Outcomes after nonoperatively treated non-displaced Lisfranc injury: a retrospective case series of 55 patients (original) (raw)
Related papers
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
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.
Diagnosis and management of lisfranc injuries and metatarsal fractures
Rhode Island medical journal (2013), 2013
Forefoot and midfoot injuries are relatively common and can lead to chronic disability, especially if they are not promptly diagnosed and appropriately treated. A focused history and physical examination must be coupled with a thorough review of imaging studies to identify the correct diagnosis. Subtle radiographic changes can represent significant ligamentous Lisfranc injury. Midfoot swelling in the presence of plantar ecchymosis should be considered to be a Lisfranc injury until proven otherwise. While most metatarsal fractures can be treated with some form of immobilization and protected weight-bearing, this article will distinguish these more common injuries from those requiring surgical intervention. We will review relevant anatomy and biomechanics, mechanisms of injury, clinical presentation, imaging studies, and diagnostic techniques and treatment.
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics, 2021
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±...
Injury, 2017
The classification of a Lisfranc injury has conventionally been based around Myerson's system. The aims of this study were to review whether a novel classification system based on sagittal displacement of the tarsometatarsal joint and breadth of injury as determined by a columnar theory was associated with functional outcomes and thus had a greater utility. We retrospectively reviewed 54 Lisfranc injuries with a minimum follow up of two years at our Level One Trauma Centre. Each fracture was sub-classified based on our novel classification system which assessed for evidence of sagittal displacement and involvement of columns of the midfoot. Our primary outcome measures were the FFI and AOFAS midfoot scores. Injuries involving all three of the columns of the midfoot were associated with significantly worse functional outcome scores (FFI p=0.004, AOFAS p=0.036). Conversely, sagittal displacement, whether dorsal or plantar, had no significance (FFI p=0.147, AOFAS p=0.312). The best...
Pedobarographic, Clinic, and Radiologic Evaluation after Surgically Treated Lisfranc Injury
Journal of Investigative Surgery, 2020
Introduction: Lisfranc injuries are rare, often missed, and may cause permanent structural deterioration of tarsometatarsal joint, despite optimal management. Consequently, a Lisfranc injury may lead to disruption of the biomechanics of the normal foot during walking and may alter the plantar pressure distribution, which is essential for proper gait mechanics. Therefore, the main purpose of the study was to specify the dynamic plantar pressure, radiographic and clinical features, after surgically managed Lisfranc injuries. Methods: This study was carried out over a period of 10 years and included 62 patients who were surgically treated for Lisfranc injury, with mean 57-month follow-up. Radiological (intermetatarsal, Kite's, first metatarsophalangeal, Meary's, Hibbs' and calcaneal pitch angles, and medial cuneiform-fifth metatarsal distance), pedobarographical, and clinical results with the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score assessments for both feet were assessed. Results: In the radiological assessment, the mean first intermetatarsal (p ¼ 0.006) and Meary's angle (p ¼ 0.000) were decreased on the injured feet compared to the uninjured feet on the anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. In the pedobarographic assessment, the injured feet midfoot contact time increased (p ¼ 0.03), and maximum force (p ¼ 0.001), total peak pressure (p ¼ 0.008), and contact area (p ¼ 0.017) decreased, compared to the uninjured feet. The mean AOFAS score was 75/100 at the final follow-up visit. There was seen to be reduced both contact surface area and time of the midfoot. Conclusion: Despite surgical management of Lisfranc injuries, the injured foot does not regain functional, radiological, or pedobarographical levels as compared to the uninjured foot for ! 57 months.
Arthrodesis or Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Meta-analysis
Foot & Ankle Specialist
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...
Clinical management of Lisfranc joint injuries
Jacques Lisfranc (1790-1847), a field surgeon in Napoleon's army, described an amputation involving the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint due to a severe gangrene that developed when a soldier fell from a horse with his foot caught in a stirrup. 1-3 Although this is one type of TMT joint injury, it must be understood that the so-called Lisfranc injury does not delineate any one specific fracture or dislocation, but instead a spectrum of processes involving the TMT joint complex.
Prediction of Midfoot Instability in the Subtle Lisfranc Injury
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 2009
Background: The objective of the present study was to assess the utility of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of an injury to the Lisfranc and adjacent ligaments and to determine whether conventional magnetic resonance imaging is a reliable diagnostic tool, with manual stress radiographic evaluation with the patient under anesthesia and surgical findings being used as a reference standard. Methods: Magnetic resonance images of twenty-one feet in twenty patients (ten women and ten men with a mean age of 33.6 years [range, twenty to fifty-six years]) were evaluated with regard to the integrity of the dorsal and plantar bundles of the Lisfranc ligament, the plantar tarsal-metatarsal ligaments, and the medial-middle cuneiform ligament. Furthermore, the presence of fluid along the first metatarsal base and the presence of fractures also were evaluated. Radiographic observations were compared with intraoperative findings with respect to the stability of the Lisfranc joint, and logistic regression was used to find the best predictors of Lisfranc joint instability. Results: Intraoperatively, seventeen unstable and four stable Lisfranc joints were identified. The strongest predictor of instability was disruption of the plantar ligament between the first cuneiform and the bases of the second and third metatarsals (the pC1-M2M3 ligament), with a sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of 94%, 75%, and 94%, respectively. Nineteen (90%) of the twenty-one Lisfranc joint complexes were correctly classified on magnetic resonance imaging; in one case an intraoperatively stable Lisfranc joint complex was interpreted as unstable on magnetic resonance imaging, and in another case an intraoperatively unstable Lisfranc joint complex was interpreted as stable on magnetic resonance imaging. The majority (eighteen) of the twenty-one feet demonstrated disruption of the second plantar tarsalmetatarsal ligament, which had little clinical correlation with instability. Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging is accurate for detecting traumatic injury of the Lisfranc ligament and for predicting Lisfranc joint complex instability when the plantar Lisfranc ligament bundle is used as a predictor. Rupture or grade-2 sprain of the plantar ligament between the first cuneiform and the bases of the second and third metatarsals is highly suggestive of an unstable midfoot, for which surgical stabilization has been recommended. The appearance of a normal ligament is suggestive of a stable midfoot, and documentation of its integrity may obviate the need for a manual stress radiographic evaluation under anesthesia for a patient with equivocal clinical and radiographic examinations. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. I nadequate treatment of low-energy injuries of the Lisfranc articulation can result in substantial disability, deformity, and dysfunction 1. These injuries often occur in young active individuals who are involved in sports activities, and they are frequently missed at the time of the initial presentation 1-3. The mechanism of injury usually involves an axial load that is applied to the heel of a plantar flexed ankle (with the toes extended), resulting in a tensile force to the convexity of the tarsometatarsal articulations 4. This forces the metatarsal bases dorsally and can disrupt the supporting ligaments, resulting in Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.
Lisfranc fracture dislocation: a review of a commonly missed injury of the midfoot
Emergency Medicine Journal, 2016
Musculoskeletal trauma to the foot is a common presentation to EDs. A Lisfranc fracture dislocation involves injury to the bony and soft tissue structures of the tarsometatarsal joint. While it is most commonly seen post high velocity trauma, it can also present post minor trauma. It is also misdiagnosed in approximately 20% of cases. These Lisfranc injuries typically present to EDs with pain particularly with weight bearing, swelling and post a characteristic mechanism of injury. Diagnosis is via clinical examination and radiological investigation-typically plain radiographs and CTs. Once diagnosed, Lisfranc injuries can be classified as stable or unstable. Stable injuries can be immobilised in EDs and discharged home. Unstable injuries require an orthopaedic referral for consideration of surgical fixation.