Aims

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates.

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

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.

The December 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360 . looks at: The midfoot fusion bolt: has it had its day?; Ankle arthroplasty: only for the old?; A return to the Keller’s osteotomy for diabetic feet?; Joint sparing surgery for ankle arthritis in the context of deformity?; Beware the subtalar fusion in the ankle arthrodesis patient?; Nonunion in the foot and ankle a predictive score; Cast versus early weight bearing following Achilles tendon repair; Should we plate Lisfranc injuries?

The August 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360 . looks at: Is orthosis more important than physio in tibialis posterior deficiency?; Radiographic evaluation of ankle injury; Sciatic catheter quite enough!; A fresh look at avascular necrosis of the talus; Total ankle and VTE; Outcomes of posterior malleolar fracture; Absorbable sutures in the Achilles tendon; Lisfranc injuries under the spotlight