Acute management of high-energy lisfranc injuries: A simple approach

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.

Effective Rehabilitation of a Lisfranc Fracture in a 25-Year-Old Male Patient: A Case Report

A dislocation or break of the tarsometatarsal joint in the foot is referred to as a Lisfranc fracture, sometimes called a Lisfranc injury. It can be caused by less stressful mechanisms like a twisting fall as well as high-energy events like car crashes or falls from heights. Swelling, bruises, and midfoot pain that gets worse when standing or walking are some of the symptoms. The damage may only affect the ligaments or the foot's bony structures. Nonoperative or surgical treatment may be part of the management, depending on how severe the injury is. In order to realign and stabilize the bones, open reduction internal fixation with Kirschner wires (K-wires) is a common surgical procedure. In this case, a 25-year-old male patient complained of left foot pain and wound. He gave a history of a left leg stuck in the harvester. Immediately, he was taken to a local hospital, where a dressing of his left foot was done. He was referred to a super specialty hospital where an investigation, like an X-ray, was done, which revealed a Lisfranc fracture. K-wire was applied to fix the Lisfranc fracture. Further on, rehabilitation was started to restore mobility, regain full range of motion, and develop muscle strength. American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) and Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) were used as outcome measures.

Surgical controversies and current concepts in Lisfranc injuries

INTRODUCTION

Lisfranc injuries, not as rare as previously reported, range from ligamentous to complex fracture-dislocations. Anatomical studies have identified a complex of discrete structures, and defined the anatomical characteristics of the Lisfranc joint.

SOURCES OF DATA

A narrative evidence-based review encompassed and analyzed published systematic reviews. Outcomes included clinical and surgical decision-making, including clinical-presentation, diagnosis, pathological-assessment, surgical-management techniques and indications, post-surgical care and comparative outcomes.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Better understanding of the Lisfranc complex anatomy aids surgical treatment and tactics. Prognosis is related to injury severity, estimated by the number of foot columns affected. Surgical outcome is determined by anatomical reduction for most fixation and fusion techniques. Appropriate treatment allows return to sport, improving outcome scores.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Identification of Lisfranc injuries may be improved by imaging modalities such as weight-bearing computer tomography. Recent evidence supports dorsal plate fixation as a result of better quality of reduction. In complex injuries, the use of combined techniques such as trans-articular screw and plate fixation has been associated with poorer outcomes, and fusion may instead offer greater benefits.

GROWING POINTS

Open reduction is mandatory if closed reduction fails, highlighting the importance of understanding surgical anatomy. If anatomical reduction is achieved, acute arthrodesis is a safe alternative to open reduction internal fixation in selected patients, as demonstrated by comparable outcomes in subgroup analysis.

AREAS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The current controversies in surgical treatment remain around techniques and outcomes, as randomized controlled trials are infrequent.

Staged surgery for closed Lisfranc injury with dislocation

Objective

To investigate the clinical efficacy of staged surgery for patients with closed Lisfranc injury and dislocation.

Methods

This study included 48 patients with acute closed Lisfranc injury and dislocation admitted between July 2016 and July 2021. The patients were divided into two groups. 23 patients in group A underwent staged surgeries included emergency reduction within 4–8 h after injury, and open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc injury and first tarsometatarsal joint fusion after the swelling had subsided. 25 patients in group B underwent open reduction and internal fixation as an elective procedure after the swelling had subsided. American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scores and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were used for assessment at the final follow-up.

Results

A total of 48 patients with closed Lisfranc injury and dislocation were included. The lengths of hospitalization were 11.52 ± 1.61 day and 19.80 ± 2.37 day in groups A and B, respectively. The total lengths of surgery were 67.34 ± 1.71 min and 104.36 ± 8.31 min in groups A and B, respectively. 48 patients completed the final follow-up (follow-up period range: 12–24 months, mean: 18 months). All fractures had healed at 12–18 weeks after surgery (mean: 14.6 weeks). At the 1-year postoperative follow-up, the AOFAS and VAS score was 86.87 ± 4.24 and 1.91 ± 0.78, respectively, during weight-bearing walking in group A patients and 71.72 ± 5.46 and 3.20 ± 1.17 in group B. By the end of the follow-up period, only 2 patients in group B had developed traumatic arthritis and no patients had joint re-dislocation or required secondary surgery.

Conclusion

Staged surgery for closed Lisfranc injury with dislocation reduced the incidence of perioperative complications and achieved good surgical outcomes while shortening the lengths of surgery and hospitalization.

Temporizing Care of Acute Traumatic Foot and Ankle Injuries

Temporizing care has become a critical part of the treatment armamentarium for select foot and ankle injuries. Indications for performing temporizing care are based on the specific injury pattern, the host, associated injuries, as well as surgeon resources. Foot and ankle injuries are often associated with severe adjacent injury to the soft tissue sleeve. An acute procedure performed through a traumatized soft tissue envelope will often lead to the failure of wound healing and/or infectious complications. Thus, delayed reconstruction of acute foot and ankle injuries is often advisable in these cases.

The Lisfranc Injury: A Literature Review of Anatomy, Etiology, Evaluation, and Management

Despite being first described in the 1800s, the Lisfranc injury remains one of the most controversial topics in foot and ankle surgery. From the basic anatomy of the ligament complex to the optimal diagnostic and management methods, new research both sharpens and yet confounds our understanding of this unique injury. This article reviews the literature from established and classic papers to recent studies evaluating newer techniques. We discuss the unique bony and ligamentous anatomy, which confer strength to the Lisfranc complex, the typical mechanisms of injury, the most common classification systems, the clinical presentation, current imaging modalities, and conservative and surgical treatment options. We review studies comparing open reduction and internal fixation with primary arthrodesis of acute injuries, in addition to studies evaluating the various methods for obtaining fixation, including intra-articular screws, dorsal plates, and flexible fixation. It is clear from this review that despite the vast number of studies in the literature, much is still to be learned about the diagnosis and management of this challenging injury.Levels of Evidence: Level V: Expert opinion.

A mid-term follow-up retrospective evaluation of tarsometatarsal joint fracture-dislocations treated by closed reduction and percutaneous K-wires fixation

INTRODUCTION

Injuries involving the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint are relatively uncommon, and the surgical treatment is potentially characterized by a high complications rate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results of the treatment of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations treated with closed reduction and percutaneous fixation with K-wires, considering complications and re-intervantion rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on all patients undergone closed reduction and percutaneous fixation with K-wires of a Lisfranc fracture-dislocation. Patients have been clinically evaluated at last follow up by American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), as well as by radiograph assessment.

RESULTS

Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 patients have been included, with a mean age of 48.2 ± 5.6 years. Average follow-up was 3.8 ± 1.8 years (range 1-6). 7 fractures analyzed were classified as type A, 7 as type B (3 were B1, 4 were B2) and 1 as type C1. No case of loss of reduction has been observed at radiographic 1-month follow-up. At last follow-up mean AOFAS midfoot score and VAS score were respectively 82.2 ± 10.4 and 1.5 ± 1.3. Registered complications showed one deep vein thrombosis and 2 cases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). One patient subsequently underwent arthrodesis of the tarsometatarsal joint for post-traumatic arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of the fracture-dislocations of the Lisfranc joint by percutaneous reduction and fixation with K-wire can achieve good clinical outcomes with a low rate of complications and reoperations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

[Indirect fixation of the third tarsometatarsal joint for high-energy Lisfranc injury]

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of indirect fixation of the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint in the treatment of high-energy Lisfranc injury.

Methods

Between February 2015 and February 2019, 15 patients with high-energy Lisfranc injury were treated. There were 12 males and 3 females with an average age of 44.8 years (range, 29-73 years). The average time from injury to admission was 8.8 hours (range, 2-28 hours). According to Myerson classification, there were 6 cases of type A, 4 cases of type B2, 1 case of type C1, and 4 cases of type C2; 8 cases were open injury. The 3rd tarsometatarsal joint was injured in all patients, including intact intermetatarsal ligament in 7 cases, the 2nd-3rd intermetatarsal ligament injury in 6 cases, the 3rd-4th intermetatarsal ligament injury in 1 case, and the 2nd-3rd-4th intermetatarsal ligament injury in 1 case. Among them, the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint was not fixed directly and indirectly fixed by stabilized the 2nd and 4th tarsometatarsal joints in 13 cases. The 3rd tarsometatarsal joint was fixed with Kirschner wire in 2 cases for 1 patient had complete injury of the intermetatarsal ligament and the other 1 had comminuted fracture of the base of the 3rd metatarsal. The reduction of fracture and dislocation was evaluated by X-ray films, focusing on the re-displacement of the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint. The effectiveness was evaluated by American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and visual analogue scale (VAS) score.

Results

Thirteen of the 15 patients were followed up 12-26 months, with an average of 15.6 months. One case had superficial infection of the incision and healed after symptomatic treatment; the other incisions healed by first intention. At last follow-up, the VAS score was 0-3 (mean, 1.1) and the AOFAS score was 70-99 (mean, 87.5). Twelve patients achieved anatomical reduction and 1 patient had increased talar-first metatarsal angle and the mild forefoot abduction. During the follow-up, no loss of reduction of the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint was found, while the spontaneous fusion of the joint was observed in 2 patients.

Conclusion

In high-energy Lisfranc injury, as long as the intermetatarsal ligament is not completely destroyed and the bony structure of the tarsometatarsal joint is intact, the 3rd tarsometatarsal joint does not need to be fixed routinely, the stability of the joint can be obtained indirectly by fixing the adjacent tarsometatarsal joint.

Primary Arthrodesis for High-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

The reported incidence of Lisfranc injuries is 9.2/100.000 person-years; two-thirds of the injuries are nondisplaced. Tarsometatarsal injuries range from minor sprains and isolated ligamentous injuries to grossly unstable and multiligamentous lesions. High-energy injuries are usually linked with mechanical energy dissipation through the soft tissues. Operative treatment options include open reduction and internal fixation, open reduction with hybrid internal and external fixation, closed reduction with percutaneous internal or external fixation, and primary arthrodesis. Treatment goals are to obtain a painless, plantigrade, and stable foot. Anatomic reduction is a key factor for improved outcomes and decreased rates of post-traumatic arthritis.

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management

It is essential to know and understand the anatomy of the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint (Lisfranc joint) to achieve a correct diagnosis and proper treatment of the injuries that occur at that level.

Up to 20% of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations go unnoticed or are diagnosed late, especially low-energy injuries or purely ligamentous injuries. Severe sequelae such as post-traumatic osteoarthritis and foot deformities can create serious disability.

We must be attentive to the clinical and radiological signs of an injury to the Lisfranc joint and expand the study with weight-bearing radiographs or computed tomography (CT) scans.

Only in stable lesions and in those without displacement is conservative treatment indicated, along with immobilisation and initial avoidance of weight-bearing.

Through surgical treatment we seek to achieve two objectives: optimal anatomical reduction, a factor that directly influences the results; and the stability of the first, second and third cuneiform-metatarsal joints.

There are three main controversies regarding the surgical treatment of Lisfranc injuries: osteosynthesis versus primary arthrodesis; transarticular screws versus dorsal plates; and the most appropriate surgical approach.

The surgical treatment we prefer is open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with transarticular screws or with dorsal plates in cases of comminution of metatarsals or cuneiform bones.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:430-444. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180076

The surgical outcome of Lisfranc injuries accompanied by multiple metatarsal fractures: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the surgical outcomes of Lisfranc injuries accompanied by multiple metatarsal fractures. Metatarsal fractures here refers to metatarsal head, neck, and shaft (including shaft fractures accompanied by fractures of the base) fractures, as well as mixed (i.e., segmental fracture) fractures, as seen on imaging studies.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2015, one hundred and seventy-six patients were followed-up for a mean of 92 months, including eight patients who underwent secondary arthrodesis due to severe arthritis after ORIF. All the patients underwent surgical fusion (primary partial arthrodesis, PPA; n = 78) or non-fusion (percutaneous or open reduction and internal fixation, ORIF; n = 98) procedures and the outcomes were evaluated by clinical examinations, radiography, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the Short Form (SF)-36 physical and SF-36 mental questionnaires. The parameters between the fusion and non-fusion groups were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were then further analyzed using a two-independent-samples t-test.

RESULTS

Anatomical reduction was achieved in 161 patients. At the last follow-up, the mean AOFAS score was 74.67 (range: 39-91) in the non-fusion group and 82.79 (range: 67-97) in the fusion group (P = 0.003). The PPA and ORIF groups differed significantly with respect to the VAS pain score (1.93 vs. 1.21), the SF-36 physical (75.87 vs. 80.90) and mental (75.76 vs. 81.33) components, and the FAOS pain (72.74 vs. 84.06), symptoms (71.87 vs. 82.49), activities of daily life (ADLs: 73.12 vs. 81.54), sport/recreation (sport/rec: 57.99 vs. 73.23), and quality of life (QoL: 79.95 vs. 86.67) components. In the ORIF group, 23 patients had mild/moderate post-traumatic osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

With longer and more conservative postoperative management, fusion results in a better outcome than non-fusion in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries accompanied by multiple metatarsal fractures.

Open Reduction Internal Fixation of the Lisfranc Complex

Lisfranc injuries are uncommon; however, if left untreated, it can have a detrimental effect causing deformity, chronic pain, and mid-foot arthrosis. Injury can include disruption of the first through fifth tarsometatarsal joints as well as variant patterns that include the involvement of the metatarsals, the naviculocuneiform articulation, and the cuboid. There is controversy regarding the benefits of open reduction internal fixation versus arthrodesis. Regardless, anatomical reduction is paramount to obtaining a good functional outcome. This video details the surgical approach and the reduction and fixation strategy of a high-energy Lisfranc complex fracture dislocation.