The Use of Knotless Suture Tape Construct vs Screw Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.

BACKGROUND: Lisfranc injuries are often treated with open reduction and internal fixation using rigid fixation techniques. The use of flexible fixation to stabilize the Lisfranc joint is a newer technique. The purpose of this cadaveric study is to compare the amount of diastasis at the Lisfranc interval under diminished physiologic loads when treated with a knotless suture tape construct and a solid screw. METHODS: Ten cadavers (20 feet) had native motion at the intact Lisfranc interval assessed at multiple increasing loads (69, 138, and 207 N). The Lisfranc ligamentous complex was then disrupted, and testing repeated to evaluate the amount of diastasis. Randomization was performed to determine the type of fixation for each cadaver: solid screw or knotless suture tape construct. Once fixation was completed, specimens were cyclically loaded for 10 000 cycles at loads, and diastasis was quantified after each load cycle to compare the interventions. Diastasis was measured using motion tracking cameras and retroreflective marker sets. A non-inferiority statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Diastasis mean values were confirmed to be >2 mm for all load bearing conditions in the injury model. Posttreatment, diastasis was significantly reduced when compared to the sectioned conditions (P < .01) for both treatment options. Non-inferiority analyses showed that the knotless suture tape construct did not perform inferior to screw fixation for diastasis at the Lisfranc interval at any of the compared load states. CONCLUSION: Under the loads tested, there is no significant difference in diastasis at the Lisfranc interval when treating ligamentous Lisfranc injuries with a knotless suture tape construct or solid screws. Both reduced diastasis from the injured state and were not different from the intact state. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In this cadaveric model with ligamentous Lisfranc injury, diastasis of a knotless suture tape construct is compared to solid screw fixation as tested.

Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Displaced Lisfranc Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus whether the primary surgical method should be open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) for Lisfranc injuries. The aim of our randomized controlled trial was to compare ORIF and PA for displaced Lisfranc injuries. METHODS: This study was a national multicenter randomized controlled trial. Altogether 43 displaced Lisfranc injuries were enrolled in this trial. The primary outcome measure was Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) at a 24-months follow-up. The secondary outcome measures were VAS-FA pain, function, and other complaints subscales and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Scale. All outcomes were measured at 6, 12, and 24 months. We were unable to reach the planned sample size of 60 patients; thus, the study remains underpowered. RESULTS: The mean VAS-FA Overall score in the ORIF group was 86.5 (95% CI 77.9, 95.1) and 80.1 (95% CI 72.0, 88.1) in the PA group at the 24-month follow-up. We did not find eligible evidence of a difference in VAS-FA Overall scores (mean between-group difference 6.5 [95% CI -5.3, 18.2], Cohen d = 0.100). CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence of a difference in VAS-FA between ORIF and PA in patients with displaced Lisfranc injuries, and thus both are viable options for the initial surgical method. The trial is underpowered; however, the data may be included in a meta-analysis of similarly designed randomized controlled trials.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24 October 2016.

Comparison of diagnostic performance of X­ray, CT and MRI in patients with surgically confirmed subtle Lisfranc injuries.

The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of three imaging tests: X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for subtle Lisfranc injuries and three anatomical subtype injuries. The non-weight-bearing X-ray, CT and MRI imaging results of patients with subtle Lisfranc injuries from September 2013 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Subtle Lisfranc injuries and three anatomical subtypes (first, second and cuneiform rays) were diagnosed based on the surgical reports. The diagnostic performance of X-ray, CT and MRI was compared. The sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value, negative predictive value, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and κ coefficient were reported. A total of 31 patients were included in the study. The correct diagnosis was made in 48.4% (15/31), 87.1% (27/31) and 96.8% (30/31) of patients by X-ray, CT and MRI, respectively. A total of 54 different anatomical injuries were found intraoperatively in all patients, with MRI and CT having high agreement (Sn, 72.2 and 87.0%; κ, 0.69 and 0.78, respectively) and X-ray having a low agreement (Sn, 29.6%; κ, 0.26) with the surgical findings. Regarding the first-ray injuries, CT had the highest Sn (76.9%), Sp (100%) and AUC (0.885) in diagnosing subtle Lisfranc injuries. MRI showed the best Sn (88.5 and 93.3%, respectively) and AUC (0.942 and 0.904, respectively) in both second and cuneiform rays. In conclusion, non-weight-bearing X-rays had poor diagnostic accuracy for subtle Lisfranc injuries and their subtypes. CT was superior to X-rays and MRI in diagnosing first-ray injuries. Although not significantly different from CT in terms of overall diagnosis, MRI was superior to X-ray and CT in diagnosing second and cuneiform-ray injuries.

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.

Lisfranc Sports Injuries: What Do We Know So Far?

Lisfranc sports injuries include tarsometatarsal joint injuries, which may be accompanied by fractures. They most commonly occur due to a blow or axial force. The aim of this review is to assess the current standards for surgical intervention in Lisfranc injuries resulting from sports-related accidents. This evaluation will cover the timing of treatment, the recovery process, and the appropriate timing for a return to normal sporting activities. This research was done via an analytical review of current literature. Methods included a structured search strategy on PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The collated literature was processed using formal inclusion or exclusion, data extraction, and validity assessment. Joint involvement and severity were taken into account while classifying Lisfranc injuries. The primary fixation and fusion techniques for Lisfranc injuries were compared, and the surgical management of these injuries was examined in all of the literature. Treatment recovery times were examined, and the results were talked about. A variety of injuries, from minor sprains to serious fractures and rips, make up Lisfranc injuries. Although open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in combination with primary arthrodesis (PA) is now thought to be the optimum course of treatment, its acceptance has increased. Patients with Lisfranc injuries can usually expect excellent outcomes and the return of joint function to its pre-injury form if the injury is appropriately assessed and treated. Lisfranc injuries are manageable and have a good recovery time if not neglected. The outcomes of management and surgical options are also quite satisfactory.

Weightbearing Computed Tomography vs Conventional Tomography for Examination of Varying Degrees of Lisfranc Injures: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Background: Lisfranc injuries, if not accurately diagnosed, can result in chronic pain and instability. Previous studies have examined ultrasonographs, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and conventional computed tomography (CT) scan to differentiate Lisfranc instability, but they focused on a healthy/injured scale without differentiating subtle injury. Weightbearing CT (WBCT) has emerged as a diagnostic tool for detecting subtle Lisfranc injuries. This systematic review aimed to compare WBCT with conventional CT in diagnosing Lisfranc injury, and the ability to differentiate injuries of varying severities. Methods: The review encompassed PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases from inception until July 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria involved studies on CT and/or WBCT for Lisfranc injuries and nonoperative studies. Exclusion criteria composed case reports, commentaries, postoperative imaging studies, pediatric patients, studies with nonobjective radiographic measurements, studies exclusively focused on injury classification, and studies with fewer than 5 patients because of poor statistical power. Data extraction focused on radiographic measurements of the Lisfranc complex, categorized into conventional CT, partial WBCT, and total WBCT. Results: Out of the initially retrieved 489 articles, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Several studies consistently demonstrate that WBCT provides a higher level of accuracy in measuring the Lisfranc area, offering enhanced sensitivity to detect subtle alterations in joint structure. Moreover, WBCT exhibits superior sensitivity in distinguishing between healthy Lisfranc joints and those with injuries, particularly when identifying dorsal ligament damage. This imaging modality allows for the detection of significant variations in critical measurements like first-second metatarsal (M1-M2) distance, first cuneiform (C1)-M2 distance, and joint volumes, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of Lisfranc joint health especially with subtle instability. Conclusion: This review evaluates the extant literature on WBCT's utility in diagnosing Lisfranc injuries and compares its effectiveness to CT in distinguishing between injuries of varying severity. WBCT, with reliable measurement techniques, appears more adept at detecting subtle Lisfranc instability compared to CT, likely by allowing the assessment of injury under load.

Lisfranc Injury: Recent Trends in Management.

Lisfranc injury refers to a group of bony or ligamentous injuries in which one or more of the metatarsals are displaced with respect to the tarsus. These injuries can occur as a result of either high-energy trauma like motor vehicle accidents and falls from height, or low-energy trauma from sports activities. A significant proportion of Lisfranc injuries are missed initially. The effects of delayed and missed diagnosed cases can be devastating as patients may develop progressive midfoot instability, collapse of arch, abduction of forefoot, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis, which can cause chronic pain, stiffness, and foot and ankle complex dysfunction. Favourable outcomes are associated with early diagnosis and prompt treatment. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with arthrodesis has better results than ORIF alone in functional outcomes. Dorsal bridge plates are currently the preferred mode of fixation due to advantages over trans-articular screws.

Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes of Suture Button Fixation for Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Flexible ligamentous fixation has increased in popularity for the treatment of ligamentous Lisfranc injury, but the optimal fixation strategy is unclear. Purpose: To review the biomechanical, clinical, and radiographic results of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries treated with flexible fixation. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar literature databases were queried for clinical and biomechanical (cadaveric) studies relating to flexible fixation of ligamentous Lisfranc injury. Outcomes of interest included patient-reported outcome scores, clinical/biomechanical results, radiographic alignment, and return to activity. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of the postoperative outcomes was performed. Results: Of the 34 initial studies, 14 articles (243 feet) were included in the analysis. In the 11 clinical studies (216 patients), the mean postoperative American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score was 90.1 (n = 150; 6 studies) and the mean visual analog scale score was 1.5 (n = 137; 5 studies). The rate of return to activity was 100% (n = 35; 5 studies), and 100% of patients maintained radiographic alignment postoperatively (n = 62; 6 studies). No complications or subsequent hardware removals were reported. Of the 3 biomechanical studies (27 feet), 1 study found significantly greater change in diastasis under axial load between intact and postfixation ligaments with suture button versus screw fixation (+1.1 vs -0.1 mm; P < .05), another found no difference in the decrease in diastasis under axial load between the injured state and screw or suture button fixation (1.2 vs 1.0 mm; P = .5), and the third found no difference in displacement between intact and either screw or suture button fixation under either axial (intact vs screw: 1.0 vs 2.0 mm, P = .1; intact vs suture button: 0.6 vs 1.8 mm, P = .1) or abduction (intact vs screw: 1.5 vs 1.1 mm, P = .5; intact vs suture button: 1.3 vs 2.1 mm, P = .1) load. Conclusion: Flexible fixation use in the treatment of ligamentous Lisfranc injury was found to have significant potential as a fixation option, as demonstrated by excellent clinical results. Biomechanical evidence was inconclusive but suggested a trend toward decreased diastasis in specimens fixed with screws compared with suture buttons.

[Meta-analysis of the effect of hollow nail and bone plate on Lisfranc injury].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of screw and bone plate internal fixation in the treatment of Lisfranc injury. METHODS: The databases of Wanfang, CNKI, Pubmed, EMBASE, VIP, BIOSIS and other databases were retrieved by computer, and the clinical trial literature from January 1, 2000 to August 1, 2021 was retrieved, the methodological quality of the included studies was strictly evaluated and the data were extracted, and the obtained data were meta-analyzed by Revman 5.4 software. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trial literature and 10 retrospective cohort studies were included, of which 416 patients in the experimental group were treated with screw internal fixation, and 435 patients in the control group were treated with bone plate internal fixation. Meta-analysis showed that the surgical time of the bone plate internal fixation group was longer than that of the screw internal fixation group [MD=-14.40, 95%CI(-17.21, -11.60), P<0.000 01], the postoperative X-ray anatomical reduction of the bone plate internal fixation group [MD=0.47, 95%CI(0.25, 0.86), P=0.01], the excellent and good rate of postoperative American orthopedic foot and ankle society(AOFAS) foot function score[MD=0.25, 95%CI(0.15, 0.42), P<0.000 01], postoperative AOFAS foot function score [MD=-5.51, 95%CI(-10.10, -0.92), P=0.02] of the bone plate fixation group was better than those of the screw internal fixation group. Two kinds of operation method had no statistical different for postoperative fracture healing time[MD=1.91, 95%CI(-1.36, 5.18), P=0.25], postoperative visual analgue scale(VAS)[MD=0.38, 95%CI(0.09, 0.86), P=0.11], postoperative complications [MD=1.32, 95%CI(0.73, 2.40), P=0.36], the postoperative infection [MD=0.84, 95%CI(0.48, 1.46), P=0.53], the postoperative fracture internal fixation loosening [MD=1.25, 95% CI(0.61, 2.53), P=0.54], the postoperative incidence of traumatic arthritis [MD=1.80, 95%CI(0.83, 3.91), P=0.14]. CONCLUSION: Bone plate fixation has better short-term and medium-term results and lower reoperation rate in the treatment of Lisfranc injury, so it is recommended to use bone plate fixation in the treatment of Lisfranc injury.

Simulated Weightbearing and Articular Injury From Transarticular Screws in a Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury Model.

BACKGROUND: Transarticular screw fixation is a common surgical treatment for tarsometatarsal ligamentous (Lisfranc) injuries. Iatrogenic damage to articular cartilage from screw placement, however, has been thought to potentially lead to increased risk of tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint arthritis after initial injury. To date, no study has evaluated the effect of weightbearing on articular cartilage after screw fixation. The aim of this study was to create a Lisfranc injury and quantify and compare articular damage due to screw fixation before and after simulated weightbearing. METHODS: A ligamentous Lisfranc injury was created in 10 cadaveric specimens and treated with transarticular screws. Specimens were cycled for 1000 cycles at 250 N to simulate 2 weeks of physiologic weightbearing. Rotation and diastasis across the Lisfranc complex were measured. Articular injury as a percentage of total articular surface was measured using digital imaging of the first and second TMT joint before and after simulated weightbearing. Comparisons between articular damage were made and statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Simulated partial weightbearing increased articular injury 1.44-fold (P < .001). The second metatarsal (M2) showed the greatest increase (1.54-fold, P = .0047), whereas the first (M1) showed the least (1.35-fold, P = .0083). Increases seen at the medial (1.43-fold, P = .0387) and middle cuneiform (1.44-fold, P = .0292) were intermediate between the values seen at M2 and M1. CONCLUSION: Articular damage from transarticular screw fixation significantly increased after simulated partial weightbearing. This may increase the risk of arthritis and future morbidity when using transarticular screws for the treatment of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Iatrogenic damage to articular cartilage due to screw fixation of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries may be increased with weightbearing.

Six-Week Old Neglected Homolateral Lisfranc Injury - A Case Report.

Introduction: Lisfranc injury is relatively rare and is commonly missed at the initial presentation as these injuries are easily misdiagnosed as a foot sprain. We report a case of chronic foot pain following an injury which was later diagnosed to be a neglected 6 weeks old complex Lisfranc fracture dislocation. Case Report: A 53-year-old man presented with chronic foot pain and swelling which was diagnosed to be a neglected 6-week-old homolateral type of Lisfranc injury (type A Hard castle and Meyerson). We treated him with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws and achieved excellent functional outcome at 6-month follow-up period. Discussion: Lisfranc injuries are frequently undetected with estimates ranging from 20% to 80%. Anteroposterior, lateral, and medial oblique views of the foot should be included in the radiological workup following a thorough physical examination. Our case will aid the deficient literature and guide the young surgeons in management of such cases. Conclusion: Given the history and nature of the injury, it can be easily missed by a beginner and the clinician must keep a high index of suspicion when treating these injuries in emergency department. To prevent the many complications linked to this kind of injury, it requires a correct diagnosis and timely treatment in the form of closed/open reduction and fixation. Delayed presentation of such cases can be treated with ORIF and good functional outcome can be achieved.

Is the diagnostic validity of conventional radiography for Lisfranc injury acceptable?

BACKGROUND: Lisfranc injuries mainly involve the tarsometatarsal joint complex and are commonly misdiagnosed or missed in clinical settings. Most medical institutions prefer to use conventional radiography. However, existing studies on conventional radiographs in Lisfranc injury lack a large population-based sample, influencing the validity of the results. We aimed to determine the diagnostic validity and reliability of conventional radiography for Lisfranc injury and whether computed tomography can alter clinical decision-making. METHODS: This retrospective study included 307 patients with, and 100 patients without, Lisfranc injury from January 2017 to December 2019. Diagnosis was confirmed using computed tomography. A senior and junior surgeon independently completed two assessments of the same set of anonymised conventional radiographs at least 3 months apart. The surgeons were then asked to suggest one of two treatment options (surgery or conservative treatment) for each case based on the radiographs and subsequently on the CT images. RESULTS: All inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were moderate to very good (all κ coefficients > 0.4). The mean (range) true positive rate was 81.8% (73.9%-87.0%), true negative rate was 90.0% (85.0%-94.0%), false positive rate was 10.0% (6.0%-15.0%), false negative rate was 18.2% (13.0%-26.1%), positive predictive value was 96.1% (93.8%-97.8%), negative predictive value was 62.4% (51.5%-69.7%), classification accuracy was 83.8% (76.7%-88.2%), and balanced error rate was 14.1% (10.2%-20.5%). Three-column injuries were most likely to be recognized (mean rate, 92.1%), followed by intermediate-lateral-column injuries (mean rate, 81.5%). Medial-column injuries were relatively difficult to identify (mean rate, 60.7%). The diagnostic rate for non-displaced injuries (mean rate, 76.7%) was lower than that for displaced injuries (mean rate, 95.5%). The typical examples are given. A significant difference between the two surgeons was found in the recognition rate of non-displaced injuries (p = 0.005). The mean alteration rate was 21.9%; the senior surgeon tended to a lower rate (15.6%) than the junior one (28.3%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity, specificity, and classification accuracy of conventional radiographs for Lisfranc injury were 81.8%, 90.0%, and 83.8%, respectively. Three-column or displaced injuries were most likely to be recognized. The possibility of changing the initial treatment decision after subsequently evaluating computed tomography images was 21.9%. The diagnostic and clinical decision-making of surgeons with different experience levels demonstrated some degree of variability. Protected weight-bearing and a further CT scan should be considered if a Lisfranc injury is suspected and conventional radiography is negative.

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.

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.

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

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

Morphology of the Lisfranc Joint Complex.

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

Meta-analysis of the effect of hollow nail and bone plate on Lisfranc injury / 中国骨伤

OBJECTIVE@#To compare the clinical efficacy of screw and bone plate internal fixation in the treatment of Lisfranc injury.@*METHODS@#The databases of Wanfang, CNKI, Pubmed, EMBASE, VIP, BIOSIS and other databases were retrieved by computer, and the clinical trial literature from January 1, 2000 to August 1, 2021 was retrieved, the methodological quality of the included studies was strictly evaluated and the data were extracted, and the obtained data were meta-analyzed by Revman 5.4 software.@*RESULTS@#Nine randomized controlled trial literature and 10 retrospective cohort studies were included, of which 416 patients in the experimental group were treated with screw internal fixation, and 435 patients in the control group were treated with bone plate internal fixation. Meta-analysis showed that the surgical time of the bone plate internal fixation group was longer than that of the screw internal fixation group [MD=-14.40, 95%CI(-17.21, -11.60), P<0.000 01], the postoperative X-ray anatomical reduction of the bone plate internal fixation group [MD=0.47, 95%CI(0.25, 0.86), P=0.01], the excellent and good rate of postoperative American orthopedic foot and ankle society(AOFAS) foot function score[MD=0.25, 95%CI(0.15, 0.42), P<0.000 01], postoperative AOFAS foot function score [MD=-5.51, 95%CI(-10.10, -0.92), P=0.02] of the bone plate fixation group was better than those of the screw internal fixation group. Two kinds of operation method had no statistical different for postoperative fracture healing time[MD=1.91, 95%CI(-1.36, 5.18), P=0.25], postoperative visual analgue scale(VAS)[MD=0.38, 95%CI(0.09, 0.86), P=0.11], postoperative complications [MD=1.32, 95%CI(0.73, 2.40), P=0.36], the postoperative infection [MD=0.84, 95%CI(0.48, 1.46), P=0.53], the postoperative fracture internal fixation loosening [MD=1.25, 95% CI(0.61, 2.53), P=0.54], the postoperative incidence of traumatic arthritis [MD=1.80, 95%CI(0.83, 3.91), P=0.14].@*CONCLUSION@#Bone plate fixation has better short-term and medium-term results and lower reoperation rate in the treatment of Lisfranc injury, so it is recommended to use bone plate fixation in the treatment of Lisfranc injury.

Dorsal Dislocation of Intermediate Cuneiform With Multiple Cuneiform and Cuboid Fractures Combined With Lisfranc Injury: A Case Report.

Multiple cuneiform fractures combined with isolated intermediate cuneiform dorsal dislocation and cuboid fracture, with disruption of the Lisfranc ligament, are rare injuries. In this study, we present a polytrauma patient who sustained these injuries, his treatment course, and the follow-up period. The patient was operated on the day of the injury and six months after that the results are very satisfactory.

Pediatric Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation: A Case Report.

Lisfranc injury is extremely rare in the pediatric population and little evidence exists to guide the treatment at this age. We present a clinical case of a rare Lisfranc fracture-dislocation at pediatric age. An 11-year-old male was admitted to the emergency department, in October 2020, after a motorcycle incident. He was diagnosed with a Lisfranc fracture-dislocation of the right foot: Myerson type B2. Fourteen days after the injury, he underwent surgical treatment with open reduction and internal fixation with 3.5 mm solid fully threaded screws. At 18 months postoperative, the patient was asymptomatic, didn't present any limitations, presented an American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) midfoot score of 93%, and excellent results of the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - PCS-12 (Physical Score): 52.52277 and MCS-12 (Mental Score): 62.12820. The foot maintained a good configuration without significant malalignment, however, a screw breakage occurred before the implant removal, and a premature physeal arrest developed on the base of the first metatarsal bone. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Lisfranc injuries may be challenging in the pediatric population. Regarding the treatment, anatomical alignment is mandatory, and good or excellent outcomes have been achieved with anatomical reduction and internal fixation. We recommend early implant removal to avoid screw breakage and avoid the use of screws in the first metatarsal physis, due to the risk of premature physeal arrest.

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.