Lisfranc Injuries

Studies directly comparing Lisfranc injuries treated with primary arthrodesis or open reduction and internal fixation show no significant difference in return to sport and complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lisfranc injuries are common and can cause sport-ending morbidity. Management through primary arthrodesis (PA) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a subject of debate. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science databases were queried for studies assessing return to sport (RTS) outcomes following treatment of Lisfranc injuries with PA or ORIF. RTS rates, time to RTS, and complication rates were assessed. Maximum likelihood random-effects models were created based on comparative studies to evaluate differences in RTS and complication rates with odds ratios representing pooled estimates. Heterogeneity of return to sport outcomes was explored with sub-analysis of athlete level (non-elite vs. elite) and type of fixation. Across 23 studies, 603 Lisfranc injuries were identified; 498 underwent ORIF and 105 received PA. Return to sport ranged from 65 to 100 % in ORIF subjects and 67-100 % of PA subjects. Meta-analysis of comparative studies reveals no significant difference in likelihood of RTS or complications (p = 0.44 I2=26 %; p = 0.93 I2=0 %, respectively). RTS times range from 8 to 30 weeks for ORIF and 19.7-28.5 weeks for PA. Studies assessing RTS following ORIF and PA for Lisfranc injuries are heterogeneous, yet pooled data from comparative evidence suggests no significant difference in likelihood of RTS or complications. PA and ORIF have the potential for successful RTS though further prospective randomized studies are needed to better counsel athletes regarding the ideal surgical management for patient goals.

High rates of return to sport following suture button fixation for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes at short-term follow-up following suture button fixation for the management of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of suture button fixation in managing ligamentous Lisfranc injuries through a systematic evaluation of short-term clinical and radiological outcomes.

METHODS

During March 2024, the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were systematically reviewed to identify clinical studies examining outcomes following suture button fixation for the management of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. Data regarding patient demographics, pathological characteristics, subjective clinical outcomes, radiological outcomes, complications, and failure rates were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included. In total, 94 patients (94 feet) underwent suture button fixation for the management of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries at a weighted mean follow-up of 27.2 ± 10.2 months. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score improved from a weighted mean pre-operative score of 39.2 ± 11.8 preoperatively to a post-operative score of 82.8 ± 5.4. The weighted mean visual analogue scale score improved from a weighted mean pre-operative score of 7.7 ± 0.6 preoperatively to a post-operative score of 2.0 ± 0.4. In total, 100% of patients returned to sport at a mean time of 16.8 weeks. The complication rate was 5%, the most common complication of which was residual midfoot stiffness (3.0%). No failures nor secondary surgical procedures were recorded.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated that suture button fixation for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries produced improved clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up. In addition, there was an excellent return-to-sport rate (100%) at a weighted mean time of 16.8 weeks. This review highlights that suture button fixation is a potent surgical treatment strategy for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries; however, caution should be taken when evaluating this data in light of the lack of high quality, comparative studies, and short-term follow-up.

Acute Lisfranc injury management

Lisfranc injuries were previously described as fracture-dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joints. With advancements in modern imaging, subtle Lisfranc injuries are now more frequently recognized, revealing that their true incidence is much higher than previously thought. Injury patterns can vary widely in severity and anatomy. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to achieve good outcomes. The original classification systems were anatomy-based, and limited as tools for guiding treatment. The current review, using the best available evidence, instead introduces a stability-based classification system, with weightbearing radiographs and CT serving as key diagnostic tools. Stable injuries generally have good outcomes with nonoperative management, most reliably treated with immobilization and non-weightbearing for six weeks. Displaced or comminuted injuries require surgical intervention, with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) being the most common approach, with a consensus towards bridge plating. While ORIF generally achieves satisfactory results, its effectiveness can vary, particularly in high-energy injuries. Primary arthrodesis remains niche for the treatment of acute injuries, but may offer benefits such as lower rates of post-traumatic arthritis and hardware removal. Novel fixation techniques, including suture button fixation, aim to provide flexible stabilization, which theoretically could improve midfoot biomechanics and reduce complications. Early findings suggest promising functional outcomes, but further studies are required to validate this method compared with established techniques. Future research should focus on refining stability-based classification systems, validation of weightbearing CT, improving rehabilitation protocols, and optimizing surgical techniques for various injury patterns to ultimately enhance patient outcomes.

Effect of dorsoplantar miniscrew fixation of the second metatarsal base fracture on residual diastases in acute lisfranc fracture-dislocation

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinico-radiographic outcomes between two techniques for acute Lisfranc fracture-dislocation with a large, displaced second metatarsal base plantar fracture: isolated Lisfranc screw fixation versus Lisfranc joint fixation with dorsoplantar miniscrew fixation of the second metatarsal base.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the clinico-radiographic outcome between patients who underwent isolated Lisfranc screw fixation (Group 1, 26 patients) and those who underwent Lisfranc joint fixation with dorsoplantar miniscrew fixation of the second metatarsal base (Group 2, 23 patients). The main outcome measurements were the postoperative distance between the medial cuneiform and second metatarsal base on standing anteroposterior foot radiographs, known as the C1-M2 distance. Residual diastasis was defined as C1-M2 distance ≥ 2 mm on the affected side compared with that on the contralateral side. We also assessed the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM)-activities of daily living (ADL) and sports subscale scores at three, six and ≥ 18 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

At the final follow-up, the mean C1-M2 distance on the affected side compared with that on the contralateral side was significantly greater in Group 1 than in Group 2 (3.9 versus 0.7 mm, P = 0.027). Furthermore, Group 1 showed a higher incidence of residual diastases at the final follow-up (69.2%) than the Group 2 (13.0%, P < 0.001). The FAAM-ADL scores at the final follow-up did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.518), but the FAAM Sports score was significantly higher in Group 2 than in Group 1 (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative C1-M2 distance was better maintained with Lisfranc joint fixation with dorsoplantar miniscrew fixation of the second metatarsal base than with isolated Lisfranc screw fixation. We recommend that surgeons exercise caution when dealing with a second metatarsal plantar fracture and consider performing secure fixation using the dorsoplantar miniscrew technique for improved clinical outcomes.

Complications and Outcomes After Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries at an Urban Level 1 Trauma Center

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate patients with tarsometatarsal fractures and dislocations and describe complications and secondary operations.

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

Consecutive adults treated acutely for Lisfranc injuries with reduction and fixation using standard techniques of rigid medial fixation and flexible lateral fixation.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

Complications include infections, wound healing problems, nonunion, malunion, and posttraumatic arthrosis (PTA), and secondary unplanned procedures after a minimum of 2-year radiographic follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean age of the included 118 patients was 40 years (range, 18-73 years) and 96 (74%) were male. Comorbidities included obesity (n = 32; 40%), diabetes mellitus (n = 12; 9%), and tobacco use (n = 67; 52%). Thirty (23%) were open injuries, and concomitant forefoot injuries were present in 47% and hindfoot injuries in 12%. Unplanned secondary procedures, including implant removals, were performed on 39 patients (33%), most often for removal of painful implants (26%) or infectious debridement (9%). Sixty-seven complications occurred, with PTA most frequent (37%). Deep infections occurred in 8%. On multivariate analysis, open injury ( P = 0.028, CI = 1.22-30.63, OR = 6.12) and concomitant forefoot injury ( P = 0.03, CI = 1.12-9.76, OR = 3.31) were independent risk factors for complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Open Lisfranc injuries were associated with complications, with deep infections occurring in 9%. Secondary procedures were most often performed for pain relief; the most common late complication was PTA, warranting counseling of patients about potential long-term sequelae of injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Lisfranc injury: Prevalence and maintaining a high index of suspicion for optimal evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the long-term prevalence of game-related Lisfranc trauma in college football on artificial turf and natural grass.

METHODS

32 universities were evaluated over 10 competitive seasons across all Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences. Outcomes of interest included injury severity, injury category, primary type of injury, player and skill position, injury mechanism and situation, elective imaging and surgical procedures, and field conditions. Injury incidence rates (IIR) were calculated using injuries per 10 games = (number of injuries) number of games) × 10.

RESULTS

Of the 1577 games documented, 783 games (49.7%) were played on a 3-layer artificial turf (≥9.0 lbs/ft²) infill system versus 794 games (50.3%) played on natural grass. In sum, 78 Lisfranc cases were documented with 34 (43.6%) occurring on artificial turf, and 44 (56.4%) on natural grass. MANOVAs indicated significant main effects by injury category (F_3,74 = 6.439; P = .001), and injury mechanism (F_5,72 = 3.372; P = .009) observed between surfaces, but not by injury severity (F_2,75 = 0.720; P = .490), primary type of injury (F_4,73 = 0.772; P = .547), overall player (F_2,75 = 0.219; P = .804) and skill positions (F_8,69 = 0.850; P = .563), injury situation (F_10,67 = 1.030; P = .428), elective imaging and surgical procedures (F_3,74 = 0.515; P = .673), or field conditions (F_2,75 = 0.375; P = .688). Post hoc analyses indicated significantly greater incidences (P < .05) of Lisfranc trauma on natural grass attributed to shoe:surface interaction during noncontact play, and during no contact, foot rotation or planting. Ligament tears (n = 8; 57.1%), with minimal cases of subluxation/dislocations (n = 4; 28.6%) and fractures (n = 2; 14.3%) comprised grade 3 cases across both surfaces.

CONCLUSION

In regards to Lisfranc trauma, a 3-layer, heavyweight artificial infill surface is as safe or safer than natural grass. The findings of this study may be generalizable only to this level of football competition.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

Clinically, surgeons may frequently encounter residual diastasis between the medial cuneiform and 2nd metatarsal base after the operative treatment of acute Lisfranc fracture dislocations. The purpose of this study was to identify factors influencing postoperative residual diastasis. We specifically focused on the preoperative fracture pattern using 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiographic and clinical findings of 66 patients who underwent operative treatment for acute Lisfranc fracture dislocation were reviewed. Patients were grouped according to residual diastasis evaluated by weight-bearing anteroposterior radiograph of the foot at the final follow-up. Residual diastasis was defined as distance between the medial cuneiform and 2nd metatarsal base greater than the distance on the contralateral side by 2 mm or more. Demographic parameters and fracture patterns based on preoperative foot 3D-CT were compared. A paired t test was used to compare continuous numeric parameters, while a Chi-square test was used for the proportional parameters. Statistical significance was set at P value less than 0.05 for all analyses.

RESULTS

The mean age at operation, sex, body mass index, and the rate of underlying diabetes were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05 each). Preoperative foot 3D-CT evaluation showed that the rate of large (> 25% of 2nd tarsometatarsal joint involvement), displaced (> 2 mm) fracture fragments on the plantar side of the 2nd metatarsal base was more pronounced in the group with residual diastasis (P = 0.001), while medial wall avulsion of the 2nd metatarsal base was more frequent in the group without residual diastasis (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While treating acute Lisfranc injuries, surgeons should be aware of the presence of a 2nd metatarsal base plantar fracture. A dorsoplantar inter-fragmentary fixation can be considered if the fragment is large and displaced.

Biomechanical Comparison of Fiber Tape Device Versus Transarticular Screws for Ligamentous Lisfranc Injury in a Cadaveric Model

BACKGROUND

The preferred method of fixation and surgical treatment for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries is controversial. Transarticular screws, bridge plating, fusion, and flexible fixation have been described, yet none have demonstrated superiority. Furthermore, screw fixation and plating often require secondary surgery to remove implants, leading surgeons to seek alternative fixation methods.

PURPOSE

To compare transarticular screws and a fiber tape construct under a spectrum of biomechanical loads by evaluating the diastasis at 3 joints in the Lisfranc complex.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Eight matched pairs of fresh, previously frozen lower extremity cadaveric specimens were fixed with either 2 cannulated transarticular crossed screws or a fiber tape construct with a supplemental intercuneiform limb. The diastasis between bones was measured at 3 midfoot joints in the Lisfranc complex: the Lisfranc articulation, the second tarsometatarsal joint, and the intercuneiform joint. Measurements were obtained for the preinjured, injured, and fixation conditions under static loading at 50% donor body weight. Specimens then underwent cyclic loading performed at 1 Hz and 100 cycles, based on 100-N stepwise increases in ground-reaction force from 100 to 2000 N, to simulate postoperative loading from the partial weightbearing stage to high-energy activities. Failure of fixation was defined as diastasis ≥2 mm at the Lisfranc articulation (second metatarsal-medial cuneiform joint).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in diastasis detected at the Lisfranc articulation or the intercuneiform joint throughout all loading cycles between groups. All specimens endured loading up to 50% body weight + 1400 N. Up to and including this stage, there were 2 failures in the cannulated transarticular crossed-screw group and none in the fiber tape group.

CONCLUSION

The fiber tape construct with a supplemental intercuneiform limb, which does not require later removal, may provide comparable biomechanical stability to cannulated transarticular crossed screws, even at higher loads.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Ligamentous Lisfranc injuries are common among athletes. Therefore, biomechanical evaluations are necessary to determine stable constructs that can limit the time to return to play. This study compares the biomechanical stability of 2 methods of fixation for ligamentous injury through a wide spectrum of loading, including those experienced by athletes.

Micro-CT analysis of the Lisfranc complex reveals higher bone mineral density in dorsal compared to plantar regions

Injuries to the Lisfranc complex may require surgical fixation, the stability of which may be correlated with bone mineral density (BMD). However, there is limited research on regional BMD variations in the Lisfranc complex. This study used quantitative micro-CT to characterize regional BMD in the four bones (medial cuneiform, intermediate cuneiform, first metatarsal, and second metatarsal) of this complex. Twenty-four cadaveric specimens were imaged with a calibration phantom using micro-CT. Each bone was segmented and divided into eight regions based on an anatomical coordinate system. BMD for each octant was calculated using scan-specific calibration equations and average image intensity. Differences between regions were analyzed using ANOVA with post hoc analysis and differences between groups of four octants in each plane were analyzed with t-tests with significance level α = 0.05. The highest density region in the medial cuneiform was the distal-dorsal-lateral and dorsal regions showed significantly higher BMD than plantar regions. The intermediate cuneiform had the highest density in the distal-dorsal-medial region and the dorsal and medial regions had higher BMD than the plantar and lateral regions, respectively. The densest region of the first metatarsal was the distal-dorsal-lateral and distal regions had significantly higher BMD than proximal regions. In the second metatarsal, the distal-dorsal-medial region had the highest density, and the distal, dorsal, and medial regions had significantly higher BMD than the proximal, plantar, and lateral regions, respectively. The predominant finding was a pattern of increased density in the dorsal bone regions, which may be relevant in the surgical management of Lisfranc injuries.

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.

Lisfranc fleck sign: characteristics and clinical outcomes following fixation using a percutaneous position Lisfranc screw

BACKGROUND

Avulsion of the Lisfranc ligament, fleck sign, results in unstable Lisfranc injuries. This cross-sectional study was conducted to investigate the characteristics of Lisfranc injuries with fleck sign and the clinical and radiological outcomes following closed reduction and percutaneous screw fixation.

METHODS

All consecutive operatively managed Lisfranc injuries with fleck sign were reviewed from 2016 to 2018. The injury pattern and characteristics of Lisfranc fleck sign were reviewed based on the preoperative CT scan. Postoperative complications besides radiological and clinical outcomes were assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) pain, American orthopedic foot and ankle society (AOFAS) midfoot scale, and foot function index (FFI).

RESULTS

Thirty patients (20 males; mean age, 36.9 ± 17.0; range, 12-69 years) with mean follow-up 16.9 ± 7.4 (range, 6-31) months were enrolled. Among 12 cases with avulsed Lisfranc ligament from the second metatarsal base, only two cases had isolated second metatarsal base fracture in plantar medial part while others had concomitant avulsion fracture of plantar aspect of the adjacent third and/or fourth metatarsal base. Mean of postoperative VAS pain, AOFAS midfoot scale, and FFI were 1.03 ± 0.29, 91.43 ± 1.43, 24.43 ± 6.66, respectively. We had seven (23.3%) removal of screws, two (6.6%) broken screws, four (13.3%) pulled-out screws, and six (20%) lost reductions in the final follow-up with good clinical functions.

CONCLUSION

Closed reduction and percutaneous fixation of the Lisfranc injuries with fleck sign by a single position screw could be a good surgical option with reliable and predictable outcomes without needing to remove the hardware, routinely.

Impact of the Subtle Lisfranc Injury on Foot Structure and Function

BACKGROUND

The subtle Lisfranc injury is the disruption of the osteoligamentary complex between the first cuneiform and the second metatarsal, resulting in minor widening of this space that is often difficult to detect with plain radiographs. In this study, we assessed the results after treatment of the different stages of subtle Lisfranc injuries, focusing on their impact on foot arch anatomy and functionality at short- to midterm follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective study including patients treated in our center for a subtle Lisfranc injury between 2012 and 2019 was conducted. Demographic, epidemiologic, radiographic, and clinical data were obtained and assessed, focusing on foot arch structure and foot function, which was evaluated with the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and the Foot Function Index (FFI).

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients with a mean age of 49 ± 17.5 years were included, with an average of 4.3 years' follow-up (range, 1-8). Stage I injuries according to Nunley classification represented 19% and were treated conservatively. Stage II (66.7%) and stage III (14.3%) injuries were treated operatively, via osteosynthesis with screws (74%), K-wires (19%), or plates (7%). Flattening of foot arch after treatment was observed in 42.9% of patients, with significant increases in Costa-Bertani (12 ± 7 degrees), Hibbs (7 ± 6 degrees), and Meary (3 ± 1 degrees) angles. Other complications included complex regional pain syndrome (28.6%) and painful hardware (23.8%). Secondary joint arthrodesis was needed in 16.6% of patients. Chronic pain was present in 71.4% of patients with a mean visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at final follow-up of 4 of 10 points. Results in AOFAS midfoot score and FFI were 87.4 ± 8.3 and 15 ± 6.4, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The subtle Lisfranc injury shows dissociation between the initial relatively mild radiographic changes and important future complications. Chronic pain and foot arch flattening were not uncommon. Overall foot function in the short- or midterm was found to be modestly diminished in this somewhat heterogenous cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Rotational Ankle Fracture Dislocation With Associated Lisfranc Fracture

While ankle fractures most often result from a rotational injury, Lisfranc injuries are more commonly associated with an axial load on a plantarflexed foot. Due to differing mechanisms of injury, rotational ankle fractures with Lisfranc injuries are uncommon and rarely discussed in the literature. Here we present a case of a rotational ankle fracture-dislocation with a concomitant Lisfranc injury. The Lisfranc injury, which was ultimately treated nonoperatively, was discovered seven weeks after operative fixation of the ankle fracture. At the last follow-up nine months after the initial injury, the patient had mild midfoot soreness with activity but no evidence of deformity or arch collapse. Although no deformity was observed in our patient, missed Lisfranc injuries may result in significant functional deficits indicating the importance of recognizing the possibility of a dual injury.

Treatment of Lisfranc Injuries Using Interosseous Suture Button: A Retrospective Review of 84 Cases With a Minimum 3-Year Follow-Up

Lisfranc fracture dislocation is an injury often encountered by the foot and ankle surgeon. This injury, depending on the severity and level of energy, has been shown to lead to posttraumatic osteoarthritis and chronic pain if undiagnosed or improperly managed. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the surgical repair with the use of an interosseous suture button for Lisfranc injuries with isolated ligamentous disruption. From 2008 through 2016, 104 patients were consecutively enrolled who underwent open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of the Lisfranc complex with a suture button and stabilization of the medial and intermediate cuneiform with a 4.0-mm screw. Eighty-four patients were available for a 3-year minimum follow-up. The mean return to full weightbearing was 11 days protected in a controlled ankle motion (CAM) boot. American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores improved from 30 and 8.4, respectfully, preoperatively to 90 and 1.3 postoperatively. The mean preoperative step-off between the second metatarsal base and intermediate cuneiform was found to be 3.15 mm. The immediate postreduction weightbearing radiograph measured 0.25 mm and 0.43 mm at the final follow-up evaluation, a difference that was found to be significant. There were no revision arthrodeses performed and no removal of the suture button during this time period. ORIF using an interosseous suture button appears to have an adequate medium-term patient satisfaction; however, there is evidence of minimal diastasis in some patients at 3 years postoperatively in ligamentous Lisfranc fracture dislocations.

Case Study: The Conservative Management of a Complex Mid Foot Injury in an Elite Professional Footballer

Lisfranc injuries, often accompanied with tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) disruption, are not well documented in football despite becoming increasingly more prevalent within other athletic populations. Currently there is a paucity of evidence documenting prognosis, rehabilitation strategy and outcome. The presented case summarizes the conservative rehabilitation and return to play of a 26-year-old elite professional footballer who presented with a Lisfranc injury alongside a 3^rd TMTJ coalition stress response. Injury was sustained when landing awkwardly from a jump causing the midfoot to be forced into a hyper-plantarflexed position. Palpation identified tenderness over the 2^nd and 3^rd MT, with a positive piano key test. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), stork view x-ray and review from a leading foot and ankle specialist confirmed diagnosis, post-contradictory MRI results. Presented is a summary of the assessment process, conservative management of the injury and the resultant rehabilitation process followed, which led to the successful return to play of the athlete.

Sports-Related Lisfranc Injuries and Recognition of Lisfranc Variants: Surgical Strategies for Stabilization

Much has changed since Lisfranc described lesions at the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint in 1815. What was considered an osseous high-energy condition nowadays is understood as myriad possible presentations, occurring in minor and inconspicuous traumas. Advancements in diagnostics of Lisfranc injury allow recognizing many variants of this trauma presentation, most of them with a focus on ligaments. This perception shifted trends in surgical planning, especially for implants and fixation techniques. These revolutions established a new and evolving universe around TMT lesions, different from what was known only a few years ago and still not enough to completely settle the disease scenario.

Imaging Techniques for Assessment of Dynamically Unstable Sports Related Foot and Ankle Injuries

Foot and ankle instability can be seen both in acute and chronic settings, and isolating the diagnosis can be difficult. Imaging can contribute to the clinical presentation not only by identifying abnormal morphology of various supporting soft tissue structures but also by providing referring clinicians with a sense of how functionally incompetent those structures are by utilizing weight-bearing images and with comparison to the contralateral side. Loading the affected joint and visualizing changes in alignment provide clinicians with information regarding the severity of the abnormality and, therefore, how it should be managed.

Anatomy and biomechanics of the Lisfranc ligamentous complex: A systematic literature review

Lisfranc injuries are challenging to treat and can have a detrimental effect on active individuals. Over the past decade researchers have investigated methods for the reconstruction of the Lisfranc ligamentous complex (LLC) to preserve its functional stability and mobility. To aid in this innovation, this study presents the current understanding of the anatomical and biomechanical characteristics of the LLC through a systematic review. Three medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) were searched from inception through July 2019. Original studies investigating the anatomy and/or biomechanical properties of the LLC were considered for inclusion. Data recorded from each study included: number of cadavers, number of feet, gender, laterality, age, type of specimen, measurement methods, reported ligamentous bundles, ligament origins and insertions, geometric characteristics, and biomechanical properties of the LLC. The Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale was used to assess the methodologic quality of included articles. Eight cadaveric studies investigating the LLC were included out of 1204 screened articles. Most articles described the LLC as three distinct structures: the dorsal- (DLL), interosseous- (ILL), and plantar- (PLL) Lisfranc Ligaments. The ILL had the largest thickness and insertional area of osseous attachment. Biomechanically, the ILL also had the highest stiffness and resistance to load prior to failure when loaded parallel to its fiber orientation. Current knowledge of the anatomical and biomechanical properties of the LLC are presented and highlight its significant role of stabilizing the tarsometatarsal articulation. Appreciating the biomechanical characteristics of the ILL may improve clinical insight in managing LLC injuries.

Subtle Lisfranc Injuries: Fix It, Fuse It, or Bridge It?

The management of Lisfranc injuries is challenging considering the broad spectrum of energy involved and highly variable clinical presentation. Despite the advances in surgical techniques, subtle Lisfranc injuries can lead to chronic pain and permanent disability. Surgical treatment is mandatory for all the unstable injuries; however, the best surgical technique remains controversial. The most predictive factor for a successful outcome is the maintenance of anatomic alignment; therefore, the selection of the appropriate surgical technique is of paramount importance. This article reviews the current treatment options and describes the selection of the surgical technique based on the different clinical presentations.

Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries: When to Fix and When to Fuse

Lisfranc injuries can be devastating to the athlete and nonathlete. In the athletic population, minor loss of midfoot stability compromises the high level of function demanded of the lower extremity. The most critical aspect of treatment is identifying the injury and severity of the ligamentous/articular damage. Not all athletes are able to return to their previous level of function. With appropriate treatment, a Lisfranc injury does not mandate the cessation of an athletic career. We focus on the diagnosis and an algorithmic approach to treatment in the athlete discussion the controversy of open reduction and internal fixation versus arthrodesis.

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

BACKGROUND

In Lisfranc injuries the stability of the tarsometatarsal joints guides the treatment of the injury. Determining the stability, especially in the subtle Lisfranc injuries, can be challenging. The purpose of this study was to identify incidence, mechanisms of injury and predictors for instability in Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Eighty-four Lisfranc injuries presenting at Oslo University Hospital between September 2014 and August 2015 were included. The diagnosis was based on radiologically verified injuries to the tarsometatarsal joints. Associations between radiographic findings and stability were examined.

RESULTS

The incidence of Lisfranc injuries was 14/100,000 person-years, and only 31% were high-energy injuries. The incidence of unstable injuries was 6/100,000 person-years, and these were more common in women than men (P = 0.016). Intraarticular fractures in the two lateral tarsometatarsal joints increased the risk of instability (P = 0.007). The height of the second tarsometatarsal joint was less in the unstable injuries than in the stable injuries (P = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of Lisfranc injuries in the present study is higher than previously published. The most common mechanism of injury is low-energy trauma. Intraarticular fractures in the two lateral tarsometatarsal joints, female gender and shorter second tarsometatarsal joint height increase the risk of an unstable injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, cross-sectional study.

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

Objective

Multiple studies have compared primary arthrodesis versus open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) for surgical treatment of fractures of the Lisfranc joint, but their results have been inconsistent. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical efficacy of arthrodesis versus ORIF for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries.

Methods

Through searching the Embase, PubMed, PMC, CINAHL, PQDT, and Cochrane Library databases (from July 1998 to July 2018), we identified five case-controlled trials and two randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical efficacy of primary arthrodesis and ORIF for treating Lisfranc injuries. The extracted data were analyzed using Review manager 5.3 software.

Results

Through comparisons of data for primary arthrodesis and ORIF groups, we found no significant differences in the anatomic reduction rate, revision surgery rate, and total rate of complications between the different treatment approaches. However, arthrodesis was associated with a significantly better American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, return to duty rate, and visual analog scale score with a lower incidence of hardware removal compared with ORIF.

Conclusions

For the treatment for Lisfranc injuries, primary arthrodesis was superior to ORIF based on a higher AOFAS score, better return to duty rate, lower postoperative pain, and lower requirement for internal fixation removal. Further evidence from future randomized controlled trials with higher quality and larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.

Outcomes of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Joint-Preserving Fixation

BACKGROUND

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with transarticular screws to stabilize Lisfranc injuries may increase the risk of arthritis or affect outcomes. Joint-preserving fixation using staples, bridge plating, or Lisfranc screws avoids iatrogenic articular damage. This study analyzes functional outcomes and complications in Lisfranc-injury patients who underwent joint-preserving fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients treated for Lisfranc injury at a Level 1 trauma center from July 2008 to October 2015. Patients over 18 years of age, with no concomitant procedures in the lower extremities, were included. Functional outcomes were evaluated through American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients met the inclusion criteria. The average followup time was 57 months (range 22-102 months). AOFAS scores averaged 80.4 (standard deviation [SD] 16) at the time of the latest followup, with time to return to regular activities averaging 34 weeks (SD 25 weeks). Five patients had their hardware removed, and two required subsequent fusion during the followup period. The single complication involved a screw backing out, with subsequent removal.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case series, joint-preserving fixation for Lisfranc injuries offered similar AOFAS scores as those reported for ORIF with transarticular screws but with a decreased rate of hardware removal and need for midfoot fusion.

Surgical outcome of chronic Lisfranc injury without secondary degenerative arthritis: A systematic literature review✰

BACKGROUND

Chronic Lisfranc joint injuries (tarsometatarsal, TMT) can present as a variety of clinical symptoms and radiographic findings. If significant arthritis at the Lisfranc joint is present, salvage arthrodesis is an option. For patients who receive a delayed diagnosis and/or present with no signs of arthritic changes, selecting the most appropriate treatment can be challenging. This article provides a systematic review of current surgical treatment options and outcomes for patients with a chronic Lisfranc injury but no secondary degenerative changes.

METHODS

Four major medical databases were searched from inception through March 5, 2019: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase. Studies were included if they were original research studies that assessed the outcome of patients treated surgically for chronic Lisfranc injuries without secondary osteoarthritic changes. Only studies written in English and German were considered. The following data were recorded from each study: number of patients and feet included, study design (prospective vs. retrospective, single vs. multicenter, level of evidence), time between initial injury and operation, operative techniques, age, mechanism of injury, type of injury (purely ligamentous or ligamentous with concomitant bony fractures), indications for surgery, pre-operative assessment, postoperative follow-up time, time to return to activity or sport, and clinical outcome. The modified Coleman Score was used to assess the methodologic quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 6,845 screened, ten studies met the above criteria and were included. All but one were single center studies. All studies were either retrospective or prospective case series. Overall, studies generally reported low complication rates and good functional outcomes. Postoperative outcomes were most frequently measured with the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle (AOFAS) score; the overall mean preoperative AOFAS scores of 55.7 significantly improved to 88.1 at final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

No definitive consensus exists on how Lisfranc instability without concurrent osteoarthritis should be surgically managed. Despite the delay in diagnosis, patients who undergo surgical repair for chronic, unstable Lisfranc injury without osteoarthritis have improved patient outcome and few post-surgical complications. While the quality of these studies is satisfactory, a larger patient cohort and prospective analysis could further strengthen arguments for or against certain surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Systematic Review of Level IV Studies.

Biomechanical Evaluation With a Novel Cadaveric Model Using Supination and Pronation Testing of a Lisfranc Ligament Injury

Background:

Lisfranc joint injuries can be due to direct or indirect trauma and while the precise mechanisms are unknown, twisting or axial force through the foot is a suspected contributor. Cadaveric models are a useful way to evaluate injury patterns and models of fixation, but a frequent limitation is the amount of joint displacement after injury. The purpose of this study was to test a cadaveric model that includes axial load, foot plantarflexion and pronation-supination motion, which could re-create bone diastasis similar to what is seen in subtle Lisfranc injuries. Our hypothesis was that applying pronation and supination motion to a cadaveric model would produce reliable and measurable bone displacements.

Methods:

Twenty-four fresh-frozen lower leg cadaveric specimens were used. The medial (C1) and intermediate (C2) cuneiforms and the first (M1) and second (M2) metatarsal bones were marked. A complete ligament injury was performed between C1-C2 and C1-M2 in 12 specimens (group 1), and between C1-C2, C1-M2, C1-M1, and C2-M2 in 12 matched specimens (group 2). Foot pronation and supination in addition to an axial load of 400 N was applied to the specimens. A 3D digitizer was used to measure bone distances.

Results:

After ligament injury, distances changed as follows: C1-C2 increased 3 mm (23%) with supination; C1-M2 increased 4 mm (21%) with pronation (no differences between groups). As expected, distances between C1-M1 and C2-M2 only changed in group 2, increasing 3 mm (14%) and 2 mm (16%), respectively (no differences between pronation and supination). M1-M2 and C2-M1 distances did not reach significant difference for any condition.

Conclusions:

Pronation or supination in addition to axial load produced measurable bone displacements in a cadaveric model of Lisfranc injury using sectioned ligaments. Distances M1-M2 and C2-M1 were not reliable to detect injury in this model.

Clinical Relevance:

This new cadaveric Lisfranc model included foot pronation-supination in addition to axial load delivering measurable bone diastasis. It was a reliable Lisfranc cadaveric model that could be used to test different Lisfranc reconstructions.

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.

[Effectiveness of open reduction and internal fixation for acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries]

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treatment of acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries.

Methods

A retrospective review of 26 patients with occult Lisfranc injuries who were treated with ORIF between July 2010 and July 2015 was applied. Fourteen patients were treated within 6 weeks after injury (acute group) and 12 patients were treated after 6 weeks of injury (delayed group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, affected sides, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and physical and mental scores of Study Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12) ( P<0.05). The joint reduction, internal fixator, and traumatic osteoarthritis were observed by X-ray films. The pain degree, midfoot function, and quality of life were evaluated with VAS score, AOFAS score, and physical and mental scores of SF-12.

Results

All incisions healed by first intention with no complications. All patients were followed up with the mean follow-up time of 15 months (range, 12-24 months) in acute group and 15 months (range, 12-23 months) in delayed group. At last follow-up, the VAS score, AOFAS score, and physical and mental scores of SF-12 were superior to those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05). And there was no significant difference in all indicators between the two groups ( P>0.05). The satisfaction rates were 100% and 83.3% (10/12) in acute group and delayed group, respectively. The internal fixators were removed in 20 patients (11 cases in acute group and 9 cases in delayed group) at 9-24 months after operation (mean, 14.5 months). The results of X-ray films showed no traumatic osteoarthritis, midfoot collapse, internal fixation failure, or reduction loss during follow-up period.

Conclusion

ORIF is an ideal method for both acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries and can obtain the similar effectiveness.

Management of Midfoot Fractures and Dislocations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To outline the classic and recent literature of midfoot fractures and dislocations.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been an evolution of implant technology to include mini-fragment fixation, suture fixation, and staples. Their efficacy is still being elucidated in the literature. Also, there has been a recent push for primary fusion, which we will discuss. Open reduction internal fixation of the midfoot remains to be the gold standard treatment, to which all other treatments are compared. It remains to be seen if adjunct fixation techniques are efficacious enough to provide a good result. Further study is needed to determine which patients are likely to progress to debilitating arthrosis and require fusion.

Reoperation Rate Differences Between Open Reduction Internal Fixation and Primary Arthrodesis of Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists as to whether Lisfranc injuries are best treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) versus primary arthrodesis (PA). Reoperation rates certainly influence this debate, but prior studies are often confounded by inclusion of hardware removal as a complication rather than as a planned, staged procedure inherent to ORIF. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether reoperation rates, excluding planned hardware removal, differ between ORIF and PA. A secondary aim was to evaluate patient risk factors associated with reoperation after operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Between July 1991 and July 2016, adult patients who sustained closed, isolated Lisfranc injuries with or without fractures and who underwent ORIF or PA with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were analyzed. Reoperation rates for reasons other than planned hardware removal were examined, as were patient risk factors predictive of reoperation. Two hundred seventeen patients met enrollment criteria (mean follow-up, 62.5 ± 43.1 months; range, 12-184), of which 163 (75.1%) underwent ORIF and 54 (24.9%) underwent PA.

RESULTS

Overall and including planned procedures, patients treated with ORIF had a significantly higher rate of return to the operation room (75.5%) as compared to those in the PA group (31.5%, P < .001). When excluding planned hardware removal, however, there was no difference in reoperation rates between the 2 groups (29.5% in the ORIF group and 29.6% in the PA group, P = 1). Risk factors correlating with unplanned return to the operation room included deep infection ( P = .009-.001), delayed wound healing ( P = .008), and high-energy trauma ( P = .01).

CONCLUSION

When excluding planned removal of hardware, patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with ORIF did not demonstrate a higher rate of reoperation compared with those undergoing PA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative 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.

Primary Arthrodesis versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries in a Young Athletic Population

BACKGROUND

There are 2 Level I studies comparing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis (PA) in high-energy Lisfranc injuries. There are no studies comparing ORIF and PA in young athletic patients with low-energy injuries.

METHODS

All operatively managed low-energy Lisfranc injuries sustained by active duty military personnel at a single institution were identified from 2010 to 2015. The injury pattern, method of treatment, and complications were reviewed. Implant removal rates, fitness test scores, return to military duty rates, and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) scores were compared. Thirty-two patients were identified with the average age of 28 years. PA was performed in 14 patients with ORIF in 18.

RESULTS

The PA group returned to full duty at an average of 4.5 months whereas the ORIF group returned at an average of 6.7 months ( P = .0066). The PA group ran their fitness test an average of 9 seconds per mile slower than their preoperative average whereas the ORIF group ran it an average of 39 seconds slower per mile ( P = .032). There were no differences between the 2 groups in the FAAM scores at an average of 35 months. Implant removal was performed in 15 (83%) in the ORIF group and 2 (14%) in the PA group ( P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-energy Lisfranc injuries treated with primary arthrodesis had a lower implant removal rate, an earlier return to full military activity, and better fitness test scores after 1 year, but there was no difference in FAAM scores after 3 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, comparative cohort study.

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.

Severe open Lisfranc injuries: one-stage operation through internal fixation associated with vacuum sealing drainage

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the clinical feasibility of treating severe open Lisfranc injuries by means of one-stage internal fixation with k-wires associated with vacuum sealing drainage (VSD).

METHODS

The clinical outcomes of 20 cases of severe open Lisfranc joint fracture-dislocation treated by using one-stage internal fixation with k-wires associated with VSD, after debridement and suturing during emergency treatment, were reviewed.

RESULTS

At 6 and 12 months after surgery, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society midfoot scores were 69.2 and 78.2, the positive rates were 75 and 85 %, and the average visual analogue scale scores were 4.3 and 1.3, respectively. The average time of internal fixation surgery was 47 min (30-70 min). There were three cases of wound-edge necrosis; however, there were no cases of skin necrosis around the incision, or deep infection. The mean time of first hospital stay was 16.1 days (10-23 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of severe open Lisfranc fracture and dislocation through one-stage internal fixation with k-wires in association with VSD led to fast anatomical reduction, stabilized bony structure, fast soft tissue recovery, and good short-term follow-up results.

Categorization and surgical management of posttraumatic midfoot malunion

Objective

To assess a classification system for midfoot injury that was based on the characteristics of the foot malunion and to evaluate the suggested treatment strategies.

Methods

This retrospective review of data from patients with posttraumatic midfoot malunion categorized each foot deformity into one of three types based on the foot arch and then separated these categories into one of three subtypes based on the forefoot deformity. According to the types of malunion, fascio-cutaneous flap, osteotomy, joint arthrodesis or realignment was used to correct the deformity. Patients were assessed before surgery and at 12 and 24 months postoperation.

Results

Of the 24 patients identified, six had Lisfranc joint injuries, nine had Lisfranc joint complex injuries combined with cuboid compression fractures and nine had Lisfranc joint complex injuries combined with navicular fractures. Overall, eight patients presented with poor soft tissue and massive scar at the dorsal foot. Visual analogue scale and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society midfoot scores significantly improved over the 24-month study period. At the end of the study, 21 of 24 patients (87.5%) rated their functional outcome as excellent or good.

Conclusion

The classification of the midfoot malunion evaluated in this study may be helpful in the decision making process for surgical intervention.