a long incision made along the lateral border of the second ray was used as a working incision to visualize and reduce the first three TMTJs, as well as to apply internal fixation instrumentation; a 2 cm medial incision was made at the medial side of the first TMTJ as an inspecting incision, ensuring good reduction of the first TMTJ in medial and plantar view; another 1 cm inspecting incision was made at the dorsal side of the fourth/fifth TMTJ to prevent sagittal subluxation of the lateral column. Mean ± SD was used for quantitative data such as operation time, follow-up time and foot function scores. Postoperative complications were documented, and foot function was evaluated using the American orthopaedic foot & ankle society score, foot function index and Maryland foot score at follow-up. The foot function of the injured foot and contralateral foot of the same patient was at the end of follow-up, and independent sample t-test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The median operation time was 117.9 ± 14.6 min (range 93 - 142 min). All complications occurred within three months after the operation, and included delayed wound healing (17.4%), superficial infection (8.7%), complex regional pain syndrome (4.3%) and neuroma (4.3%). There was no case of postoperative skin necrosis or malreduction. At the end of follow-up of 14.1 ± 1.2 months (range 12-16 months), the median American orthopaedic foot & ankle society score of the operated foot was 89.7 ± 5.7, the median foot function index was 21.7 ± 9.9, and the median Maryland foot score was 88.7 ± 4.8. There were no significant differences between the operated and contralateral sides, in terms of foot function, at the end of followup (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The three-incision approach can provide adequate visualization of all TMTJs to ensure anatomical reduction and offer sufficient working space to apply internal fixation instrumentation, which is effective in treating three-column Lisfranc fracture-dislocations with minor soft tissue complications and satisfactory functional recovery.

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.

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocations: A Cost Analysis.

Background: Lisfranc fracture-dislocation is an uncommon but serious injury that currently lacks universal consensus on optimal operative treatment. Two common fixation methods are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis (PA). The objective of this study is to analyze the cost difference between ORIF and PA of Lisfranc injuries, along with the contribution of medical services to overall costs. Methods: This was a retrospective cost analysis of the MarketScan database from 2010 to 2020. MarketScan is an insurance and commercial claims database that integrates deidentified patient information. It captures person-specific clinical utilization, expenditures, and enrollment across inpatient and outpatient services. Patients undergoing primary ORIF (CPT code 28615) vs PA (28730 and 28740) for Lisfranc fracture-dislocation were identified. The primary independent variable was ORIF vs PA of Lisfranc injury. Total costs due to operative management was the primary objective. The utilization of and costs contributed by medical services was a secondary outcome. Results: From 2010 to 2020, a total of 7268 patients underwent operative management of Lisfranc injuries, with 5689 (78.3%) ORIF and 1579 (21.7%) PA. PA was independently associated with increased net and total payment and coinsurance, clinic visits, and imaging, and patients attended significantly more PT sessions. Conclusion: Using this large database that does not characterize severity or extent of injury, we found that treatment of Lisfranc fracture-dislocation with ORIF was associated with substantially lower initial episode of treatment costs compared with PA. Specific excessive cost drivers for PA were clinic visits, PT sessions, and imaging. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Early weight-bearing after percutaneous reduction and screw fixation for low-energy lisfranc injury.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic restoration and postoperative rehabilitation of displaced fracture-dislocations of the tarsometatarsal junction of the foot are essential. Our objective was to report percutaneous reduction and screw fixation results in low-energy Lisfranc fracture dislocation injuries that were treated with early weight-bearing and rehabilitation. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients with low-energy Lisfranc injuries who underwent surgery between May 2007 and April 2011. The study reviewed 22 patients (12 men and 10 women) with an average age of 36.2 years (range, 16-50 years) and an average follow-up of 33.2 months (range, 12-50 months). We report the mechanism of trauma; quality of reduction in the postoperative digital radiographs; subjective satisfaction; AOFAS score; time required to return to work, recreational activities, and low-impact sports; and complications. Postoperatively, all of the patients were instructed to be non-weight-bearing for 3 weeks, and the stitches were removed after 2 weeks. At the third postoperative week, the patients were encouraged to bear weight as tolerated. RESULTS: Quality of reduction was anatomic or near anatomic in 100% of cases. The subjective satisfaction reported by patients was very good, with complete satisfaction in 20 of them (90.9%). The AOFAS average was 94 points (range, 90-100 points). Average return to work was at 7 weeks (range, 6-9 weeks), recreational activities 7.2 weeks (range, 6-9 weeks), training for low-impact sports 7.6 weeks (range, 7-8 weeks), and symptom-free sport activities 12.4 weeks (range, 11-13 weeks). CONCLUSION: In this selected group of patients with low-energy Lisfranc fracture dislocation, anatomic or near-anatomic reduction can be achieved with percutaneous reduction and screw fixation. Early weight-bearing is possible in these patients, and early return to regular activities and low-impact sport can be expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.

Arthrodesis or Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Meta-analysis.

The purpose of this study is to determine if arthrodesis, compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), produces favorable American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and to determine if differences in complication, revision surgery, and secondary arthrodesis rates exist for patients with Lisfranc fracture/dislocation injuries. Searches were performed in PubMed using the keywords "Lisfranc fracture," "metatarsal fracture," "ORIF," "open reduction internal fixation," "arthrodesis," and "fusion." These criteria left 183 articles for review. Exclusions left 21 articles and 2 translations of Chinese abstracts. Data analysis was performed using Student's 2-sample t test for samples of equal variance, and chi-square test for goodness of fit. The t test revealed a significant difference (P = .03) between the average AOFAS score for patients who underwent primary arthrodesis (84.7 ± 6.14) compared with those who were treated with ORIF (78.9 ± 5.09). There was no significant difference for the average VAS scores (P = .33) of the arthrodesis and ORIF groups. The complication rate of arthrodesis patients was significantly lower than ORIF patients (P = .04), and the rates of revision surgery (P = .22) and secondary arthrodesis (P = .53) were not significant between the groups. The results of this study indicate that arthrodesis may be a better surgical option than ORIF, due to the higher functional scores and the lower complication rate.Levels of Evidence: Level III: A meta-analysis.

Primary arthrodesis versus open reduction internal fixation for complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations: a retrospective study comparing functional and radiological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this retrospective study were to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of primary arthrodesis and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 39 patients treated for a complete Lisfranc fracture dislocation, defined as Myerson types A and C2, over a period of 8 years at a level 1 trauma centre was performed. Of these, 18 underwent primary arthrodesis, and 21 ORIF. The primary outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score, the validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire functional tool, and the secondary outcome was the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical reduction. RESULTS: Significantly better functional outcomes were seen in the primary arthrodesis group. These patients had a mean Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire score of 30.1 points, compared with 45.1 for the ORIF group (P = 0.017). Similarly, the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score was 71.8 points in the fusion group versus 62.5 in the ORIF group (P = 0.14). Functional outcome was dependent on the quality of final reduction (P < 0.001). Primary arthrodesis achieved good initial reduction in 83% cases compared to 62% with ORIF (P = 0.138). There was a loss of reduction quality of 47% in the ORIF group over time. CONCLUSION: Primary arthrodesis for complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations resulted in improved functional outcomes and quality of reduction compared to open reduction and internal fixation.

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management.

It is essential to know and understand the anatomy of the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint (Lisfranc joint) to achieve a correct diagnosis and proper treatment of the injuries that occur at that level.Up to 20% of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations go unnoticed or are diagnosed late, especially low-energy injuries or purely ligamentous injuries. Severe sequelae such as post-traumatic osteoarthritis and foot deformities can create serious disability.We must be attentive to the clinical and radiological signs of an injury to the Lisfranc joint and expand the study with weight-bearing radiographs or computed tomography (CT) scans.Only in stable lesions and in those without displacement is conservative treatment indicated, along with immobilisation and initial avoidance of weight-bearing.Through surgical treatment we seek to achieve two objectives: optimal anatomical reduction, a factor that directly influences the results; and the stability of the first, second and third cuneiform-metatarsal joints.There are three main controversies regarding the surgical treatment of Lisfranc injuries: osteosynthesis versus primary arthrodesis; transarticular screws versus dorsal plates; and the most appropriate surgical approach.The surgical treatment we prefer is open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with transarticular screws or with dorsal plates in cases of comminution of metatarsals or cuneiform bones. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:430-444. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180076.

Percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc joint injuries: A systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to present the outcome of Lisfranc joint injuries treated with closed reduction and screw percutaneous fixation. METHODS: We searched in Pubmed and Google Scholar Databases for articles regarding screw percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc injuries. Seven studies in total were found to be compatible to our search, according to PRISMA guidelines. Four of those met the criteria of the review and they were included in the meta-analysis. A total number of 106 patients were separated into five groups according to the type of injury and the mean AOFAS score of each group was calculated. Cases in which percutaneous fixation was converted to open treatment due to poor reduction were not included in the study. In addition we compared the outcome score between types of injury according to Myerson classification as well as between purely ligamentous and osseoligamentous injuries. The characteristics of all seven selected studies, such as kind of screw used for fixation, post operative protocol, complications and outcome are mentioned as well. RESULTS: Average AOFAS score was 86,2 for type A, 87,54 for type B, and 85 for type C injuries respectively. In pure dislocation group the average AOFAS score was 86,43 and in fracture dislocation group was 87,36. Good to excellent outcome can be expected in patients with different types of injury according to Myerson classification following percutaneous fixation of lisfranc joint injury. Patients with type B injury or a fracture dislocation injury might have better outcome, although this difference was not found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous fixation of tarsometatarsal joint injuries is a relatively simple and safe method of treatment, leading to a good functional outcome, especially for Myerson type B as well as for fracture dislocation type of injuries, provided that an anatomical reduction has been achieved. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic Study.

Return to Sports and Physical Activities After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries in Recreational Athletes.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess participation in sport and physical activity following open reduction and internal fixation of a Lisfranc injury in a cohort of recreational athletes. METHODS: This study identified all adult patients aged 55 years or younger who presented with a Lisfranc injury and underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using a Lisfranc screw combined with bridge plating technique. Sports and physical activity participation was assessed with a new sports-specific, patient-administered questionnaire. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Thirty-three patients qualified for the study (21 men/12 women). Mean age and follow-up were 31.2 (range, 18-55) years and 2.9 (range, 1.5-5.4) years, respectively. RESULTS: Postoperatively, 31 patients (94%) were able to return to some form of sport. Twenty-two patients (66%) returned to playing sport at or above their preinjury level. Of the 11 patients who played less sport, 6 had ongoing pain, and the remaining 5 were asymptomatic but were participating less frequently because of other lifestyle reasons. In addition, of the 33 patients, 11 (33%) had some degree of ongoing pain that might limit their ability to return to sports and physical activities. There was strong correlation between overall FAOS and the Sports Questionnaire. CONCLUSION: Most patients who sustained a Lisfranc injury could return to sport and physical activity after ORIF. Patients should be counseled preoperatively that about 1 in 3 might experience continued pain at the injury site Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective case series.

The Role of Percutaneous Reduction and Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries.

To be able to perform percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc injuries, this article emphasizes that an anatomic reduction must be mandatory. When uncertainty remains as to whether closed reduction is anatomic, formal open reduction is recommended because accuracy of reduction is correlated with long-term outcome. Closed injuries with minimal displacement, bony avulsions, and skeletally immature individuals seem the most appropriate indications for percutaneous fixation. Not all injuries are ideal for this method of treatment, and this is an area that needs to be more clearly defined in the future.

Acute forefoot and midfoot injuries.

Forefoot and midfoot injuries in the athlete are common. Injuries of the digits include subungual hematomas and fractures. Metatarsal fractures occur frequently in sports, and their treatments range greatly. Hyperflexion and extension injuries about the first metatarsophalangeal joint can be very debilitating. Midfoot sprains and fractures require a high index of suspicion for diagnosis.