Computer evaluation of second tarsometatarsal joint dislocation

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

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus whether the primary surgical method should be open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) for Lisfranc injuries. The aim of our randomized controlled trial was to compare ORIF and PA for displaced Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

This study was a national multicenter randomized controlled trial. Altogether 43 displaced Lisfranc injuries were enrolled in this trial. The primary outcome measure was Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) at a 24-months follow-up. The secondary outcome measures were VAS-FA pain, function, and other complaints subscales and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Scale. All outcomes were measured at 6, 12, and 24 months. We were unable to reach the planned sample size of 60 patients; thus, the study remains underpowered.

RESULTS

The mean VAS-FA Overall score in the ORIF group was 86.5 (95% CI 77.9, 95.1) and 80.1 (95% CI 72.0, 88.1) in the PA group at the 24-month follow-up. We did not find eligible evidence of a difference in VAS-FA Overall scores (mean between-group difference 6.5 [95% CI -5.3, 18.2], Cohen d = 0.100).

CONCLUSION

We did not find evidence of a difference in VAS-FA between ORIF and PA in patients with displaced Lisfranc injuries, and thus both are viable options for the initial surgical method. The trial is underpowered; however, the data may be included in a meta-analysis of similarly designed randomized controlled trials.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24 October 2016.

Relationship between arthritis of the second and third tarsometatarsal joints and incongruity of the first tarsometatarsal joint in patients with hallux valgus

OBJECTIVES

Hallux valgus is associated with tarsometatarsal arthritis; its pathophysiology remains unknown. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the relationship between arthritis of the second and third tarsometatarsal joints and incongruity of the first tarsometatarsal joint in the sagittal plane.

METHODS

Forty-three patients (64 feet) with hallux valgus who underwent surgery at University Hospital Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine were included and divided into two groups: control (without second and third tarsometatarsal joint degeneration) and osteoarthritis (with second and third tarsometatarsal joint degeneration). Intergroup comparisons of the incongruity of the first tarsometatarsal joint in the sagittal plane, age, body mass index, hallux valgus angle, first-second intermetatarsal angle, metatarsus adductus angle, Meary's angle, and calcaneal pitch angle were performed.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with incongruity of the first tarsometatarsal joint was significantly higher in the osteoarthritis group than in the control group. Logistic regression analysis identified incongruity of the first tarsometatarsal joint and metatarsus adductus angle as significant related factors for arthritis of the second and third tarsometatarsal joints.

CONCLUSIONS

Incongruity of the first tarsometatarsal joint in the sagittal plane was involved in the development of arthritis of the second and third tarsometatarsal joints in patients with hallux valgus.

Lisfranc Arthrodesis in Posttraumatic Chronic Injuries

Chronic injuries at the tarsometatarsal joint represent a wide array of painful malunions ranging from isolated instability to complex three-dimensional deformities with rapid development of posttraumatic arthritis. Deformity correction and arthrodesis of the symptomatic joints leads to significant pain reduction and functional improvement provided that realignment of the anatomic axes is achieved. Arthrodesis should be limited to the first to third tarsometatarsal joints, whereas interposition arthroplasty is preferred for symptomatic arthritis of the fourth to fifth tarsometatarsal joints. For complex deformities and instability, the intercuneiform and naviculocuneiform joints may need to be included into corrective fusion.

Comparing bilateral feet computed tomography scans can improve surgical decision making for subtle Lisfranc injury

INTRODUCTION

Subtle Lisfranc injuries (SLIs) are challenging to diagnose. Although weightbearing (WB) radiographs have been suggested to identify SLIs, approximately 20% are missed on initial radiographic assessment. Computed tomography (CT) has been suggested as an alternative, but has not provided any diagnostic guideline. Therefore we compared measurement techniques on radiographs and bilateral foot CT scans for the efficiency of diagnosis and making surgical decisions for SLI.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated patients diagnosed with SLIs between January 2014 and January 2020. Distances between both medial cuneiform and second metatarsal base (C1M2), and the first and second metatarsal bases (M1M2), were measured on bilateral WB radiographs. Bilateral foot CT scans were taken, and the distances between C1M2 were checked on the axial and three points of the coronal plane (top, middle, and base). The surgical indication was > 1 mm of diastasis on CT scan. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score at final follow-up. Intraobserver and interobserver agreements were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with SLIs were reviewed. Twenty-four patients underwent surgical fixation (Group A) and six patients were treated conservatively (Group B). The side-to-side difference (STSD) of C1M2 and M1M2 distances greater than 1 mm showed 91.7% and 54.2% sensitivity, and 66.7% and 16.7% specificity, respectively. Investigating STSDs of all points on CT scans were informative to discriminate both groups (P ≤ 0.038). Clinical outcomes showed no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.631). Intraclass and interclass correlation coefficient values showed good to very good reliability, except for STSD of WB M1M2 distance and the coronal top plane.

CONCLUSION

Investigating bilateral foot CT scans was significantly efficient and reliable for the diagnosis and treatment plan for SLI. On radiographs, STSD of WB C1M2 distance was more sensitive than STSD of WB M1M2 distance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case control study; III.

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.

Outcomes after nonoperatively treated non-displaced Lisfranc injury: a retrospective case series of 55 patients

BACKGROUND

Current knowledge of the role of the nonoperative treatment of Lisfranc injuries is based on a few retrospective case series. Hence, consensus on which patients can be treated nonoperatively does not exist. The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes after nonoperative treatment of Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

In this study, patients were collected by recruiting all computer tomography-confirmed Lisfranc injuries treated during a 5-year period at a major trauma hospital. Between 2 and 6 years after suffering the injury, patients completed the visual analogue scale foot and ankle questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 55 patients returned adequately completed questionnaires and were included in the study. Of those, 22 patients had avulsion fractures and 33 had simple non-displaced intra-articular fractures. Of these patients, 30 (55%) scored over 90 points in both the pain and function subscales of the VAS-FA, and 35 (64%) scored over 90 points overall. In addition, three (5%) patients scored under 60 points in both the pain and function subscales of the VAS-FA, and four (7%) scored under 60 points overall. Only one patient with avulsion fractures underwent secondary surgery.

CONCLUSION

Nonoperative treatment has a role in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, and the results of our study support the view that avulsion and simple intra-articular fractures with < 2 mm of displacement can be treated nonoperatively with high functional outcomes. The results of nonoperative and operative treatment should be compared in a prospective randomized controlled study setting in future studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case series.

Asymmetric lambda sign of the second tarsometatarsal joint on axial weight-bearing cone-beam CT scans of the foot: preliminary investigation for diagnosis of subtle ligamentous Lisfranc injuries in a cadaveric model

BACKGROUND

Subtle Lisfranc joint injuries remain challenging to diagnose. Although of questionable accuracy, the current gold standard to assess these injuries is through bilateral weight-bearing radiography. However, weight-bearing cone beam-computed tomography (CBCT), providing clearer visualization of bony landmarks, can also be utilized for evaluation. This study aims to establish the hypothesis that a specific weight-bearing CBCT finding (asymmetric lambda sign) can serve as an independent indicator of a subtle Lisfranc injury.

METHODS

Weight-bearing CBCT images of 24 match-paired cadaveric legs were acquired, initially intact, and then following sequential dissection of each aspect (dorsal, interosseous, and plantar ligaments, respectively) of the Lisfranc ligamentous complex (LLC). All scans were taken in non- (NWB, 0 kg), partial- (PWB, 40 kg), and full-weight-bearing (FWB, 80 kg) manners. The lambda sign was then inspected axially for asymmetry (positive sign) by identifying three symmetrical joint spaces created between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal base (C1-M2), the medial and middle cuneiform (C1-C2), and the second metatarsal base and middle cuneiform (M2-C2).

RESULTS

A positive sign was observed in 25.6% (221/864) of all studies. Most notably, the fully dissected specimens demonstrated an asymmetric lambda sign in 33.3%, 72.2%, and 83.3% in NWB, PWB, and FWB conditions, respectively. The inter- and intra-observer reliability kappa value was calculated to be 0.843 and 0.912.

CONCLUSION

An asymmetric lambda sign is a simple and useful indicator for a complete LLC injury in PWB and FWB conditions using a cadaver model.

Subtle Lisfranc Injuries: A Topical Review and Modification of the Classification System

Lisfranc injuries are relatively uncommon. No specific incidence of subtle injuries has been reported; however, almost one-third are missed on initial review. These missed injuries are a common cause of litigation. Although seen in high-energy injuries with direct application of forces, they are also associated with lower-energy indirect mechanisms, often on the athletic field. This article provides a topical review of subtle Lisfranc disruptions, focusing on contemporary perspectives, and describes a modification to the most prevalent classification system. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(2):e168-e175.].

One Month Old Neglected Lisfrancs Fracture Dislocation Treated with Wagner's External Fixator and Percutaneous Screw Fixation : A Case Report

Introduction:

Lisfrancs Fracture dislocation is not commonly seen and it often goes missed leading to numerous complications. We present a case of neglected Lisfrancs fracture dislocation who presented after 1 month and its management.

Case Report:

A 27-year-old man came with the complaints of pain and swelling of the right foot following a fall from a motorcycle 1 month back. On Radiographic evaluation it showed presence Lisfrancs fracture Dislocation with comminuted fracture of the proximal phalanx of the great toe and distal fibula fracture. Closed reduction was attempted initially which was unsuccessful and was followed by open reduction which also failed. Reduction was then achieved using Wagner’s external fixation distractor device and supplemented with percutaneously passed screws. The external fixator was continued for 3 weeks followed by below knee cast for 6 weeks. The patient regained normal gait and returned to work and his previous physical activity level without recurrent dislocation.

Conclusion:

This report highlights the necessity of prompt open reduction and the need of external fixation to achieve and maintain reduction in case of neglected cases. We advocate this approach to achieve reduction in neglected cases where open reduction is unsuccessful.

Lisfranc injuries: an update

Lisfranc injuries are a spectrum of injuries to the tarsometatarsal joint complex of the midfoot. These range from subtle ligamentous sprains, often seen in athletes, to fracture dislocations seen in high-energy injuries. Accurate and early diagnosis is important to optimise treatment and minimise long-term disability, but unfortunately, this is a frequently missed injury. Undisplaced injuries have excellent outcomes with non-operative treatment. Displaced injuries have worse outcomes and require anatomical reduction and internal fixation for the best outcome. Although evidence to date supports the use of screw fixation, plate fixation may avoid further articular joint damage and may have benefits. Recent evidence supports the use of limited arthrodesis in more complex injuries.

Subtle injuries to the lisfranc joint

The tarsometatarsal joint complex is an osseous and capsuloligamentous network that includes the 5 metatarsals, their articulations with the cuneiforms and cuboid, and the Lisfranc ligament, a strong interosseous attachment between the medial cuneiform and second metatarsal. A multitude of injury patterns exist involving the tarsometatarsal joint complex; a Lisfranc injury does not delineate a specific injury, but instead a spectrum of processes involving the tarsometatarsal joint complex.

Treatment of Lisfranc joint injury: current concepts

Injuries to the tarsometatarsal joint complex, also known as the Lisfranc joint, are relatively uncommon. However, the importance of an accurate diagnosis cannot be overstated. These injuries, especially when missed, may result in considerable long-term disability as the result of posttraumatic arthritis. A high level of suspicion, recognition of the clinical signs of injury, and appropriate radiographic studies are needed for correct diagnosis. When surgery is indicated, closed reduction with percutaneous screw fixation should be attempted. If reduction is questionable, open reduction should be performed. Screw fixation remains the traditional fixation technique.

Treatment of the missed Lisfranc injury

Lisfranc joint injuries may be missed at the time of occurrence potentially leading to persistent instability, deformity, or arthritis. In the absence of significant residual arthritis or fixed deformity, delayed open reduction and internal fixation with or without reconstruction of the Lisfranc ligament may be performed. An alternative is reduction and primary arthrodesis of the relatively immobile medial tarsometatarsal (TMT) joints. In the presence of significant residual arthritis or fixed deformity that is recalcitrant to conservative treatment, arthrodesis, including correction of deformity, is the treatment of choice for the first, second, and third TMT joints. Resection arthroplasty of the fourth and fifth TMT joints may be preferable to arthrodesis in order to maintain physiologic motion.

Ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries: a biomechanical comparison of dorsal plate and transarticular screw fixation

BACKGROUND

The current treatment of displaced ligamentous injuries of the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joints is open reduction and rigid fixation using transarticular screws. This technique causes further articular surface damage that theoretically may increase the risk of arthritis. Should the screws break, hardware removal is difficult. An alternative method that avoids these potential complications is rigid fixation using dorsal plates.

METHODS

The displacement between the first metatarsal and medial cuneiform, the second metatarsal and intermediate cuneiform, the first and second metatarsal bases, and the medial cuneiform and second metatarsal base were measured in 10 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaver lower extremities in the unloaded and loaded condition. After sectioning the Lisfranc and TMT joint ligaments, measurements were repeated in the loaded condition. The first and second TMT joints of the right feet were fixed with transarticular 3.5-mm cortical screws while those of the left feet with were fixed with dorsal 2.7-mm 1/4 tubular plates. Measurements were then repeated in the unloaded and loaded condition.

RESULTS

After ligament sectioning, significantly increased first and second TMT joint subluxation with loading was seen. No significant difference was noted with direct comparison between plates and screws with respect to ability to realign the first and second TMT joints and to maintain TMT joint alignment during loading. The amount of articular surface destruction caused by one 3.5-mm screw was 2.0 +/- 0.7% for the medial cuneiform, 2.6 +/- 0.5% for the first metatarsal, 3.6 +/- 1.2% for the intermediate cuneiform, and 3.6 +/- 1.0% for the second metatarsal.

CONCLUSIONS

The model reliably produced displacement of the first and second TMT joints consistent with a ligamentous Lisfranc injury. Transarticular screws and dorsal plates showed similar ability to reduce the first and second TMT joints after TMT and Lisfranc ligament transection and to resist TMT joint displacement with weightbearing load.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Dorsal plating may be an alternative to transarticular screws in the treatment of displaced Lisfranc injuries.

Injury to the tarsometatarsal joint complex

Tarsometatarsal joint complex fracture-dislocations may result from direct or indirect trauma. Direct injuries are usually the result of a crush and may involve associated compartment syndrome, significant soft-tissue injury, and open fracture-dislocation. Indirect injuries are often the result of an axial load to the plantarflexed foot. Midfoot pain after even a minor forefoot injury should raise suspicion; up to 20% of tarsometatarsal joint complex injuries are missed on initial examination. An anteroposterior radiograph with abduction stress may reveal subtle injury, but computed tomography is the preferred imaging modality. The goal of treatment is the restoration of a pain-free, functional foot. The preferred treatment is open reduction and internal fixation, using screw fixation for the medial three rays and Kirschner wires for the fourth and fifth tarsometatarsal joints. Satisfactory outcome can be expected in approximately 90% of patients.

Developments and advances in the diagnosis and treatment of injuries to the tarsometatarsal joint

Continued research and clinical advances have allowed clinicians to diagnose injuries of the tarsometatarsal joint earlier and with greater precision than in previous eras and have promoted refinements of the surgical procedures used in their treatment. For patients with such injuries, these advances should result in improved function and a substantial decrease in morbidity.

Radiographic and computed tomographic evaluation of Lisfranc dislocation: a cadaver study

Six cadaver feet were used for radiological and computed tomographic (CT) evaluation. The tarsometatarsal joints of each specimen were displaced dorsolaterally in successive 1-mm increments. None of the 1-mm and two thirds of the 2-mm dorsolateral Lisfranc dislocations could be visualized on routine radiographs; they could all be noted on CT scans. There was good assessment on CT scan for the extent of the minor lesions that are normally obscured by overlapping projection in routine radiographs. A Lisfranc injury that appears undisplaced on radiographs or acceptable after closed reduction may still have an unpredictable outcome because of the presence of an occult joint subluxation. CT scanning is more sensitive than radiography for detecting the minor amounts of Lisfranc displacement. If there is any doubt on the radiographs, a CT scan should be performed. The early diagnosis and treatment of Lisfranc injuries may minimize development of post-traumatic degenerative arthritis.