Treatment of primarily ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries: primary arthrodesis compared with open reduction and internal fixation. Surgical technique

Primary fusion versus open reduction internal fixation for purely ligamentous lisfranc injuries: A Prospective comparative study and analysis of factors affecting the outcomes

BACKGROUND

The studies evaluating the outcomes of treatment of purely ligamentous unstable Lisfranc injuries are scarce. This study aimed at comparing outcomes of primary tarso-metatarsal joints fusion versus open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of such condition and determining the possible factors that may alter the outcomes.

METHODS

This study comprised 30 patients; 16 in fusion group and 14 in ORIF group. One column was operated on in 2 patients, two columns in 21, and three columns in 7. The mean follow-up period was 36 months.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding patients or injury characteristics. The mean AOFAS and FFI-Rs scores were 88.9 and 22.7 in the fusion group, compared to 61.7 and 34.5 in the ORIF group (P = .03,.04 respectively). At final follow-up all patients in the primary arthrodesis group were maintaining an anatomical reduction versus 71.5% in the ORIF group. Sixteen patients (53%) reported prominent hardware troubles that required removal. Five patients in ORIF group developed osteoarthritis, and four of them underwent secondary fusion. There was significantly higher incidence of posttraumatic osteoarthritis in patients with non-anatomical reduction and complete injuries. Better mean AOFAS and FFI-Rs scores occurred with non-smokers and with anatomical reduction.

CONCLUSION

Based on this limited case series, purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries were found to have better outcomes when managed with a primary fusion as compared to ORIF. Achieving and maintaining anatomical reduction was the most important factor that is significantly attributed to improved outcomes. Possible arthritic changes and additional surgeries apart from implant removal could be avoided by primary fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

level I- prospective comparative case study.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Staged surgical treatment of open Lisfranc fracture dislocations using an adjustable bilateral external fixator: A retrospective review of 21 patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the early operative results of a staged progressive reduction technique using a bilateral external fixator in the treatment of patients with open Lisfranc fracture dislocations.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 21 patients (5 women and 16 men; mean age=44.4 years; age range=24 to 69 years) with open Lisfranc fracture dislocations were included. All the patients were treated in a staged manner from 2012 to 2015. The mean follow-up was 15.4 months (range=12 to 24 months). A two-stage surgical protocol was performed for each patient. At the first stage, a bilateral spanning external fixator was applied across the injured Lisfranc joint, and the length of the disrupted columns was restored by distraction process. Vacuum-assisted closure was used if required. At the second stage, the external fixator was removed, and open reduction and internal fixation were carried out. The time interval between the first and second stages and postoperative complications were documented. To assess the functional status of the patients, the visual analog scale (VAS) and the American Orthopaedic Foot - Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale were measured at the final follow-up. Radiographic parameters indicating the alignment of the midfoot after the second operation were examined.

RESULTS

Deep infection in one patient and superficial infection in 2 patients were observed. Venous thrombosis was detected in 3 patients. The mean interval between the first and second stages was 18.6 days (range=8 to 48 days). The first metatarso-cuneiform step-off (p=0.002) and the second metatarso-cuneiform step-off (p=0.000) significantly improved at the final follow-up. The mean VAS score was 2.4 (range=0-5), and the mean AOFAS score was 76.3 (range=63 to 97). Primary arthrodesis was performed in seven patients, and six of the remaining 14 patients developed post-traumatic arthritis.

CONCLUSION

With a low risk of complications, the staged progressive reduction protocol using an adjustable bilateral external fixator can be an effective treatment to achieve and maintain anatomic reduction for patients with open Lisfranc fracture dislocations in a short-time follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Therapeutic study.

Polytrauma and High-energy Injury Mechanisms are Associated with Worse Patient-reported Outcomes After Distal Radius Fractures

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant when evaluating the treatment of orthopaedic injuries. Little is known about how PROs may vary in the setting of polytrauma or secondary to high-energy injury mechanisms, even for common injuries such as distal radius fractures.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Are polytrauma and high-energy injury mechanisms associated with poorer long-term PROs (EuroQol Five Dimension Three Levels [EQ-5D-3L] and QuickDASH scores) after distal radius fractures? (2) What are the median EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS [EuroQol VAS], and QuickDASH scores for distal radius fractures in patients with polytrauma, high-energy monotrauma and low-energy monotrauma METHODS: This was a retrospective study with followup by questionnaire. Patients treated both surgically and conservatively for distal radius fractures at a single Level 1 trauma center between 2008 and 2015 were approached to complete questionnaires on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-VAS) and wrist function (the QuickDASH). Patients were grouped according to those with polytrauma (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16), high-energy trauma (ISS < 16), and low-energy trauma based on the ISS score and injury mechanism. Initially, 409 patients were identified, of whom 345 met the inclusion criteria for followup. Two hundred sixty-five patients responded (response rate, 77% for all patients; 75% for polytrauma patients; 76% for high-energy monotrauma; 78% for low-energy monotrauma (p = 0.799 for difference between the groups). There were no major differences in baseline characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents. The association between polytrauma and high-energy injury mechanisms and PROs was assessed using forward stepwise regression modeling after performing simple bivariate linear regression analyses to identify associations between individual factors and PROs. Median outcome scores were calculated and presented.

RESULTS

Polytrauma (intraarticular: β -0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.21 to -0.02]; p = 0.015) was associated with lower HRQoL and poorer wrist function (extraarticular: β 11.9; 95% CI, 0.4-23.4; p = 0.043; intraarticular: β 8.2; 95% CI, 2.1-14.3; p = 0.009). High-energy was associated with worse QuickDASH scores as well (extraarticular: β 9.5; 95% CI, 0.8-18.3; p = 0.033; intraarticular: β 11.8; 95% CI, 5.7-17.8; p < 0.001). For polytrauma, high-energy trauma, and low-energy trauma, the respective median EQ-5D-3L outcome scores were 0.84 (range, -0.33 to 1.00), 0.85 (range, 0.17-1.00), and 1.00 (range, 0.174-1.00). The VAS scores were 79 (range, 30-100), 80 (range, 50-100), and 80 (range, 40-100), and the QuickDASH scores were 7 (range, 0- 82), 11 (range, 0-73), and 5 (range, 0-66), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

High-energy injury mechanisms and worse HRQoL scores were independently associated with slightly inferior wrist function after wrist fractures. Along with relatively well-known demographic and injury characteristics (gender and articular involvement), factors related to injury context (polytrauma, high-energy trauma) may account for differences in patient-reported wrist function after distal radius fractures. This information may be used to counsel patients who suffer a wrist fracture from polytrauma or high-energy trauma and to put their outcomes in context. Future research should prospectively explore whether our findings can be used to help providers to set better expectations on expected recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Nonoperative, open reduction and internal fixation or primary arthrodesis in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial - study protocol

Background

Lisfranc injuries are known to be rare and often overlooked injuries that can cause long-term disability and pain when missed or treated incorrectly. The wide variety of Lisfranc injuries ranges from subtle ligament distensions to open fracture dislocations. The treatment of Lisfranc joint injuries is still controversial and very little is known about what types of injury can be treated nonoperatively. The current literature provides only two randomized studies on dislocated Lisfranc injuries. These studies have shown that primary arthrodesis (PA) leads to a similar or better outcome and results in fewer secondary operations when compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in ligamentous injuries. There have been no previous randomized studies of the nonoperative versus operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the operative and nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries and to compare the ORIF and PA treatment of dislocated Lisfranc injuries.

Methods

This study is a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial. The trial comprises two strata: Stratum I compares cast-immobilization versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc joint injuries. Stratum II compares PA versus ORIF in the treatment of dislocated injuries of the Lisfranc joint. The main hypothesis of stratum I is that the nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries achieves a similar outcome compared with operative treatment (ORIF). The hypothesis of stratum II is that PA of dislocated Lisfranc injuries yields a similar functional outcome compared with ORIF, but that PA results in fewer secondary operations than ORIF. The main outcome measure is the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot score and the secondary outcome measures are Visual-Analogue-Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA), Visual-Analogue-Scale (VAS), rate of secondary operations and other treatment-related complications. The results will be analyzed after the 2-year follow-up period.

Discussion

This publication presents a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial study protocol. It provides details of patient flow, randomization, aftercare and methods of analysis of the material and ways to present and publish the results.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24.10.2016.

Staged Management of Missed Lisfranc Injuries: A Report of Short-term Results

OBJECTIVE

Lisfranc joint injury is a rare injury and can be easily missed at the initial treatment. Once ignored, late reduction is very difficult and requires extensive dissection. Surgical outcome is not as good as in the case of an early reduction. The aim of this cohort study was to analyze the midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes of staged reduction and fixation in a consecutive series of patients with old Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

Fifteen patients (16 feet) with missed Lisfranc injuries were treated with staged reduction. Mean duration between injury and surgery was 4.8 months (3-8 months). In the first stage, an external fixator was applied across the Lisfranc joint or/and Chopart joint and distraction was done at 1-2 mm/day. In the second staged, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were done and we were able to reduce all the fractures and dislocations.

RESULTS

The mean duration between two surgeries was 3.2 weeks (range, 2.5-4.5 weeks). Anatomic reduction was obtained in all 15 patients. At the last follow-up point, 7 feet had good functional results, 5 feet fair, and 4 feet poor functional results. In the 4 patients who achieved poor functional results, 2 cases were due to severe injuries to the articular surface and tissue scaring; 2 cases were due to loss of reduction. For the 4 feet with poor functional results, 2 were scheduled for secondary arthrodesis during the follow-up. The average American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Midfoot Scale (AOFAS) scores for these patients were 75.8 points (range, 43-98 points). The pain visual analog scale (VAS) was 3.1 points at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that staged reduction and extra-articular fixation should be considered for old Lisfranc injuries with a good reduction, firm stability, and low risk of intraoperative fracture and soft tissue complications.

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.

Comparison of Arthrodesis and Non-fusion to Treat Lisfranc Injuries

OBJECTIVE

"Lisfranc joint injury" is comprised of a tarsometatarsal joint-complex injury. The Lisfranc complex injury is always a challenge for orthopedists, and the optimum treatment is still up for debate. Anatomic reduction and stable internal fixation prove to have no satisfactory outcomes. This research aims to compare the clinical curative effects, complications and radiographic features of arthrodesis and non-fusion of the Lisfranc joint in the follow-up of the patients who suffered Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

A comparative retrospective study of 25 patients with acute or subacute Lisfranc complex injuries was conducted between September 2013 and March 2015 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. All patients were classified by Myerson classification. Eight patients were treated with arthrodesis, while 17 patients received non-fusion operations. The clinical curative effects, complications and image differences were compared between the two groups. American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score, Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score were evaluated for each patient during the follow-up. All statistics were analyzed using the SPSS software system.

RESULTS

All fractures healed for both the arthrodesis group and the non-fusion group. Patients in the arthrodesis group had a higher AOFAS score compared with patients in the non-fusion group (94.00 vs. 88.58, P = 0.034). Complications occurred in eight patients (8/17, 47%) in the non-arthrodesis group, including the second and third phalanx abduction (1), talipes cavus (2), eversion deformity of front foot (3), eversion deformity of calcaneus (1), as well as postoperative infection (1). Only two patients (2/8, 25%) in the arthrodesis group suffered complications. One was a limitation of motion of the front foot and pain during walking; the other was an eversion deformity of front foot.

CONCLUSION

Primary arthrodesis has advantages compared to primary open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF): reduced foot deformity rates, sustained biomechanical morphology of the feet, reduced complications, higher level of function recovery, shorter time of surgical procedures, fewer complications, higher AOFAS score and fewer frequency of complications. According to our research, primary arthrodesis may be a better choice for treating Lisfranc injury.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Arthrodesis versus ORIF for Lisfranc fractures

The Lisfranc joints make up the bony structural support of the transverse arch in the midfoot and account for approximately 0.2% of all fractures. Early recognition and treatment of this injury are paramount to preserving normal foot biomechanics and function. Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment of patients with Lisfranc injuries, particularly when the instability is entirely ligamentous.The authors performed a qualitative, systematic review of the literature to compare the 2 most common procedures for Lisfranc fractures: primary arthrodesis and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Six articles with a total of 193 patients met the inclusion criteria. At 1-year follow-up, the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score of ORIF patients was 72.5 and of arthrodesis patients was 88.0. Fisher's exact test revealed no significant effect of treatment group on the percentage on patients who had an anatomic reduction (P=.319).This study highlights that both procedures yield satisfactory and equivalent results. A slight advantage may exist in performing a primary arthrodesis for Lisfranc joint injuries in terms of clinical outcomes.

Epidemiology, imaging, and treatment of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations revisited

The purpose of this article is to discuss the features of Lisfranc injuries and identify their typical imaging findings on radiographs, CT, and MR imaging. Lisfranc injuries are most often caused by hyperplantarflexion of the foot, often during a sporting injury or in high-speed motor vehicle collisions. The most common radiographic findings include diastasis of the base of the first and second metatarsals and the "fleck" sign, though neither is necessarily present in every Lisfranc fracture-dislocation. Owing to their often subtle radiographic presentation, clinically suspected Lisfranc injuries warrant imaging with a more sensitive test for the detection of osseous and ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. 3D CT imaging provides a comprehensive evaluation of the injury for optimal treatment planning, with resultant decreased long-term patient morbidity. Furthermore, 3D volume-rendered CT and CT multiplanar reconstructions (MPRs) provide osseous and neurovascular anatomic detail that may be a considerable help with surgical planning for operative cases of Lisfranc injuries. Also, with 3D CT and MPRs, other occult fractures, which are common in patients with high-energy injury and multiple trauma, may become evident.

Lisfranc arthrodesis

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations are complex injuries that require a high skill set from foot and ankle surgeons to diagnose and treat. Conservative treatment is seldom an option for treatment of Lisfranc injuries. The authors believe that even subtle injuries require surgical intervention. The comparison between open reduction internal fixation, partial arthrodesis, and complete arthrodesis is discussed, as well as various fixation techniques to accomplish these procedures when approaching a Lisfranc injury.

Reconstruction After Malunited Lisfranc Injuries

Symptomatic secondary osteoarthritis of the Lisfranc joints due to malunion following Lisfranc joint fracture dislocations or ligamentous lesions at the Lisfranc and innominate joint level generally lead to a painful functional loss and a substantial disturbance of the walking performance. Initially missed or inadequately addressed primary lesions still represent the major source of Lisfranc joint malunions. Neuro-osteoarthropathic disorders may also become manifest in the Lisfranc joint region and may be mistaken for truly posttraumatic consequences. Secondary osteoarthritis may be combined with typical multiplanar deformities. The concept of a corrective arthrodesis includes restoration of stable physiologic axes and length proportions of the foot columns. A standardized approach to analyze the clinical picture and corresponding pathomorphology and the transfer into a comprehensive surgical concept which respects the realignment of any component of deformity is a prerequisite for a good functional outcome and a high degree of patient satisfaction. A fusion limited to the medial three rays combined with a soft tissue release may be sufficient for a favorable outcome in the majority of cases and preserve the mobility of the two lateral rays.

The versatility of the Lapidus arthrodesis

Lapidus Arthrodesis is probably the most versatile procedure of the foot and ankle surgeon. The procedure was conceived initially for the surgical treatment of met primus adductus associated with hallux valgus, but has also been used for the treatment of a variety of other conditions including hallux limitus, revision bunion surgery, medial column stabilization, and others. Although the use of the Lapidus in bunion surgery is well supported in the literature, surgeons have been expanding its indications to manage a variety of disorders affecting the foot. As more surgeons continue to gain experience with the procedure, additional studies will emerge, further supporting its versatility in the realm of foot surgery.

High-energy foot and ankle trauma: principles for formulating an individualized care plan

Care of the patient with high-energy foot and ankle trauma requires an individualized care plan. Staged treatment respecting the traumatized soft tissue envelope is often advisable. Wound care is a priority, and the vacuum-assisted closure dressing serves an integral role. Before definitive reconstruction, the surgeon needs to develop a treatment plan designed to match the unique personality of the patient and injury. Amputation is considered a rational treatment option for the patient with severe injury and poor host biology. Despite the most appropriate management, many severe foot and ankle injuries have a guarded prognosis.

Treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocations with an interosseous suture button technique: a review of 3 cases

Lisfranc fracture dislocations are complex and difficult to treat. Making the correct diagnosis and achieving an anatomical reduction are important factors in regard to achieving a favorable outcome with this injury. We describe a new technique that we have found to be useful for stabilizing Lisfranc fracture dislocations. This method is relatively fast, minimally invasive, and effective, and it eliminates the need for implant removal. To date, we have achieved predictable results for stabilizing and treating these difficult injuries with the use of a suture endobutton, instead of traditional interfragmental screw fixation. In this report, we describe 3 cases in which this method was used with satisfactory short-term results.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

4.