The Role of Percutaneous Reduction and Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries

Results of Lisfranc Injuries Treated With Interosseous Suture Button Fixation With a Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Open reduction and internal fixation or primary arthrodesis are considered gold standards for treating Lisfranc injuries. However, several drawbacks are associated with these procedures, such as joint motion loss and potential cartilage damage. More recently, the suture button emerged as an alternative treatment for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries, which can be used either alone or in combination with traditional techniques, with the potential to mitigate some of these potential disadvantages. The primary outcome of the present study was to evaluate the functional outcomes of 20 patients treated with the suture button technique for Lisfranc injuries over a medium- to long-term follow-up period. The secondary outcome was to assess and describe the complications associated with this procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 20 patients who underwent operation for acute Lisfranc injuries using the interosseous suture button technique between 2013 and 2019. The mean follow-up was 83 months (range 60-126). Clinical evaluation involved the assessment of complications, reoperations, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scores, patient satisfaction, and ability to return to previous activities. Radiographic analysis was performed aiming to evaluate reduction maintenance and osteoarthritis development.

RESULTS

Patients demonstrated excellent outcomes with an average VAS of 0.50 and a mean AOFAS midfoot score of 95.5. Incomplete reduction was the only factor we identified influencing lower VAS and AOFAS scores. Most complications were minor and solved with conservative treatment. More serious complications, such as loss of reduction and posttraumatic arthritis were observed in 2 patients each.

CONCLUSION

In this small series with a relatively long follow-up, we found that the use of an interosseous suture button technique was a reliable method to treat acute Lisfranc injuries, resulting in satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes. However, outcomes including posttraumatic arthritis and loss of reduction raise remain of concern.

Defining Operative Indications in Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to determine operative indications for Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review using a MEDLINE literature search was performed using the index "Lisfranc Injury" from 1980 onward using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines where applicable. Inclusion criteria were all clinical studies reporting on the management of Lisfranc injuries obtained via the search index, including case reports, review articles, cohort studies, and randomized trials. Non-English-language articles, inaccessible articles, those not relevant to the management of Lisfranc injuries (biomechanical, cadaveric, and technique articles), and those that did not explicitly state operative indications (vague or absent indications) were excluded.

RESULTS

After identifying 737 studies, the full text of 391 studies was reviewed, and 58 reports providing explicit operative indications were included in the final analysis. Fifty-one (81.1%) studies provided diastasis cutoffs varying ≥2 mm (35/58; 60.4%), ≥1 mm (13; 22.4%), and ≥3 mm (3; 5.2%); the diastasis location was most commonly unspecified (31/58; 53.5%) or varied between combinations of metatarsal, tarsal, cuboid, and cuneiform bones (20/58; 27.6%). Specific imaging criteria for surgery included an avulsion fracture or fleck sign (3/58; 5.2%), arch height loss (3/58; 5.2%), and a tear on magnetic resonance imaging (5; 8.6%). The 11 (19%) studies defining operative indications in terms of classification schemes used the Nunley and Vertullo (8/58; 13.8%), Myerson (2; 3.5%), and Buehren (1; 1.7%) systems. Twenty-one (36.2%) studies provided multiple operative indications.

CONCLUSION

The most common Lisfranc operative indications among the limited reporting studies varied from a 1- to 3-mm diastasis across several locations. It is imperative for operative indications to be reported with an increased frequency and in a homogenous fashion to guide the clinical management of these subtle injuries.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; systematic Review.

Serious injuries of Lisfranc joint: A retrospective multicenter study of 141 patients

INTRODUCTION

Lisfranc joint injuries are common and often underdiagnosed. They occur during trauma of various mechanisms, high or low energy. Their management is difficult because of the wide spectrum of lesions and the management of associated lesions, particularly in the emergency stage. Their surgical treatment remains controversial. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the management of Lisfranc injuries and to study their clinical, functional and radiologic evolution. We also wanted to assess the consequences of these lesions on the patient's quality of life.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study of 141 patients over 16 years at the time of the trauma. The patients included had presented a Lisfranc injury from January 2010 to June 2018. The epidemiological characteristics, the type of osteosynthesis, and the immediate and radiographic results at the last follow-up were collected. Functional assessment was analyzed by telephone review using the SF12, FAAM and AOFAS scores.

RESULTS

An associated M2 base fracture was found in almost 50 % of cases. A closed reduction and fixation was made in 25 % of cases. There was 69 % pins fixation. The reduction was not anatomical in 1/3 of the cases and was more difficult to achieve with an associated fracture. The FAAM score was statistically superior in the patients with internal fixation by screws compared to the treatment by pins. We found 18 % early complications. At least 1 year after the injury, C2M2 osteoarthritis was found in 45 % of patients.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to what is recommended in the literature, this study reported a high rate of osteosynthesis by pins whereas screws and plates were more recommended. Open reduction was also recommended and was the strategy of choice in this study. An M2 fracture was often associated with Lisfranc dislocations. The quality of reduction was essential and was better with open reduction and screw fixation.

Management of Lisfranc Injuries: A Critical Analysis Review

»

There is a spectrum of midtarsal injuries, ranging from mild midfoot sprains to complex Lisfranc fracture-dislocations.

»

Use of appropriate imaging can reduce patient morbidity, by reducing the number of missed diagnoses and, conversely, avoiding overtreatment. Weight-bearing radiographs are of great value when investigating the so-called subtle Lisfranc injury.

»

Regardless of the operative strategy, anatomical reduction and stable fixation is a prerequisite for a satisfactory outcome in the management of displaced injuries.

»

Fixation device removal is less frequently reported after primary arthrodesis compared with open reduction and internal fixation based on 6 published meta-analyses. However, the indications for further surgery are often unclear, and the evidence of the included studies is of typically low quality. Further high-quality prospective randomized trials with robust cost-effectiveness analyses are required in this area.

»

We have proposed an investigation and treatment algorithm based on the current literature and clinical experience of our trauma center.

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.

Percutaneous Reduction and 2.7-mm Cortical Screw Fixation for Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

To use the advantages of transarticular screw fixation while minimizing iatrogenic involved joint damage and screw irritation, it is important to determine the screw size. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation for low-energy Lisfranc injuries and determine whether the procedure is a safe alternative to traditional screw fixation using a larger screw size. A review was performed for all patients who underwent percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation for low-energy Lisfranc injuries at a single institution over a 6-year period. Thirty-one patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were assessed clinically and radiographically for demographics, foot function index (FFI), numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, patient satisfaction, and complication rates. Factors affecting screw breakage and its clinical relevance were also analyzed. The FFI and NRS for pain were 17.2 ± 14.7 (range 0.8 to 57.8) and 3.1 ± 2.3 (range 0 to 8) points, respectively, at the 12-month follow-up visit. One patient (3.2%) underwent arthrodesis for the development of posttraumatic arthritis; all other patients recovered without sequelae. Screw breakage was identified in 7 patients (22.6%). There was no significant difference between patients with and without screw breakage in terms of FFI, NRS for pain, patient satisfaction, or complication rate. Body mass index (BMI) was significantly higher in patients with screw breakage than in those without screw breakage. Receiver operator characteristics curve analysis demonstrated a strong relationship between BMI and screw breakage (area under the curve = 90%, p < .001), and the potential BMI cutoff value was 27.8 kg/m². After considering the incidence of screw breakage, percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation can be a viable option for treating low-energy Lisfranc injuries in nonobese patients, especially those with BMI <27.8 kg/m².

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.

Lisfranc Fixation Techniques and Postoperative Functional Outcomes: A Systematic Review

The optimal method of fixation of acute Lisfranc injuries is yet to be established. We aim to systematically review the literature to identify the impact of fixation method on postoperative functional outcomes. A systematic review was undertaken using the PRISMA framework to identify all studies reporting postoperative functional outcomes in patients who underwent open-reduction internal fixation of acute Lisfranc injuries. Studies reporting outcomes of numerous fixation methods were divided into fixation subcohorts. Studies comparing bridge plate with transarticular screw fixation were included for meta-analysis, conducted using a random-effects model. Seventeen studies (20 subcohorts) with 462 patients were included. Mean patient age was 29.6 (rang, 15-81) years. Mean follow-up was 38.7 (range 11 to 287) months. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons midfoot score (AOFAS-MF) was the most frequently reported functional outcome (16/20 subcohorts). Overall weighted mean AOFAS-MF was 76.3 ± 9.4 for all cases, with 74.2 ± 9.4 for transarticular screws and 79.2 ± 8.3 for bridge plates. The mean difference between screw and plate was not statistically significant (mean difference = 5.0, 95% confidence interval, -4.8 - 14.8, p = .3). A single study reported AOFAS-MF mean of 92 using suture button fixation. Meta-analysis of the 2 available comparative studies revealed higher postoperative AOFAS-MF with bridge plate fixation (pooled standardized mean difference, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.87, p = .006). There is scarcity of literature examining the impact of fixation method on postoperative functional outcomes in acute Lisfranc injuries. A small number of studies have reported superior functional outcomes with use of bridge plate fixation. Further evidence is needed to ascertain which injuries are best managed with each fixation method or whether 1 fixation construct is universally superior.

Study of the functional results of the percutaneous surgical treatment of subtle injuries of the tarso-metatarsian complex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The concept subtle Lisfranc defines low energy lesions of the tarsometatarsal joint complex (TMC) that involve joint instability. Often unnoticed, with long-term sequelae. The objective is to evaluate the clinical-functional results of patients with MTC ligament damage grade II-III (Nunley and Vertullo classification) treated with percutaneous surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 16 patients who underwent percutaneous surgery for MLC ligament damage. Demographic data, days of delay in diagnosis, surgical technique, joint reduction in load (adequate if C1-M2 space is less than 2 mm) and Manchester-Oxford scale (MOXFQ) score were collected. The sample consisted of nine males and seven females, mean age 43.6 years (17-71) and mean follow-up of 22 months (12-28).

RESULTS

Diagnosis was delayed for more than 24 hours in four patients (3-6 days). In 11 patients the treatment consisted of closed reduction and percutaneous synthesis with cannulated screws from M2 to C1 and from C1 to C2. In three patients it was supplemented with Kirschner wires in the lateral radii. Two patients were treated with only M2 to C1 screws. An anatomical reduction was not achieved in six patients, with a mean of 2.6 mm between C1-M2 (2.1-3 mm); the mean functional MOXFQ score of these patients was 41.1% (IC 95% 23.1-59.1%), worse results compared to the anatomical reduction: 17.2% (IC 95% 5.7-28.7); statistically significant difference (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Subtle injuries from MTC are rare and can go unnoticed. Surgical treatment with percutaneous synthesis offers good clinical-functional results in the medium term. The anatomical reduction is a determining factor for the good functional result of our patients.

Rates of Displacement and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Conservative Treatment of Minimally Displaced Lisfranc Injury

BACKGROUND

While surgery is indicated in Lisfranc fracture-dislocations, the natural history and optimal management of minimally displaced injures are unclear. The aim of this study was to define the rate of subsequent displacement and to determine the clinical outcome after conservative treatment of minimally displaced Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Over a 5-year period (2011-2016), 26 consecutive patients with minimally displaced Lisfranc injuries presenting to a single university teaching hospital were identified retrospectively using hospital electronic records. Patient demographics, injury mechanism, and radiological outcomes were recorded. Patient-reported outcome scores (PROMS) were collated at least 1 year postinjury and included the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ).

RESULTS

The rate of displacement was 54% (14/26). The median time to displacement was 18 days (range, 2-141 days). Forty-six percent (12/26) of the Lisfranc injuries remained minimally displaced after 12 weeks of conservative treatment. Initial weightbearing status was not associated with the risk of subsequent displacement (P = .9). At a mean follow-up of 54 months, PROMS were comparable between patients whose injury remained minimally displaced and those that required surgery for further displacement, despite the delay to surgery (AOFAS 78.0 vs 75.9, MOXFQ 24.8 vs 26.3, P > .1).

CONCLUSION

There was a high rate of displacement after initial conservative management of the minimally displaced Lisfranc injuries. Subsequent surgical management of displaced injuries resulted in outcomes comparable to those that remained minimally displaced.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative series.

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

BACKGROUND

The aims of this retrospective study were to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of primary arthrodesis and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 39 patients treated for a complete Lisfranc fracture dislocation, defined as Myerson types A and C2, over a period of 8 years at a level 1 trauma centre was performed. Of these, 18 underwent primary arthrodesis, and 21 ORIF. The primary outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score, the validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire functional tool, and the secondary outcome was the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical reduction.

RESULTS

Significantly better functional outcomes were seen in the primary arthrodesis group. These patients had a mean Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire score of 30.1 points, compared with 45.1 for the ORIF group (P = 0.017). Similarly, the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score was 71.8 points in the fusion group versus 62.5 in the ORIF group (P = 0.14). Functional outcome was dependent on the quality of final reduction (P < 0.001). Primary arthrodesis achieved good initial reduction in 83% cases compared to 62% with ORIF (P = 0.138). There was a loss of reduction quality of 47% in the ORIF group over time.

CONCLUSION

Primary arthrodesis for complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations resulted in improved functional outcomes and quality of reduction compared to open reduction and internal fixation.

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

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to present the outcome of Lisfranc joint injuries treated with closed reduction and screw percutaneous fixation.

METHODS

We searched in Pubmed and Google Scholar Databases for articles regarding screw percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc injuries. Seven studies in total were found to be compatible to our search, according to PRISMA guidelines. Four of those met the criteria of the review and they were included in the meta-analysis. A total number of 106 patients were separated into five groups according to the type of injury and the mean AOFAS score of each group was calculated. Cases in which percutaneous fixation was converted to open treatment due to poor reduction were not included in the study. In addition we compared the outcome score between types of injury according to Myerson classification as well as between purely ligamentous and osseoligamentous injuries. The characteristics of all seven selected studies, such as kind of screw used for fixation, post operative protocol, complications and outcome are mentioned as well.

RESULTS

Average AOFAS score was 86,2 for type A, 87,54 for type B, and 85 for type C injuries respectively. In pure dislocation group the average AOFAS score was 86,43 and in fracture dislocation group was 87,36. Good to excellent outcome can be expected in patients with different types of injury according to Myerson classification following percutaneous fixation of lisfranc joint injury. Patients with type B injury or a fracture dislocation injury might have better outcome, although this difference was not found to be statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous fixation of tarsometatarsal joint injuries is a relatively simple and safe method of treatment, leading to a good functional outcome, especially for Myerson type B as well as for fracture dislocation type of injuries, provided that an anatomical reduction has been achieved.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Therapeutic Study.

Return to 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.

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.

Dorsal bridge plating or transarticular screws for Lisfranc fracture dislocations: a retrospective study comparing functional and radiological outcomes

Aims

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of bridge plating, screw fixation, and a combination of both methods for the treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocations.

Patients and Methods

A total of 108 patients were treated for a Lisfranc fracture dislocation over a period of nine years. Of these, 38 underwent transarticular screw fixation, 45 dorsal bridge plating, and 25 a combination technique. Injuries were assessed preoperatively according to the Myerson classification system. The outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, the validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) functional tool, and the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical reduction.

Results

Significantly better functional outcomes were seen in the bridge plate group. These patients had a mean AOFAS score of 82.5 points, compared with 71.0 for the screw group and 63.3 for the combination group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire score was 25.6 points in the bridge plate group, 38.1 in the screw group, and 45.5 in the combination group (p < 0.001). Functional outcome was dependent on the quality of reduction (p < 0.001). A trend was noted which indicated that plate fixation is associated with a better anatomical reduction (p = 0.06). Myerson types A and C2 significantly predicted a poorer functional outcome, suggesting that total incongruity in either a homolateral or divergent pattern leads to worse outcomes. The greater the number of columns fixed the worse the outcome (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Patients treated with dorsal bridge plating have better functional and radiological outcomes than those treated with transarticular screws or a combination technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:468-74.