Clinical Outcomes and Development of Symptomatic Osteoarthritis 2 to 24 Years After Surgical Treatment of Tarsometatarsal Joint Complex Injuries

Nonunion Rate Following Primary Arthrodesis for Acute Lisfranc Injuries

Injury to the tarsometatarsal joint (TMT) results in instability throughout the midfoot that does not often improve with conservative management. If instability is identified, surgical intervention is frequently recommended, either open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA). These 2 treatment options have been compared in the literature multiple times, often reporting similar outcomes. Due to this, as well as the need for subsequent hardware removal after ORIF has led many surgeons towards PA at the index surgery. Concern for nonunion is a leading concern with surgeons who advocate instead for ORIF. The purpose of this study is to review patients who underwent PA and observe nonunion rates. Nonunion at the TMT has been previously studied, but only in the chronic setting. We performed a retrospective study of 34 patients who had PA in the management of an acute Lisfranc injury. The average age in our study was 43.9 years old (range 19-72, SD 17.4) with an average follow-up of 9.4 months (range 4-33, SD 6.2). Radiographs were evaluated for signs of nonunion at regular postoperative intervals. Within the patients included in the study, a total of 71 TMT joints were fused. Overall successful fusion rate was 95.8% at an average of 7.9 weeks (range 6-12, SD 1.4) postoperatively. Individual nonunion rates at the first, second, and third TMT were 0%, 1.4% and 2.8% respectively. Our study demonstrates that primary arthrodesis provides a predictable outcome with low nonunion rates in the management of acute Lisfranc injury.

Statistical Fragility Analysis of Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis to Treat Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of consensus in the use of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) vs primary arthrodesis (PA) in the management of Lisfranc injuries. Statistical fragility represents the number of events needed to flip statistical significance and provides context to interpret P values of outcomes from conflicting studies. The current study evaluates the statistical fragility of existing research with an outcome-specific approach to provide statistical clarity to the ORIF vs PA discussion. We hypothesized that statistical fragility analysis would offer clinically relevant insight when interpreting conflicting outcomes regarding ORIF vs PA management of Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

All comparative studies, RCTs, and case-series investigating ORIF vs PA management of Lisfranc injuries published through October 5, 2023, were identified. Descriptive characteristics, dichotomous outcomes, and continuous outcomes were extracted. Fragility index and continuous fragility index were calculated by the number of event reversals needed to alter significance. Outcomes were categorized by clinical relevance, and median FI and CFI were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 244 studies were screened. Ten studies and 67 outcomes (44 dichotomous, 23 continuous) were included in the fragility analysis. Of the 10 studies, 4 studies claimed PA to correlate with superior outcomes compared to ORIF with regard to functional scores and return to function outcomes. Of these 4 studies, 3 were statistically robust. Six studies claimed PA and ORIF to have no differences in outcomes, in which only 2 studies were statistically robust.

CONCLUSION

The overall research regarding ORIF vs PA is relatively robust compared with other orthopaedic areas of controversy. Although the full statistical context of each article must be considered, studies supporting PA superiority with regard to functional scores and return to function metrics were found to be statistically robust. Outcome-specific analysis revealed moderate fragility in several clinically relevant outcomes such as functional score, return to function, and wound complications.

Effects of rigid and kinesio taping on plantar pressure distribution in patients with Lisfranc fracture sequelae

BACKGROUND

Patients with Lisfranc fractures may regain functional status after anatomical fixation, but they may experience sequelae such as flatfoot deformity and pain associated with foot pressure distribution during weight-bearing.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the impact of Lisfranc fracture sequelae on both the injured and uninjured sides, and how does the antipronation taping affect plantar pressure distribution parameters?

METHODS

Twenty-six patients who underwent anatomical fixation for Lisfranc fracture, displaying pronation on the injured side based on the Foot Posture Index-6 test, as well as 15 healthy subjects, participated in this study. Plantar pressure distribution measurements were conducted during barefoot walking for the healthy subjects. In the patient group, measurements were taken under two antipronation taping conditions (kinesio and rigid taping), as well as during barefoot walking.

RESULTS

Participants who received anatomical fixation after Lisfranc fracture exhibited significant alterations in plantar pressure distribution parameters on both the injured and uninjured sides, as compared to the control group. After the application of Kinesio Taping to the injured side, there was no significant change observed in the plantar pressure distribution values (p > 0.05). The analysis of the rigid taping on the injured side revealed statistically worse values in peak pressure of the hindfoot (p = 0.027) and maximum force of the midfoot and toes (p = 0.005 and p = 0.013, respectively) compared to the injured barefoot condition.

SIGNIFICANCE

Lisfranc fracture sequelae affected plantar pressure distribution on both injured and uninjured sides. Anti-pronation taping (kinesio and rigit), commonly used for foot conditions, did not lead to foot pressure distribution becoming more similar to that of the control group.

Functional Outcomes After High-Energy Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

Midfoot fractures and dislocations are infrequent and functional outcomes following Lisfranc injuries have not been well described. The purpose of this project was to explore functional outcomes following operative treatment of high-energy Lisfranc injury.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 46 adults with tarsometatarsal fractures and dislocations treated at a single Level 1 trauma center were reviewed. Demographic, medical, social, and injury features of these patients and their injuries were recorded. Foot Function Index (FFI) and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) surveys were collected after mean 8.7 years' follow-up. Multiple linear regression was performed to identify independent predictors of outcome.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients with mean age 39.7 years completed functional outcome surveys. Mean SMFA scores were 29.3 (dysfunction) and 32.6 (bothersome). Mean FFI scores were 43.1 (pain), 43.0 (disability), and 21.7 (activity), with a mean total score of 35.9. FFI pain scores were worse than published values for fractures of the plafond (33, P = .04), distal tibia (33, P = .04), and talus (25.3, P = .001). Lisfranc injury patients reported worse disability (43.0 vs 29, P = .008) and total FFI scores (35.9 vs 26, P = .02) compared with distal tibia fractures. Tobacco smoking was an independent predictor of worse FFI (P < .05) and SMFA emotion and bothersome scores (P < .04). Chronic renal disease was a predictor of worse FFI disability (P = .04) and SMFA subcategory scores (P < .04). Male sex was associated with better scores in all SMFA categories (P < .04). Age, obesity, or open injury did not affect functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported worse pain by FFI after Lisfranc injury compared to other injuries about the foot and ankle. Tobacco smoking, female sex, and preexisting chronic renal disease are predictive of worse functional outcome scores, warranting further study in a larger sample, as well as counseling of long-term consequences of this injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective, prognostic.

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

BACKGROUND

Transarticular screw fixation is a common surgical treatment for tarsometatarsal ligamentous (Lisfranc) injuries. Iatrogenic damage to articular cartilage from screw placement, however, has been thought to potentially lead to increased risk of tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint arthritis after initial injury. To date, no study has evaluated the effect of weightbearing on articular cartilage after screw fixation. The aim of this study was to create a Lisfranc injury and quantify and compare articular damage due to screw fixation before and after simulated weightbearing.

METHODS

A ligamentous Lisfranc injury was created in 10 cadaveric specimens and treated with transarticular screws. Specimens were cycled for 1000 cycles at 250 N to simulate 2 weeks of physiologic weightbearing. Rotation and diastasis across the Lisfranc complex were measured. Articular injury as a percentage of total articular surface was measured using digital imaging of the first and second TMT joint before and after simulated weightbearing. Comparisons between articular damage were made and statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Simulated partial weightbearing increased articular injury 1.44-fold (P < .001). The second metatarsal (M2) showed the greatest increase (1.54-fold, P = .0047), whereas the first (M1) showed the least (1.35-fold, P = .0083). Increases seen at the medial (1.43-fold, P = .0387) and middle cuneiform (1.44-fold, P = .0292) were intermediate between the values seen at M2 and M1.

CONCLUSION

Articular damage from transarticular screw fixation significantly increased after simulated partial weightbearing. This may increase the risk of arthritis and future morbidity when using transarticular screws for the treatment of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Iatrogenic damage to articular cartilage due to screw fixation of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries may be increased with weightbearing.

Tenacissoside G alleviated osteoarthritis through the NF-κB pathway both in vitro and in vivo

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease characterized by the destruction of articular cartilage. Tenacissoside G is a flavonoid isolated from the dry roots of Marsdenia tenacissima (Roxb) and has been shown to have anti-inflammatory effects. However, there is no report on the protective effects of Tenacissoside G on OA.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the effects and mechanism of Tenacissoside G on OA.

METHODS

In vitro, primary mouse chondrocytes were induced with IL-1β to establish OA model. mRNA expression of MMP-13, MMP-3, TNF-α, IL-6 and iNOS, was detected by PCR. Protein expression of Collagen-II, MMP-13, p65, p-p65, and IκBα was detected by Western blot. Collagen-II in chondrocytes was also detected by immunofluorescence. In vivo, we established DMM OA mice model. The preventive effect of Tenacissoside G on OA was observed by micro-CT and histological analysis.

RESULTS

In vitro, Tenacissoside G significantly inhibited the expression of iNOS, TNF-α, IL-6, MMP-3, MMP-13 and the degradation of collagen-II, Tenacissoside G also significantly suppressed NF-κB activation in chondrocytes by IL-1β-stimulated. In vivo, we demonstrated Tenacissoside G can decrease articular cartilage damage and reduce OARSI score.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that Tenacissoside G may serve as a potential drug for the prevention and treatment of OA.

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.

Pediatric Sports Trauma

Pediatric foot and ankle fractures are common in athletic participation. Treatment of pediatric sports trauma must take into account the unique challenges this population presents, and aim to minimize long-term complications. Given the excellent remodeling potential of pediatric bone, conservative treatment can often be used. However, a thorough understanding of physeal anatomy, fracture patterns, and biomechanics is needed to guide treatment choice and determine when surgical intervention is warranted.

Lisfranc Injuries in the Athlete

LisFranc injuries in the active, athletic, and military populations can be devastating injuries. There has been much debate over open reduction and internal fixation versus arthrodesis as primary treatment in these injuries. This article aims to present the existing evidence-based medicine to help guide appropriate treatment in this population. With the introduction of flexible fixation, the variety of ways to address these injuries surgically has expanded.

Evaluation of Functional Outcome and Complications in Bridge Plating Compared to Transarticular Screws for Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The optimal treatment strategy of Lisfranc injury is still in debate. This study aimed to compare the functional outcome and complications of dorsal bridge plating (BP) and transarticular screws (TAS). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the present literature was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched using set search criteria and date range January 2000 to July 26, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational comparative studies concerning the outcome of dorsal BP and TAS for the fixation of Lisfranc injuries were eligible for inclusion. Random effect models were used to analyze pooled data. Forest plots using 95% confidence intervals (CI) were created to illustrate mean differences and odds ratios. Four observational studies were eligible for inclusion, including 111 patients in the BP group and 87 patients in the TAS group. American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score was significantly higher in the BP group (mean difference 7.08, 95% CI 1.50-12.66, p = .01). Osteoarthritis was significantly less common in the BP group compared to the TAS group (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.94, p = .03). No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative infection, hardware removal, chronic pain, and secondary arthrodesis. Dorsal bridge plating of fractures in the Lisfranc joint may lead to better functional outcome and a lower incidence of post-traumatic arthritis when compared to transarticular screws. A larger body of high-quality evidence is required to independently analyze the severity of fractures in the different columns involved and subsequent outcomes of operative management.

A Systematic Review of Outcomes Following Lisfranc Injury Fixation: Removal vs Retention of Metalwork

Background:

Following Lisfranc injury fixation, no consensus exists on whether to routinely remove metalwork. The aim of this study was to evaluate functional outcomes and complications in patients following routine removal of metalwork and in those with retained metalwork.

Methods:

A systematic review of literature (1999-2020) reporting results of metalwork removal vs retention following Lisfranc injury fixation, was undertaken. The primary outcome was functional outcomes at 1 year following index surgery. Secondary outcomes were rates of complications including unplanned removal of metalwork.

Results:

No studies directly comparing routine metalwork removal vs retention were found. A total of 28 studies reporting on 1069 patients were included. Of these, 10 studies (317 patients) reported on retention and 18 (752 patients) on routine removal of metalwork. The difference in the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score between removal and retention groups was 3.38 (95% CI 6.3-0.48), P = .02 (removal 79.97 [±16.09; 71-96]; retention 76.59 [±20.36; 65.4-94]). No difference in reported rates of infection was found between the 2 groups (0%-12% for both groups). Of the 317 patients in the retention group, metalwork was removed in 198 cases, resulting in a 62.5% unplanned removal rate.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this systematic review found limited evidence comparing different strategies of metalwork management after Lisfranc injury fixation. A randomized controlled trial is necessary to elucidate if routine removal of metalwork confers any true benefit.

Level of Evidence:

Level IV, systematic review including case series.

Treatment of a Lisfranc Injury in a 7-Year-Old Boy: Case Report and Surgical Technique

CASE

This is a case of a 7-year-old boy with a Lisfranc injury identified on weight-bearing films who was treated successfully with closed reduction with a clamp and smooth pin fixation. This patient returned to sports without pain or radiographic signs of arthritis at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Lisfranc fractures and ligamentous injuries are rare and can occur in skeletally immature children. They have high potential for long-term disability if not properly diagnosed and treated. Although there is no consensus on optimal management of pediatric Lisfranc injuries, restoration of an anatomic Lisfranc joint with smooth pins and immobilization for 6 weeks is a viable treatment option.

Salvage of Failed Lisfranc/Midfoot Injuries

Salvage of Lisfranc, or tarsometatarsal injuries, may be necessary because of a variety of clinical scenarios. Although rare, these injuries represent a broad spectrum of injury to the midfoot ranging from low-energy ligamentous injuries to high-energy injuries with significant displacement and associated fractures. Poor outcomes and complications may occur including posttraumatic arthritis, instability, pain, infection, and loss of function. Strategies and technical considerations for salvage of these complex injuries are provided.

Treatment of paediatric Lisfranc injuries: A systematic review and introduction of a novel treatment algorithm

BACKGROUND

Pediatric Lisfranc injuries (PLI) are rare injuries that have few studies published about their occurrence and treatment in pediatric population. Due to this lack of information, the diagnostic criteria and surgical or non-surgical methods for treatment have not been clearly established within the pediatric orthopedic literature. The objective of this study was to review the published literature related to treatment options and develop a concise stepwise treatment algorithm for pediatric patients presenting with Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed to find studies discussing the treatment of PLI with reported long-term outcomes. Data collection accounted for the mechanism of injury, diagnostic imaging modality used, injury type, fracture classification using the Myerson system, treatment method used, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

An initial PubMed search revealed 290 articles, but only 10 studies fulfilled the criteria for in-depth review. A total of 114 patients were included in this review from the selected case reports and case series studies. Primary treatment methods were as follows: 44% (50/114) with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) using Kirschner wires (K-wires) and/or screws, 3% (3/114) with closed reduction percutaneous fixation (CRPF), 4% (4/114) with suture-button constructs, 20% (23/114) with cast immobilization, and 29% (33/114) were described as not requiring reduction.

CONCLUSION

There were two main limitations to this study. First, there are few published studies with longitudinal outcomes of PLI treatment. Second, some case series did not disclose which procedure a patient with post-treatment complications underwent. Therefore, an overall statistical analysis of success and failure rates with associated complications of each procedure could not be conducted. In conclusion, we found that a stepwise approach to evaluating conservative and surgical treatment options based on the presentation of the PLI should be utilized to optimize long-term outcomes.

Primary Arthrodesis Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Outcomes for Lisfranc Injuries: An Analysis of Conflicting Meta-analyses Results

INTRODUCTION

The superiority of primary arthrodesis (PA) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in Lisfranc injuries has been debated. Meta-analyses comparing these surgical options have reached contradicting conclusions. The goal of this article is to determine why different conclusions were reached and provide clarity on the comparable outcomes of PA and ORIF in Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted by searching for "meta-analysis" AND "Lisfranc" with keywords such as "ORIF" OR "open reduction" OR "arthrodesis" OR "fusion." Five meta-analysis articles discussing PA and ORIF in Lisfranc injuries were identified. Study outcomes were extracted from each article, and contradicting conclusions were identified for analysis.

RESULTS

PA had lower rates of hardware removal. There was no difference between PA and ORIF when considering revision surgery, anatomic reduction, postoperative infection, total complications, and patient satisfaction. However, contradicting conclusions were reached for return to duty, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Conclusions. There was no difference in PA and ORIF for return to work and VAS score. Repeat meta-analysis with truly equivocal outcomes would be necessary to reach a valid conclusion for return to full activity and AOFAS midfoot scores.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level II: Therapeutic studies.

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.

Outcome after nonoperative treatment of stable Lisfranc injuries. A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome after nondisplaced and stable Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

26 patients with injuries to the Lisfranc joint complex detected on CT scans, but without displacement were tested to be stable using a fluoroscopic stress test. The patients were immobilized in a non-weightbearing short leg cast for 6 weeks. The final follow-up was 55 (IQR 53-60) months after injury.

RESULTS

All the Lisfranc injuries were confirmed to be stable on follow-up weightbearing radiographs at a minimum of 3 months after injury. Median American Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score at 1-year follow-up was 89 (IQR 84-97) and at final follow-up 100 (IQR 90-100); The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1-year (P=.005). The median visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was 0 (IQR 0-0) at the final follow-up. One patient had radiological signs of osteoarthritis at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Stable Lisfranc injuries treated nonoperatively had an excellent outcome in this study with a median follow-up of 55 months. The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1 year.

Anatomic Description of the Distal and Intercuneiform Articulations: A Cadaveric Study

The medial, intermediate, and lateral cuneiforms play a pivotal role in foot biomechanics. When correcting deformities of this joint complex understanding the clinical anatomy remains imperative to provide both anatomic reduction and appropriately sized fixation. This study qualitatively and quantitatively describes the distal and intercuneiform articulations and their clinical implications. The cuneiform complex of 10 fresh-frozen cadavers was dissected, and the width of the complex was measured with digital calipers. Following further dissection, the distal articular surface shapes of each cuneiform were described, and the individual heights and widths were measured. The intercuneiform articular facets were described and the protrusion distances, between the medial and lateral cuneiforms with the intermediate cuneiform, were measured. The width of the joint complex was 44.74 ± 3.40 mm. The medial cuneiform height, width, dorsal anterior, and plantar protrusion distances were 32.58 ± 2.77 mm, 14.08 ± 2.26 mm, 8.51 ± 2.17 mm, and 6.66 ± 1.21 mm, respectively. The intermediate cuneiform height and width was 23.05 ± 1.92 mm and 9.59 ± 1.85 mm, respectively. The lateral cuneiform height, width, dorsal, and plantar anterior protrusion distances were 23.38 ± 2.67 mm, 10.98 ± 3.01 mm, and 6.76 ± 1.43 mm, and 4.19 ± 1.10 mm respectively. The anterior surface of the medial, intermediate, and lateral cuneiforms was described as reniform, triangular, and triangular, respectively. The majority of intermediate cuneiforms shared an inverted L-shaped articulation with the medial cuneiform, and a B-shaped articulation with the lateral cuneiform. The shapes and sizes of distal and intercuneiform articulations were described with shared anatomical features across cadavers. Understanding the dimensions of the respective surfaces allows for anatomically appropriate fixation size.

Lisfranc injuries: fix or fuse? : a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature presenting outcome after surgical treatment for Lisfranc injuries

AIMS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):842-849.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction and internal fixation in patients with Lisfranc fracture instability (The BFF Study) study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

The Lisfranc injury is a complex injury of the midfoot. It can result in persistent pain and functional impairment if treated inappropriately. In Lisfranc fracture dislocation, treatment options are primary arthrodesis of the midfoot joints or open reduction and internal fixation. The purpose of the proposed study is to define the optimal treatment for the Lisfranc fracture dislocation, either primary arthrodesis or open reduction and internal fixation, in regard to quality of life, complications, functional outcomes, and cost effectiveness.

Methods

Study design: A prospective multicenter RCT. Study population: All patients of 18 years and older with an acute (< 6 weeks) traumatic fracture dislocation in the Lisfranc midfoot joints, displaced on static radiographic evaluation or unstable with dynamic evaluation, weight bearing radiographs or fluoroscopic stress testing under anesthesia, and eligible for either one of the surgical procedures. In total, this study will include n = 112 patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation. Interventions: Patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation will be randomly allocated to treatment in “The Better to Fix or Fuse Study” (The BFF Study) with either PA or ORIF. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome parameter: the quality of life. Secondary outcomes: complications, functional outcomes, secondary surgical interventions and cost effectiveness. Nature and extent of the burden: PA is expected to have a better outcome, however both treatments are accepted for this injury with a similar low risk of complications. Follow up is standardized and therefore this study will not add extra burden to the patient.

Discussion

This study protocol provides a comprehensive overview of the aims and methods of the attached clinical study. Limitations of this study are the absence of patient blinding since it is impossible in surgical intervention, and the outcome measure (AOFAS) that has limited validity not for these injuries. This study will be the first with enough power to define optimal treatment for Lisfranc fracture dislocations. This is necessary since current literature is unclear on this topic.

Trial registration Current controlled Trial: NCT04519242 with registration date: 08/13/2020. Retrospectively registered; Protocol date and version: Version 4 05/06/2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01320-1.

Long-term Follow-up of Lisfranc Injuries Treated With Open Reduction Internal Fixation Patient-Reported Outcomes

Background:

There remains a paucity of data regarding long-term patient-reported outcomes following Lisfranc injuries. We sought to collect long-term clinical outcome data following Lisfranc injuries using PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) and visual analog scale–foot and ankle (VAS-FA).

Methods:

A chart review was performed to identify all patients who had surgical treatment of an acute Lisfranc injury at our institution from 2005 to 2014. Of the 45 patients identified, we were able to recruit 19 for a follow-up clinic visit consisting of physical examination, administration of questionnaires addressing pain and medication usage, radiographs, and completion of outcome surveys including PROMIS-Physical Function and visual analog scale–foot and ankle.

Results:

There were 14 female and 5 male patients enrolled in the study with a mean time of 6.25 years from the time of injury. Within this cohort, the mean PROMIS-PF score was 52.4±8.2 and the mean VAS–foot and ankle score was 76.6±22.3.

Conclusion:

We report satisfactory long-term patient-reported outcomes using PROMIS-PF and VAS-FA.

Level of Evidence:

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

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.

Elective removal of metalwork following Lisfranc injury fixation: Results of a national consensus survey of practice

No consensus exists regarding whether metalwork should be routinely removed following fixation of a Lisfranc injury. When metalwork is removed, notable variation in the timing of surgery is reported in current literature. With the support of the British Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (BOFAS) and the Orthopaedic Trauma Society (OTS) an online 10-question survey was distributed and completed by a total of 205 consultant surgeons in the UK between April-June 2020. Excluding the 20 consultant responses from a regional pilot survey, 185 responses were used to form the main analysis. Over one third (69/183, 37.7%) of surgeons reported they routinely remove metalwork following Lisfranc injury fixation at a median time of 6 months post fixation (interquartile range 4-10). The two most commonly chosen reasons for removal of metalwork were 'to optimise physiological function' and 'to reduce the risk of broken metalwork and risk of making subsequent surgery more difficult' (55/78 responses, 70.5%). Over two thirds of survey respondents (126/184, 68.5%) expressed interest to participate in a randomised controlled trial to compare outcomes of metalwork retention versus removal following Lisfranc injury fixation. Community clinical equipoise exists nationally regarding routine metalwork removal following Lisfranc injury fixation. Considering the paucity of literature, the current survey supports the development of a randomised controlled trial to establish the risks and benefits of metalwork retention versus removal, and would be of value to foot & ankle and trauma surgeons in the UK.

The LISFRANC JUT: A physical finding of subtle LISFRANC injuries

INTRODUCTION

Low-energy Lisfranc injuries are uncommon and are often misdiagnosed as sprains. This results in a delay for the definitive treatment. The aim of this study is to discuss the physical finding of a midfoot "jut," that can be used to help diagnose subtle Lisfranc injuries, in patients who present with persistent midfoot pain after low-energy trauma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2015 through December 2019, patients previously diagnosed with a sprain, who were at least six weeks after their original injury, and presented with midfoot pain, were identified. All had a bony prominence on the medial border of the first tarsometatarsal joint, defined as a "jut", which produced pain. Standing radiographs demonstrated subluxation of the tarsometatarsal joint(s).

RESULTS

Seven patients (5 females/2 males) presented as isolated injuries, with a mean age of 40.4 years. Mechanisms of injury were five falls, one from a sporting event, and one twisting injury. Time to diagnosis, from their date of injury, averaged 9.9 weeks. All underwent fixation. Follow-up averaged 13.7 months. At final follow-up none of the patients developed surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, loosening of implants, loss of reductions or a recurrence of the "jut". None of the patients demonstrated arthrosis and only one patient had a broken screw and declined further surgical intervention.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with a history of low-energy trauma, a diagnosis of sprain, continued complaint of foot pain, and a "jut" on the medial border of the midfoot, should be evaluated for a subtle Lisfranc injury.

The influence of smoking on foot and ankle surgery: a review of the literature

The effect of tobacco smoking on foot and ankle procedures is likely to be more pronounced when compared to other orthopaedic surgery. This is due to the peripheral nature of the vasculature involved. This paper reviews the current clinical evidence on the effects of smoking foot and ankle surgery. In the trauma setting, the evidence suggests that wound complications and non-unions are significantly higher in the smoking population. In the elective setting there is a significantly increased risk of non-union in ankle and hindfoot arthrodeses in smokers. In the setting of diabetes, ulceration rate in smokers is higher and there may be a higher risk of amputation.

Quercitrin alleviates cartilage extracellular matrix degradation and delays ACLT rat osteoarthritis development: An in vivo and in vitro study

Introduction: Disruptions of extracellular matrix (ECM) degradation homeostasis play a significant role in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA). Matrix metalloproteinase 13 (MMP13) and collagen Ⅱ are important components of ECM. Earlier we found that quercitrin could significantly decrease MMP13 gene expression and increase collagen Ⅱ gene expression in IL-1β-induced rat chondrocytes and human chondrosarcoma (SW1353) cells. Objectives: The effects and mechanism of quercitrin on OA were explored. Methods: Molecular mechanisms of quercitrin on OA were studied in vitro in primary chondrocytes and SW1353 cells. An anterior cruciate ligament transection (ACLT) rat model of OA was used to investigate the effect of quercitrin in vivo. Micro-CT analysis and Safranin O-Fast Green Staining of knee joint samples were performed to observe the damage degree of tibial subchondral bone. Immunohistochemistry of knee joint samples were conducted to observe the protein level of MMP13, collagen Ⅱ and p110α in articular cartilage. Results: In vitro, quercitrin promoted cell proliferation and delayed ECM degradation by regulating MMP13 and collagen II gene and protein expressions. Moreover, quercitrin activated the Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase p110α (p110α)/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway by targeting p110α. We also firstly showed that the gene expression level of p110α was remarkably decreased in cartilage of OA patients. The results showed that intra-articular injection of quercitrin increased bone volume/tissue volume of tibial subchondral bone and cartilage thickness and reduced the Osteoarthritis Research Society International scores in OA rats. Meanwhile, immunohistochemical results showed that quercitrin exerted anti-OA effect by delaying ECM degradation. Conclusion: These findings suggested that quercitrin may be a prospective disease-modifying OA drug for prevention and treatment of early stage OA.

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.

Biomechanical Testing of a Transmetatarsal Base Screw in Lisfranc Injuries

OBJECTIVES

To compare displacement between the cuneiforms and metatarsals for a typical Lisfranc screw and a transmetatarsal base screw under biomechanical loading.

METHODS

Eight pairs of cadaveric feet (16 total) were evaluated. The Lisfranc ligamentous structures were transected in all specimens. All feet were repaired with screws traversing the first and second tarsometatarsal joints. A Lisfranc screw was placed from the first cuneiform to the second metatarsal in 8 specimens. A transmetatarsal base screw from the first metatarsal to the second metatarsal was placed in the remaining 8 corresponding feet. The repairs were randomized by side. Markers were placed on the dorsum of the midfoot for optical tracking. The feet were mounted into a load frame and loaded on the plantar forefoot to 100, 400, 800, and 1100 N. Displacement was measured and recorded using 3D camera tracking.

RESULTS

Displacement between the first cuneiform and second metatarsal base was found to be significantly less (P = 0.02) with the transmetatarsal screw than the Lisfranc screw. There were no significant differences between displacements at any other articulations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates biomechanical superiority using a modified transmetatarsal base screw compared with the highly used Lisfranc screw for fixation of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries.

Calcaneocuboid and Naviculocuneiform Dislocation: An Unusual Injury of the Midfoot

Introduction. Midfoot dislocations are rare traumatic injuries. The best known patterns involve the Lisfranc and Chopart joints, although some other types have been described. Dislocations that occur at the level of the naviculocuneiform and calcaneocuboid joints simultaneously represent a very rare configuration of dislocation. Case Presentation. A 34-year-old man sustained a crush injury to his left foot causing a complete dislocation through the naviculocuneiform and calcaneocuboid joints. Immediate closed reduction and percutaneous pinning were performed, followed by open reduction and stabilization of both joints two weeks later. Anatomical reduction was obtained, and the clinical outcome remained satisfactory 10 months after surgery. Discussion. Anatomical reduction is essential to obtain favorable outcomes in traumatic midfoot injuries. An unusual pattern of midfoot dislocation can be treated according to the same principles as those for classical Lisfranc or Chopart injuries.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries: A Single Centre Experience

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries are uncommon and can be challenging to manage. There is considerable variation in opinion regarding the mode of operative treatment of these injuries, with some studies preferring primary arthrodesis over traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). We aim to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of the patients treated with ORIF in our unit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study, in which all 27 consecutive patients treated with ORIF between June 2013 and October 2018 by one surgeon were included with an average followup of 2.4 years. All patients underwent ORIF with joint-sparing surgery by a dorsal bridging plate (DBP) for the second and third tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint, and the first TMT joint was fixed with transarticular screws. Patients had clinical examination and radiological assessment and completed American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Foot Function Index (FFI) questionnaires.

RESULTS

Our early results of 22 patients (5 lost to followup) showed that 16 (72%) patients were pain free, walking normally without aids, and wearing normal shoes and 68% were able to run or play sports. The mean AOFAS midfoot score was 78.1 (63-100) and the average FFI was 19.5 (0.6-34). Radiological assessment confirmed that only three patients had progression to posttraumatic arthritis at the TMT joints though only one of these was clinically symptomatic.

CONCLUSION

Good clinical and radiological outcomes can be achieved by ORIF in lisfranc injuries with joint-sparing surgery using DBP.

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.

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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of acute lisfranc injuries: Open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis

BACKGROUND

Injuries to the Lisfranc complex, although relatively rare carry a high morbidity and are often associated with other injuries. Despite a number published studies to determine the best operative management, there is an ongoing debate to whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) produces the best outcomes for patients. There have been further studies published in the last few years that have not been assessed as part of the wider literature and therefore we wished to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with inclusion of outcomes not assessed in the previous studies.

METHODS

We performed a structured search for retrospective and prospective comparative papers and identified 8 relevant articles (2 RCT studies and 6 non-RCT studies) that compared the outcomes of ORIF versus PA; these studies included a total of 547 patients. Each of the studies was assessed for suitability and quality before inclusion. We performed a statistical analysis of the aggregated results as part of the review.

RESULTS

We found no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of ORIF versus PA in terms of return to work or activity (Odds Ratio 0.80 (CI 95%, 0.32-2.02, P=0.64)) and satisfaction rates (Odds Ratio 0.15 (CI 95%, 0.01-.00, P=0.25)). Patients undergoing ORIF have a higher risk of undergoing further surgery to remove the metalwork (Odds Ration 13.13 (CI 95%, 7.65-22.54, P<0.00001)) or to undergo secondary fusion, but, the overall complication rates appear to be equivalent in both groups (risk difference 0.03 (CI 95%, -0.15-0.21, P=0.76)).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were no significant differences in the functional outcomes, the overall power of the studies is low. The rates of metalwork removal and secondary fusion were higher in the ORIF group and this risk should be presented to the patient when counselling them for any procedure. We noted that there is a high level of heterogeneity in the type of injuries and measured outcomes included in each study and, therefore, further trials are needed to determine the best treatment across the spectrum of Lisfranc complex injuries.

The socioeconomic impact of orthopaedic trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The overall objective of this study was to determine the patient-level socioeconomic impact resulting from orthopaedic trauma in the available literature. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched in December 2019. Studies were eligible for inclusion if more than 75% of the study population sustained an appendicular fracture due to an acute trauma, the mean age was 18 through 65 years, and the study included a socioeconomic outcome, defined as a measure of income, employment status, or educational status. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Pooled estimates of the socioeconomic outcome measures were calculated using random-effects models with inverse variance weighting. Two-hundred-five studies met the eligibility criteria. These studies utilized five different socioeconomic outcomes, including return to work (n = 119), absenteeism days from work (n = 104), productivity loss (n = 11), income loss (n = 11), and new unemployment (n = 10). Pooled estimates for return to work remained relatively consistent across the 6-, 12-, and 24-month timepoint estimates of 58.7%, 67.7%, and 60.9%, respectively. The pooled estimate for mean days absent from work was 102.3 days (95% CI: 94.8–109.8). Thirteen-percent had lost employment at one-year post-injury (95% CI: 4.8–30.7). Tremendous heterogeneity (I²>89%) was observed for all pooled socioeconomic outcomes. These results suggest that orthopaedic injury can have a substantial impact on the patient’s socioeconomic well-being, which may negatively affect a person’s psychological wellbeing and happiness. However, socioeconomic recovery following injury can be very nuanced, and using only a single socioeconomic outcome yields inherent bias. Informative and accurate socioeconomic outcome assessment requires a multifaceted approach and further standardization.

Initial Displacement Does Not Affect Loss of Reduction After Lisfranc Fracture Dislocations

We sought to determine whether significantly displaced Lisfranc injuries had a higher rate of loss of reduction after fixation compared to those with low displacement. Forty-five patients who had fixation of an acute Lisfranc injury from 2005 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent subsequent hardware removal at 3 to 15 months after their index procedure. Radiographs were reviewed from the time of injury, 2 weeks, and 6 months postoperative. Lisfranc joint reduction was assessed using criteria previously described in the literature and graded as malreduced if displacement was >2 mm. We used a cutoff of 4 mm for high initial displacement. Those patients with ≥4 mm of initial displacement did not have an increased rate of loss of reduction after hardware removal compared to those patients with <4 mm initial displacement (40% and 27%, respectively; P = .362). Anatomic reduction was achieved immediately postoperative in 89% of cases. A high degree of displacement in Lisfranc injuries does not preclude achievement and maintenance of adequate reduction after fixation of these injuries. Levels of Evidence: Prognostic study, Level II: Retrospective.

Effect of Surgeon and Hospital Volume on Complications After Operative Tarsal Fracture Repair

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether increased surgeon and hospital volume is associated with lower rates of complications after tarsal fractures.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of the State Inpatient Databases.

SETTING

Two hundred ninety-nine hospitals in Florida (2005-2012) and New York (2006-2008).

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Four thousand one hundred thirty-two tarsal fractures that underwent fixation by 1223 surgeons.

INTERVENTION

Surgical repair of tarsal fractures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Composite of readmission for infection requiring operative treatment, wound dehiscence, nonunion, avascular necrosis, or amputation within 2 years of the index procedure.

RESULTS

The mean age was 44 (±15) years, a majority were men (70%) and white (69%), and the mean number of Charlson comorbidities was 0.21 (±0.58). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated a reduction in the likelihood of complications by 9% for each 5 additional surgeries performed by the operating surgeon [odds ratio (OR), 0.91 per 5 surgeries; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.99]. Other factors associated with complications included increased age (OR, 1.23 per 10 years; 95% CI, 1.10-1.36), male sex (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.17), open fractures (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.92-4.19), number of Charlson comorbidities (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48), income quartile (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.00-2.17), uninsured (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.39-4.39), and other government program insurance (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.18).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a significant inverse relationship between surgeon volume and complication rates when controlling for patient and injury characteristics. In contrast to previous research, a volume-outcome relationship was not observed at the hospital level. These results suggest that such complex injuries should be triaged to the most experienced providers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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

Feasibility of Transosseous Nonarticular Fixation of Lisfranc Injuries

BACKGROUND

The optimal techniques for Lisfranc open reduction and internal fixation techniques remain debated. The purpose of the current study was to describe the joints involved in Lisfranc fixation and to determine if nonarticular transosseous internal fixation would be possible.

METHODS

Twenty cadaver Lisfranc joints were dissected and the articular cartilage was quantified by calibrated digital imaging software. Utilizing CT data, a computational model of the foot was developed and the mean joint surface was mapped and nonarticular screw paths between bones was determined.

RESULTS

For the medial-middle cuneiform (C1-C2) connection, 27.3% of the lateral face of C1 and 43.7% of the medial face of C2 was articular cartilage. Three variations of articular morphology were observed on C1 and 2 on C2. From the 3D models, it was determined that a joint-sparing, transosseous screw trajectory was possible between C1 and the second metatarsal and between C1 and C2. These screw paths were large enough to accommodate clinically useful screw diameters (>5 mm). The screw trajectories were roughly perpendicular to the long axis of the foot and take a plantar-medial to dorsal-lateral orientation.

CONCLUSION

The articular surface of the Lisfranc joint was quantified for the first time and may be smaller than some surgeons realize. This study demonstrated the orientation required to minimize articular damage.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The clinical significance of the current study was that a nonarticular screw trajectory was possible, and this information may help guide the placement of these screws.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis for the Treatment of Acute Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This study aims to compare outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis in management of Lisfranc injuries. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, a systematic review was carried out. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomised studies comparing the outcomes of ORIF and primary arthrodesis for Lisfranc injuries. Random- and fixed-effect statistical models were applied to calculate the pooled outcome data. Two RCTs and 3 observational studies were identified, compiling a total of 187 subjects with acute Lisfranc injuries and a mean follow-up duration of 62.3 months. Our results demonstrate that ORIF is associated with a significantly higher need for revision surgery (odds ratio [OR] 6.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.68 to 15.11, p < .0001) and a significantly higher rate of persistent pain (OR 6.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 36.89, p = .04) compared with primary arthrodesis. However, we found no significant difference between the groups in terms of visual analogue scale pain score, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society functional score, or rates of infection. Separate analysis of RCTs showed that ORIF was associated with a more frequent need for revision surgery (OR 17.56, 95% CI 5.47 to 56.38, p < .00001), higher visual analogue scale pain score (mean difference 2.90, 95% CI 2.84 to 2.96, p < .00001), and lower American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score (mean difference -29.80, 95% CI -39.82 to -19.78, p < .00001). The results of the current study suggest that primary arthrodesis may be associated with better pain and functional outcomes and lower need for revision surgery compared with ORIF. The available evidence is limited and is not adequately robust to make explicit conclusions. The current literature requires high-quality and adequately powered RCTs.

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.

Cost comparison and complication rate of Lisfranc injuries treated with open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown.

METHODS

A national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007 to 2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with lisfranc injuries then progressed to either nonoperative treatment, ORIF, or primary arthrodesis. Associated treatment costs were determined along with complication rate and hardware removal rate.

RESULTS

2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent nonoperative management, 670 underwent ORIF, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5005.82) than for ORIF ($3961.97,P = 0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for ORIF and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P = 0.04). Rates of hardware removal were 43.6% (292/670) for ORIF and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 2.5% (17/670) patients in the ORIF group progressed to arthrodesis at a mean of 308 days, average cost of care associated with this group of patients was $9505.12.

DISCUSSION

Primary arthrodesis is both significantly more expensive and has a higher complication rate than ORIF. Open reduction and internal fixation demonstrated a low rate of progression to arthrodesis, although there was a high rate of hardware removal, which may represent a planned second procedure in the management of a substantial number of patients treated with ORIF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Retrospective Cohort Study.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Primary Arthrodesis Versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Primarily Ligamentous Lisfranc Injuries

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether surgical intervention with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) for Lisfranc injuries is more cost effective. We conducted a formal cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and decision tree to explore the healthcare costs and health outcomes associated with a scenario of ORIF versus PA for 45 years postoperatively. The outcomes assessed included long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY gained. The costs were evaluated from the healthcare system perspective and are expressed in U.S. dollars at a 2017 price base. ORIF was always associated with greater costs compared with PA and was less effective in the long term. When calculating the cost required to gain 1 additional QALY, the PA group cost $1429/QALY and the ORIF group cost $3958/QALY. The group undergoing PA overall spent, on average, $43,192 less than the ORIF group, and PA was overall a more effective technique. Strong dominance compared with ORIF was demonstrated in multiple scenarios, and the model's conclusions were unchanged in the sensitivity analysis even after varying the key assumptions. ORIF failed to show functional or financial benefits. In conclusion, from a healthcare system's standpoint, PA would clearly be the preferred treatment strategy for predominantly ligamentous Lisfranc injuries and dislocations.

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.

Midfoot Degenerative Arthritis and Partial Fusion After Pediatric Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation

We present a case of a 10-year-old girl who sustained a Lisfranc fracture-dislocation after an all-terrain vehicle accident. She underwent open reduction and internal fixation with smooth Kirschner wires. At 5-year follow-up, she had developed functional pain and radiographic evidence of degenerative arthritis and partial fusion of her midfoot. There are several possible explanations for this outcome, including loss of reduction, traumatic or iatrogenic physeal injury, and severity of initial injury. Long-term outcomes in children with Lisfranc injuries are not well described. Our case may begin to shed light on the natural history of these injuries in the pediatric population, with the consideration of potential treatment implications and pitfalls.

The Role of Implant Removal in Orthopedic Trauma

Although implant removal is common after orthopedic trauma, indications for removal remain controversial. There are few data in the literature to allow evidence-based decision-making. The risk of complications from implant removal must be weighed against the possible benefits and the likelihood of improving the patient's symptoms.

Injury Characteristics of Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries Compared With High-Energy Injuries

BACKGROUND

Lisfranc injuries result from high- and low-energy mechanisms though the literature has been more focused on high-energy mechanisms. A comparison of high-energy (HE) and low-energy (LE) injury patterns is lacking. The objective of this study was to report injury patterns in LE Lisfranc joint injuries and compare them to HE injury patterns.

METHODS

Operative Lisfranc injuries were identified over a 5-year period. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, injury pattern, associated injuries, missed diagnoses, clinical course, and imaging studies were reviewed and compared. HE mechanism was defined as motor vehicle crash, motorcycle crash, direct crush, and fall from greater than 4 feet and LE mechanism as athletic activity, ground level twisting, or fall from less than 4 feet. Thirty-two HE and 48 LE cases were identified with 19.3 months of average follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no differences in demographics or missed diagnosis frequency (21% HE vs 18% LE). Time to seek care was not significantly different. HE injuries were more likely to have concomitant nonfoot fractures (37% vs 6%), concomitant foot fractures (78% vs 4%), cuboid fractures (31% vs 6%), metatarsal base fractures (84% vs 29%), displaced intra-articular fractures (59% vs 4%), and involvement of all 5 rays (23% vs 6%). LE injuries were more commonly ligamentous (68% vs 16%), with fewer rays involved (2.7 vs 4.1).

CONCLUSIONS

LE mechanisms were a more common cause of Lisfranc joint injury in this cohort. These mechanisms generally resulted in an isolated, primarily ligamentous injury sparing the lateral column. Both types had high rates of missed injury that could result in delayed treatment. Differences in injury patterns could help direct future research to optimize treatment algorithms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, comparative series.

MicroRNA-218-5p as a Potential Target for the Treatment of Human Osteoarthritis

Emerging evidence suggests that dysregulated microRNAs (miRNAs) play a pivotal role in osteoarthritis (OA), but the role of specific miRNAs remains unclear. Accordingly, we identified OA-associated miRNAs and functional validation of results. Here, we demonstrate that miR-218-5p is significantly upregulated in moderate and severe OA and correlates with scores on a modified Mankin scale. Through gain-of-function and loss-of-function studies, miR-218-5p was shown to significantly affect matrix synthesis gene expression and chondrocyte proliferation and apoptosis. Using SW1353 and C28/I2 cells, PIK3C2A mRNA was identified as a target of miR-218-5p. Downregulation of miR-218-5p dramatically promoted expression of PIK3C2A and its downstream target proteins, such as Akt, mTOR, S6, and 4EBP1. More importantly, OA mice exposed to a miR-218-5p inhibitor were protected from cartilage degradation and had reduced proteoglycan loss and reduced loss of articular chondrocyte cellularity compared with control mice. miR-218-5p is a novel inducer of cartilage destruction via modulation of PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling. Inhibition of endogenous miR-218-5p expression/activity appears to be an attractive approach to OA treatment.

Staged management of open Lisfranc injury: Experience from 14 patients

There are still controversies on the management and outcome of open Lisfranc injury in available studies. This study evaluates the staged management of Lisfranc injury and its complications.Patients who received a staged strategy for open Lisfranc injury were reviewed.One patient with degloving injury suffered from partial skin and hallux necrosis which was treated by debridement, hallux amputation, definitive internal fixation, and local flap transfer on the 12th day after first stage management. A definitive internal fixation and simultaneous skin graft or flap coverage were performed in another 3 patients with soft tissue defects. Other patients without soft tissue problems underwent a second stage of definitive internal fixation. Bone union was observed on the 12.5th week after definitive surgery. The median AOFAS midfoot score at the last follow-up was 74.4 ± 8.7, while the average VAS score was 2.2 ± 1.8. The average return-to-work time was 8th months postoperatively in 9 patients. Flap necrosis, infection, implant failure, nonunion, and osteomyelitis were not observed during the follow-up. Two patients received Lisfranc arthrodesis for persistent pain due to posttraumatic arthritis.In the management of open Lisfranc injury, surgeons must consider soft tissue condition. Staged strategy is a rational protocol for this severe injury. Temporary K-wire fixation after early radical debridement and realignment will facilitate the definitive internal fixation until soft tissue condition improves, which also can decrease the soft tissue complication.