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

Lisfranc injuries account for 0.2% of all fractures and have been linked to poorer functional outcomes, in particular resulting in post-traumatic arthritis, midfoot collapse and chronic pain. This study assesses the longitudinal functional outcomes in patients with low and high energy Lisfranc injuries treated both operatively and non-operatively. Patients above 16 years with Lisfranc injuries from January 2008 and December 2017 were identified through the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes (VOTOR) registry. Follow-up performed at 6, 12 and 24 months through telephone interviews with response rate of 86.1%, 84.2% and 76.2% respectively. Longitudinal functional outcome data using Global Outcome Assessment, EQ-5D-5L, numerical pain scale, Short-Form 12, the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule and return to work status were collected. Univariate analysis was performed and variables showing a significant difference between groups (p < 0.25) were analysed with multivariable mixed effects regression model. 745 patients included in this retrospective cohort study. At 24 months, both the operative and non-operative groups demonstrated similar functional outcomes trending towards an improvement. Mixed effect regression models for the EQ items for mobility (OR 1.80, CI 0.91 – 3.57), self-care (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.09-3.49), usual activities (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99-1.03), pain (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61-1.89), anxiety (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.72-2.34) and pain scale (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.51 – 2.22) and return to work (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.56-2.91) between groups were very similar and not statistically significantly different. We concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between operative and non-operative patients with low and high energy Lisfranc injuries. Current clinical practices in Lisfranc injury management are appropriate and not inadvertently causing any further harm to patients. Future research comparing fracture patterns, fixation types and corresponding functional outcomes can help determine gold standard Lisfranc injury management

Being commonly missed in the clinical practice, Lisfranc injuries can lead to arthritis and long-term complications. There are controversial opinions about the contribution of the main stabilizers of the joint. Moreover, the role of the ligament that connects the medial cuneiform (MC) and the third metatarsal (MT3) is not well investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different Lisfranc ligament injuries on CT findings under two specified loads. Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric lower limbs were embedded in PMMA at mid-shaft of the tibia and placed in a weight-bearing radiolucent frame for CT scanning. All intact specimens were initially scanned under 7.5 kg and 70 kg loads in neutral foot position. A dorsal approach was then used for sequential ligaments cutting: first – the dorsal and the (Lisfranc) interosseous ligaments; second – the plantar ligament between the MC and MT3; third – the plantar Lisfranc ligament between the MC and the MT2. All feet were rescanned after each cutting step under the two loads. The average distances between MT1 and MT2 in the intact feet under 7.5 kg and 70 kg loads were 0.77 mm and 0.82 mm, whereas between MC and MT2 they were 0.61 mm and 0.80 mm, without any signs of misalignment or dorsal displacement of MT2. A slight increase in the distances MT1-MT2 (0.89 mm; 0.97 mm) and MC-MT2 (0.97 mm; 1.13 mm) was observed after the first disruption of the dorsal and the interosseous ligaments under 7.5 kg and 70 kg loads. A further increase in MT1-MT2 and MC-MT2 distances was registered after the second disruption of the ligament between MC and MT3. The largest distances MT1-MT2 (1.5 mm; 1.95 mm) and MC-MT2 (1.74 mm; 2.35 mm) were measured after the final plantar Lisfranc ligament cut under the two loads. In contrast to the previous two the previous two cuts, misalignment and dorsal displacement of 1.25 mm were seen at this final disrupted stage. The minimal pathological increase in the distances MT1-MT2 and MC-MT2 is an important indicator for ligamentous Lisfranc injury. Dorsal displacement and misalignment of the second metatarsal in the CT scans identify severe ligamentous Lisfranc injury. The plantar Lisfranc ligament between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal seems to be the strongest stabilizer of the Lisfranc joint. Partial lesion of the Lisfranc ligaments requires high clinical suspicion as it can be easily missed

The Lisfranc fracture dislocation of the tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) is a complex injury with a reported incidence of 9.2 to 14/100,000 person-years. Lisfranc fixation involves dorsal bridge plating, transarticular screws, combination or primary arthrodesis. We aimed to identify predictors of poor patient reported outcome measures at long term follow up after operative intervention. 127 patients underwent Lisfranc fixation at our Level One Trauma Centre between November 2007 and July 2013. At mean follow-up of 10.7 years (8.0-13.9), 85 patients (66.92%) were successfully contacted. Epidemiological data including age, gender and mechanism of injury and fracture characteristics such as number of columns injured, direction of subluxation/dislocation and classification based on those proposed by Hardcastle and Lau were recorded. Descriptive analysis was performed to compare our primary outcomes (AOFAS and FFI scores). Univariate analysis and multivariate regression analysis was done adjusted for age and sex to compare the entirety of our data set. P<0.05 was considered significant. The primary outcomes were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Score and the Foot Function Index (FFI). The number of columns involved in the injury best predicts functional outcomes (FFI, P <0.05, AOFAS, P<0.05) with more columns involved resulting in poorer outcomes. Functional outcomes were not significantly associated with any of the fixation groups (FFI, P = 0.21, AOFAS, P = 0.14). Injury type by Myerson classification systems (FFI, P = 0.17, AOFAS, P = 0.58) or open versus closed status (FFI, P = 0.29, AOFAS, P = 0.20) was also not significantly associated with any fixation group. We concluded that 10 years post-surgery, patients generally had a good functional outcome with minimal complications. Prognosis of functional outcomes is based on number of columns involved and injured. Sagittal plane disruption, mechanism and fracture type does not seem to make a difference in outcomes

The diagnosis of Lisfranc ligament disruption is notoriously difficult. Radiographs and MRI scans are often ambiguous therefore a stress-test examination under anaesthesia is commonly required. Two midfoot stress-tests are in current practice, namely the varus first ray stress-test and the pronation abduction test. The optimal type of stress-test is not however evaluated in the literature. We hypothesised that after the loss of the main plantar stabiliser (the Lisfranc ligament) the patient would demonstrate dorsal instability, not the classic 1. st. /2. nd. metatarsal diastasis commonly described. We therefore devised a push-up test (placement of a force under the 2. nd. metatarsal in an attempt to elevate the base away from the middle cuneiform on the lateral radiograph). We aimed to initially test our hypothesis on a cadaveric model. Twelve fresh frozen cadaveric specimens without previous foot injury were used. The 2. nd. tarsometatarsal joint was exposed and the Lisfranc ligament and dorsal capsule were incised. An image intensifier was positioned and standard anteroposterior (AP) and lateral views were obtained. Two previously reported AP stress-tests (varus first ray stress test, pronation abduction test) and the novel test under investigation (‘Lisfranc Push-Up’ test) were duly performed. Images were obtained once the investigator felt the appropriate views were achieved. All twelve of the Lisfranc Push-Up tests showed dorsal subluxation of the 2. nd. metatarsal on the middle cuneiform of greater than 2mm on the lateral radiograph. No diastasis of the 1. st. /2. nd. metatarsals was seen in any of the specimens on the AP radiograph for either of the other two stress-tests. The authors have described a novel way of demonstrating the dorsal instability associated with the ligamentous Lisfranc injury. Our results support the Lisfranc Push-Up test as a reproducible and sensitive method for assessing ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. In our cadaveric model the previously described stress-tests do not work

Aims. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of bridge plating, screw fixation, and a combination of both methods for the treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocations. Patients and Methods. A total of 108 patients were treated for a Lisfranc fracture dislocation over a period of nine years. Of these, 38 underwent transarticular screw fixation, 45 dorsal bridge plating, and 25 a combination technique. Injuries were assessed preoperatively according to the Myerson classification system. The outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, the validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) functional tool, and the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical reduction. Results. Significantly better functional outcomes were seen in the bridge plate group. These patients had a mean AOFAS score of 82.5 points, compared with 71.0 for the screw group and 63.3 for the combination group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire score was 25.6 points in the bridge plate group, 38.1 in the screw group, and 45.5 in the combination group (p < 0.001). Functional outcome was dependent on the quality of reduction (p < 0.001). A trend was noted which indicated that plate fixation is associated with a better anatomical reduction (p = 0.06). Myerson types A and C2 significantly predicted a poorer functional outcome, suggesting that total incongruity in either a homolateral or divergent pattern leads to worse outcomes. The greater the number of columns fixed the worse the outcome (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Patients treated with dorsal bridge plating have better functional and radiological outcomes than those treated with transarticular screws or a combination technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:468–74

Background. Lisfranc fracture dislocations are uncommon injuries, which frequently require surgical intervention. Currently, there is varying evidence on the diagnostic utility of plain radiographs (XR) and CT in identifying Lisfranc injuries and concomitant fractures. Our aim was to identify the utility of XR as compared to CT, with the nul hypothesis that there was no difference in fracture identification. Methods. A retrospective assessment of patients who had sustained a Lisfranc injury between 2013 and 2022 across two trauma centres within the United Kingdom who underwent surgery. Pre-operative XR and CT images were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers to identify the presence of associated fractures. Results. A total of 175 patients were included. Our assessment identified that XR images significantly under-diagnosed all metatarsal and midfoot fractures. The largest discrepancies between XR and CT in their rates of detection were in fractures of the cuboid (5.7% vs 28%, p<0.001), medial cuneiform (20% vs 51%, p=0.008), lateral cuneiform (4% vs 36%, p=0.113), second metatarsal (57% vs 82%, p<0.001), third metatarsal (37% vs 61%, p<0.001) and fourth metatarsal (26% vs 43%, p<0.001). As compared to CT, the sensitivity of XR was low. The lowest sensitivity for identification however was lateral foot injuries, specifically fractures of the lateral cuneiform (sensitivity 7.94%, specificity 97.3%), cuboid (sensitivity 18.37%, specificity 99.21%), fourth (sensitivity 46.7%, specificity 89.80%) and fifth metatarsal (sensitivity 45.00%, specificity 96.10%). Conclusion. From our analysis, we can determine that XR significantly under-diagnoses associated injuries in patient sustaining an unstable Lisfranc injury, with lateral foot injuries being the worst identified. We advised the use of CT imaging in all cases for appropriate surgical planning

Background. Anatomical reduction of unstable Lisfranc injuries is crucial. Evidence as to the best methods of surgical stabilization remains sparse, with small patient numbers a particular issue. Dorsal bridge plating offers rigid stability and joint preservation. The primary aim of this study was to assess the medium-term functional outcomes for patients treated with this technique at our centre. Additionally, we review for risk factors that influence outcomes. Methods. 85 patients who underwent open reduction and dorsal bridge plate fixation of unstable Lisfranc injuries between January 2014 and January 2019 were identified. Metalwork was not routinely removed. A retrospective review of case notes was conducted. The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire summary index (MOXFQ-Index) was the primary outcome measure, collected at final follow-up, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale, complications, and all-cause re-operation rates were secondary outcome measures. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors associated with poorer outcomes. Results. Mean follow-up 40.8 months (24–72). Mean MOXFQ-Index 27.0 (SD 7.1). Mean AOFAS score 72.6 (SD 11.6). 48/85 patients had injury patterns that included an intra-articular fracture and this was associated with poorer outcomes, with worse MOXFQ and AOFAS scores (both p < 0.001). 18 patients (21%) required the removal of metalwork for either prominence or stiffness. Female patients were more likely to require metalwork removal (OR 3.89, 95% CI 1.27 to 12.0, p = 0.02). Eight patients (9%) required secondary arthrodesis. Conclusions. This is the largest series of Lisfranc injuries treated with dorsal bridge plate fixation reported to date and the only to routinely retain metalwork. The technique is safe and effective. The presence of an intraarticular fracture is a poor prognostic indicator. Metalwork removal is more likely to be needed in female patients but routine removal may not be essential

Introduction: Lisfranc injuries account for 0.2% of all fractures. Around 20% of these injuries are missed or misdiagnosed leading to long term problems with the foot. Early recognition and treatment of these injuries are crucial in restoring the function of the foot. Aim: To review the functional outcome of patients following surgery for lisfranc injuries. Methodology: This is a retrospective review of patients treated surgically for lisfranc injury in our hospital between January 2000 and January 2007. There were 13 patients whose records were reviewed and data including age, mechanism of injury, associated injuries, surgery performed, and peri-operative complications were collected. A telephonic survey was conducted to find out the current functional and employment status. AOFAS mid-foot score was used to evaluate the outcome. Results: 13 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 31 years at the time of injury. 5 patients were female and 8 male. 10 had injury on the left foot while 3 had on the right. 11 were closed lisfranc injury. 10 patients had isolated lisfranc injury. Seven patients had sustained lisfranc injury following a fall, while three had a road traffic accident. Six patients had a homo-lateral, four had isolated and two had divergent type. Nine patients had trans-articular fixation, seven of whom had open reduction and internal fixation while two had K-wire fixation. Extra-articular fixation was done in four patients. Average AOFAS mid foot scoring was 80 ranging from 47 to 100. Lower scores were related to pain. Nine patients were pain free at follow up and returned to work. Average follow-up period was 32.6 months (range5–77 months). Conclusion: Two thirds of patients with a Lisfranc fracture dislocation return to work and extra-articular fixation may result in superior outcomes compared with the traditional methods

Introduction: The unique architecture of the tarsometa-tarsal joints gives rise to a complex articulation between the midfoot and forefoot. The Lisfranc injury has a classic pattern leaving its telltale signs in an arch pattern starting at the medial cuneiform, continuing through the second, third and fourth tarsometatarsal regions and finally may end as a fracture of the cuboid. However, various other patterns and classifications of Lisfranc fracture dislocation have been recorded in medical literature. Aim: To highlight the hitherto undescribed arch patterns of Lisfranc injuries. Methodology: 8 patients with atypical Lisfranc injuries were studied prospectively. Arch patterns: In 2 patients the arch started at the medial aspect of the ankle with injury to the medial malleolus or the deltoid ligament, passed through the tarsometatarsal region and ended at the cuboid. In one patient the arch started at the tarsometatarsal joints and ended at the lateral malleolus and in another patient the lateral end point resulted in tear of the calcaneofibular ligament. One patient had the medial starting point at the Lisfranc ligament but the arch of injuries went through the forefoot fracturing the midshaft of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th metatarsal shafts without injuring the tarsometatarsal region, thus forming an arch pattern much more distal than usual. Six of the 8 patients had operative management. On follow up, in terms of activities of daily living, 75% had excellent function of the foot. It is not the aim of this paper to highlight the management of these injuries. Conclusion: In the process of listing the telltale signs of a Lisfranc injury it is mandatory to bear in mind that the arch of injuries may extend to as proximal as the ankle joint or as distal as the forefoot and this will enable us to define the entire spectrum of the Lisfranc injury, however atypical it may be

Anatomical variation of Lisfranc mortise has been implicated in the susceptibility of Lisfranc fracture-dislocation. We investigated whether the variations in the dimensions of second metatarsal base makes the joint vulnerable to fracture dislocation. Patients and Methods: 31 normal (group A) and 23 injured (group B) foot x-rays were compared. The average age of patients was 33(range 16–64) years. Routine AP and 45 degree oblique foot x-rays were used to measure second metatarsal parameters such as L (length of second metatarsal) were measured on x-rays in both groups. Additionally D (height of base of second metatarsal in sagittal plane of foot) was measured in CT scans. Statistical analysis was performed to test the viability of the null hypothesis that states that the relationship of second metatarsal length and height at the base does not correlate with increased susceptibility of Lisfranc injury. Similar analyses of the relevant parameters at the second metatarsal mortice were also calculated. Results: Mean values of D, L and D/L were obtained in both groups. Statistically the value of D/L was found to be significantly different between injured group and normal group, with a P value of 0.03, while the values of length of second metatarsal itself was not significantly different between two groups (P=0.15). However, no significant correlation was noticed using other parameters of the second metatarsal mortice. Conclusion: Previously shallowness of the second metatarsal mortice was shown to be significantly correlated with increased risk of Lisfranc injury. However, this study suggests that dimensions of second metatarsal such as, depth/length of the second metatarsal significantly increase the risk of Lisfranc injury. In other words more slender metatarsal dimensions at its base carry increased risk to Lisfranc injury. Thus, anatomical variation at the base of the second metatarsal makes the Lisfranc joint susceptible to injury

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with trans-articular screws or dorsal plating is the standard surgical technique for displaced Lisfranc injuries. This aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous reduction and internal fixation (PRIF) of low energy Lisfranc injuries with a matched, control group of patients treated with ORIF. Over a seven-year period (2012–2019), 16 consecutive patients with a low energy Myerson B2-type injury were treated with PRIF. Patient demographics were recorded within a prospectively maintained database at the institution. This study sample was matched for age, sex and mechanism of injury to a control group of 16 patients with similar Myerson B2-type injuries treated with ORIF. Clinical outcome was compared using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ). At a mean follow up of 43.0 months (95% CI 35.6 – 50.4), both the AOFAS and MOXFQ scores were significantly higher in the PRIF group compared to the control ORIF group (AOFAS 89.1vs 76.4, p=0.03; MOXFQ 10.0 vs 27.6, p=0.03). There were no immediate postoperative complications in either group. At final follow up, there was no radiological evidence of midfoot osteoarthritis in any patient in the PRIF group. Three patients in the ORIF group developed midfoot osteoarthritis, one of whom required midfoot fusion. PRIF is a technically simple, less invasive method of operative stabilisation of low energy Lisfranc injures which also appears to be associated with better mid-term clinical outcomes compared to ORIF

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. 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 follow-up 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 trans-articular 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. Our early results of 22 patients (5 lost to follow-up) 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. Good clinical and radiological outcomes can be achieved by ORIF in Lisfranc injuries with joint-sparing surgery using DBP

Aim We asked the following questions:. Are there reliable clinical signs that herald an impending disorganisation of the Lisfranc’s joint in a diabetic foot?. Does the Charcot changes begin at the Lisfranc’s joint?. Is conventional radiography reliable in making the diagnosis?. Method Forty-five consecutive patients (63% male, 37% female) with a mean age of 59.9 years (range 38–80) were prospectively studied. All had either Type I/II diabetes (75% had Type II diabetes). Diagnosis of Char-cot foot was made using a standardised clinical protocol. Patients with a definite history of trauma/open injuries were excluded. All had a standard follow up programme. The mean follow up was 20 months (range 7–46). Results In 75% of cases radiographs showed malalignment of the Lisfranc joint, 25% had navicular and 6% had fracture of the medial cuneiform. Thirteen per cent had fractures of the metatarsal and another 13% had fracture of the calcaneum. In all patients, Charcot changes were heralded buy a silent, red swollen foot and in few patients these features did exist in spite of no clear-cut radiological findings. As the Charcot changes progressed, more fractures were seen and in 80% of the patients we saw rapid disorganisation of the intertarsal joints of the midfoot. In 80% the earliest radiological change was seen at the Lisfranc’s region. Conclusion and significance of this study The pattern of changes in the Charcot foot varies with the type of diabetes. Conventional radiography is reliable if there is a high degree of suspicion. Charcot changes often appear first at Lisfranc’s joint and usually there are no clear-cut signs in order to make a clinical diagnosis

Purpose. Operative treatment of Lisfranc joint injuries typically includes reduction and stabilization of the medial and middle columns of the midfoot. Mobility of the lateral column is preserved where possible, such that indications for lateral column stabilization rely upon the surgeons assessment of instability. In this case series, the indication for lateral column stabilization was defined by the results of an intra-operative stress test. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intra-operative fluoroscopic stress test of the lateral column was sufficient to determine the need for internal fixation of the lateral column in Lisfranc joint injuries. Method. 35 adult patients with Lisfranc injuries operated in our centre by a single surgeon from 2005–2009 were reviewed. All patients had unstable midfoot fracture dislocations, treated by reduction and internal fixation including an intra-operative stress examination to determine the need for lateral column fixation. Patients were contacted for clinical and radiographic review at a mean of 31 months post injury. Functional outcome was assessed using general and joint-specific outcome tools (AOFAS midfoot score and LEM). Radiographic review included analysis of joint displacement and arthritic changes in preoperative, postoperative, and most recent radiographs. Results. Pre-operative imaging demonstrated displacement of the lateral column in 25 / 35 patients. Nineteen of these 25 had a stable reduction of the lateral column following medial and middle column fixation, based upon an intra-operative stress examination. Only 6 patients had persistent instability; these were treated with lateral column stabilization. Reduction of the lateral column was maintained at final follow up in 100 percent of 35 patients. Lateral midfoot pain was present in 5/6 patients requiring lateral fixation, compared to 1/(19) patient who did not require lateral fixation. AOFAS midfoot scores (mean) were 80 15. in patients with no evidence of lateral column instability, 79 15. in patients with preoperative displacement but a negative stress examination, and 77 18 in patients requiring lateral fixation (p>0.05). Post-traumatic arthrosis was present in 3/10 patients with no evidence of lateral column instability, 4/19 patients with preoperative displacement but a negative stress examination, and 4/6 in patients requiring lateral fixation (p>0.05). Conclusion. The decision to stabilize the lateral column during surgery on Lisfranc injuries was aided by an intra-operative fluoroscopic stress examination. Based upon the stress examination, 19 / 25 patients who had a displaced lateral column at the time of presentation avoided lateral fixation. None of these 19 patients treated without lateral fixation lost reduction in the follow up period. A fluoroscopic intra operative stress test safely reduced the need for lateral column fixation in displaced Lisfranc joint injuries

Diagnosis. a. History and exam. i. True Lisfranc fracture dislocations are NOT difficult to diagnose. b. Midfoot sprains or subtle injuries. i. These are DIFFICULT to diagnose. - subtle x-ray findings with minimal displacement. i) Exam: - be “suspicious” of midfoot sprains. - TMT tenderness, swelling. - inability to WB. ii) Mechanism of injury:. - indirect twisting injury (athletic). - crush injury of the foot (trauma). - axial forefoot loading (dancers, jumpers). iii) Investigations:. - X-rays usually normal or subtle widening. need to assess all 3 views in detail. standing AP compare to the other side. -Stress x-rays: - if clinical symptoms indicate - severe injury + pain but x-ray looks normal. - MRI useful for anatomic/instability correlation. - CT scan good for subtle injuries/fractures and displacement. - Bone scan positive in subacute/chronic pain situation. Treatment. a) Surgical Indications. i) Any displacement/positive stress xrays/test. ii) Surgical technique. - open reduction or closed and percutaneus fixation. - anatomic reduction essential. - NWB period up to 6 weeks. - WB with protection for another 4-6 weeks. iii. Screw vs tightrope fixation. iv. Hardware removal. b) Non-operative. i) Stable non-displaced sprain (need to make sure this is stable, ie stress views). - 6 to 8 weeks NWB. - expect prolonged recovery up to 6 months with. proper treatment. Controversial Issues:. a. Do all injuries with mild displacement have to be fixed operatively?. b. Arthrodesis vs fixation for soft tissue lisfranc with mild displacement?. c. Arthrodesis vs fixation subacute or chronic presentation?. d. Hardware removal?

Lisfranc injury is named after Jacques Lisfranc, a field surgeon in Napoleon’s army. Based on Columnar classification of Lisfranc fracture dislocation, study of injury to medial column was carried out as they have the potential to be a severe cause of residual disability in the foot if not properly treated at the initial stage. Importance of Medial column is that it forms the highest point of longitudinal arch and may be injured in isolation or in association with lateral and middle column. Complex deforming forces may cause unusual pattern of medial column injuries at more than one level. There is renewed interest in this injury over past decade as modalities of treatment have changed over a period of time from conservative to fixation with K-wires to rigid fixation with screws to fixation with absorbable screws or combination of above. We present 21 cases of medial column injuries in Lis-franc fracture-dislocation. Age ranged from 18 to 65 yrs. All were male. Four fixed with compression screws,12 fixed with K-wires, 2 managed conservatively, 3 were neglected cases. Post-operatively POP back splint was given, K-wire removal at 8 weeks, screw removal after 12 weeks and partial weight bearing started at 8-12 weeks. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 3 years. They were graded on basis of residual pain, foot shape, and movements. Best results were seen in cases where rigid intertarsal / intercolumnar stability was achieved by screw fixation. There was residual inter-cuneiform subluxation in 4 cases, which were fixed with K-wires, and this led to residual pain. Conservative/neglected cases had poor results. Intercolumnar / intertarsal instabilities should be primarily recognized and stabilized under compression. Stabilization should not only be within the 3 columns but also intercolumnar, thus maintaining the relative length of 3 columns and hence reconstitution of medial longitudinal arch

Aim. Anatomical reduction and Stable fixation of Lisfranc injuries is considered the gold standard. There is controversy about how it is best achieved. Some surgeons would advocate routine open anatomical reduction, which as a concept was popular in 1980s but the same anatomical reduction and fixation can be achieved percutaneously. We describe our method of close reduction and percutaneous fixation and present our results. Materials and methods. 22 patients with a minimum follow up of 12 months were included. We achieved satisfactory anatomical reduction percutaneously in all patients and internal fixation was performed using cannulated screws for medial and middle columns. Functional outcome was evaluated using Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI) and components of this score were analysed individually to assess which domain was most affected. Vertical ground reaction forces were measured using a force plate in a walking platform. Results. The average age at operation was 48 years (17–67). Mean follow up was 20 months (13–60). The average Foot & Ankle Disability Index at final follow up was 79 (66–94). No loss of reduction or metal breakage was noted. Walking on uneven surface, going down stairs, heavy work and pain first thing in the morning were the domains of functional Index that showed poor recovery. None of the patients had pain at rest. Only three patients found it extremely hard to return to recreational activities. None of the patients had problems related to wound. Gait analysis showed a prolonged push-off (p=0.22) and significantly prolonged pre-swing phase (p=0.015) of the affected limb. Conclusions. Percutaneous reduction and fixation technique for Lisfranc injuries provides predicatable good functional outcome and gait pattern similar to open tecchinques with a potentially decreased risk of wound problems

Introduction. Lisfranc joint injuries account for only 0.2% of all fractures but early diagnosis improves the chances of a better outcom]. Radiographic signs, such as diastasis (>2mm) of the 1–2 interspace, are subtle and. often missed, leading to a poorer outcome. We present a new radiographic sign, less likely to result in missed diagnoses. Null nypothesis: The intermetarsal angle remains unchanged in Lisfranc injuries. Method. A series of radiographs demonstrating Lisfranc injury were interspersed with normal and postoperative cases. Evidence of fixation was obscured. A selection of Foundation and Core Trainee medical staff measured the intermetatarsal angle (IMA) on two separate occasions. The measuring technique was demonstrated with no explanation for the reason behind the measurement. Results. The intra-class correlation (ICC) between observers was 0.96 and a mean 0.86 (range 0.69–0.96) for individual observers. IMA on comparative weight bearing AP views of injured and normal side, using Wilcoxon-signed rank test demonstrated a P< 0.0001 with mean values of 6.6 degrees (normal) versus 4.85 degrees (injured) and standard deviation of 1.97 & 1.91 degrees respectively. Conclusion. The high ICC value suggests that this radiographic sign is easily taught, reliable and reproducible. Analysis of individual angles suggests that there is a significant difference between the normal and pathological IMA. We therefore reject our null hypothesis. The data supports our proposition that that the IMA becomes more parallel in Lisfranc injuries and that this is an easily recognised sign, which could help reduce the incidence of missed injuries. Elucidation of the exact anatomical pathology responsible is the basis for further, anatomical, studies

Purpose: To report concomitant dorsal dislocation of first metatarsophalangeal joint and divergent Lisfranc dislocation, a uniquely “floating forefoot” and analyse clinical pathodynamics. Methods & Results: We treated concomitant dorsal dislocation of first metatarsophalangeal joint and divergent Lisfranc fracture-dislocation in an intoxicated patient as a heavy weight fell on foot. Closed reduction of first metatarsophalangeal joint was unstable until after open reduction and fixation of first tarsometarsophalangeal joint. First to third tarsometatarsal joints were stabilised with cannulated screws and lateral two rays with Kirschner wires. Prophylactic fasciotomies were performed to preempt potentially high risk of failure of recognition of compartment syndrome in intoxicated patient. Clinical pathodynamic analysis suggests that natural tendency to withdraw the foot contributed to primary medial loading with forced hyperextension of hallux metatarsophalangeal joint and enhanced complementary hyperflexion of midfoot. The former resulted in dorsal dislocation of first metatarsophalangeal joint. Then load shift toward secondary axis of lateral divergent loading became the operative force to produce divergent Lisfranc dislocation, which effectively resulted in a floating forefoot. Conclusions: Floating forefoot is a unique injury after high-energy trauma, although floating metatarsal and association between Jahss Type I complex dislocation of first metatarsophalangeal joint and Lisfranc injury were described. Floating forefoot also represents Grade V in the modified classification of metarsophalangeal injuries (Kodali Siva R K Prasad et al Modification of Clanton’s classification) as progression of injury pattern transcends the local barrier and raises the spectrum of dynamic cascade of multidirectional transmission of the operative forces with the resultant unique injury