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

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

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. 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

The anatomy of the mortise of the Lisfranc joint between the medial and lateral cuneiforms was studied in detail, with particular reference to features which may predispose to injury. In 33 consecutive patients with Lisfranc injuries we measured, from conventional radiographs, the medial depth of the mortise (A), the lateral depth (B) and the length of the second metatarsal (C). MRI was used to confirm the diagnosis. We calculated the mean depth of the mortise (A+B)/2, and the variables of the lever arm as follows: C/A, C/B and C/mean depth. The data were compared with those obtained in 84 cadaver feet with no previous injury of the Lisfranc joint complex. Statistical analysis used Student’s two-sample t-test at the 5% error level and forward stepwise logistic regression. The mean medial depth of the mortise was found to be significantly less in patients with Lisfranc injuries than in the control group. Stepwise logistic regression identified only this depth as a significant risk factor for Lisfranc injuries. The odds of being in the injury group is 0.52 (approximately half) that of being a control if the medial depth of the mortise is increased by 1 mm, after adjusting for the other variables in the model. Our findings show that the mortise in patients with injuries to the Lisfranc joint is shallower than in the control group and the shallower it is the greater is the risk of injury

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

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome of isolated, displaced Lisfranc injuries requiring operative intervention and identify whether results of treatment are influenced by workers compensation. This retrospective study reviewed all patients who underwent operative intervention for Lisfranc injuries. Patients with concomitant injuries were excluded from further investigation so that the outcome of purely isolated Lisfranc injuries could be assessed. The minimum follow-up was two years and the senior author performed all the operations. Patients were contacted and their employment status recorded. Ordinal regression analysis was performed to identify which factors influenced the outcome. Forty-six patients were studied and 24 had pursued medico-legal claims. The average Workcover payment was Aus$25,000 (£10,000). Thirteen of forty-six patients had a poor outcome. Eleven of these patients had compensation claims (p< 0.01) and 11 had greater than a three month delay in treatment following diagnosis (p< 0.05). Although 12/33 men and 1/13 women had a poor outcome this difference was not statistically significant. The need for secondary fusion was not associated with a poor outcome. There was no significant difference between outcome and mechanism of injury or previous occupation. There was no correlation between the outcome and age at the time of injury. This series of 46 patients has a long follow-up of a rare injury. We believe that this study has medico-legal implications on reporting prognosis for such injuries and highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment for such injuries

Lisfranc injuries are not the common injuries of foot and ankle but there has been an increase in the incidence of these injuries due to road traffic accidents and fall from heights. We wish to present our retrospective case series of the operative management of the Lisfranc injuries by our senior author. We retrospectively reviewed 68 patients with Lisfranc injuries who were managed operatively by the senior author over the last six years. The case note and the radiographs including the CT scans were reviewed. All of them were treated with open reduction and internal fixation within three weeks of injury. The male: female ratio was 43:25. 37 right: 31 left sided injuries. The average age was 40.6 years (range 16 – 81 years). The most common mechanism of injury was fall from steps at home followed by motor bike accident. They average follow-up was 19.5 months and they were assessed both clinically and radiographically at each follow-up. The k wires were removed at an average of six weeks. 96% were pain free and fully weight bearing after six months. Two patients had lateral scar tenderness. Majority of them returned to normal activities at an average of 12 months. Two patients had initial wound complications which were treated successfully with oral antibiotics. None of them had degenerative changes. Our results of early open reduction and internal fixation were comparable to the published literature

Introduction. We describe a novel single incision approach and its safety in the largest reported series of Lisfranc injuries to date. Via separate subcutaneous windows it is possible to access the medial three rays of the foot for bridge plating, without the concern of narrow skin bridges between multiple incisions. Methods. A retrospective review identified all 150 patients who underwent a Lisfranc ORIF via the modified dorsal approach at the Royal Melbourne Hospital between January 2011 and June 2016. All patients were operated by a single surgeon. Removal of metalwork (ROM) was routinely undertaken at six months post-operatively via the same incision. Medical recored were reviewed to record patient demographics, mechanism of injury and surgical details. Outpatient notes were reviewed to identify wound-related complications including; delayed wound healing, superficial infection, wound dehiscence, deep infection, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), neuroma and impaired sensation. Median follow-up was 1012 days (range 188–2141). Results. Median age was 37 years (19–78). 110 (73%) patients were male. Mechanism of injury was: motor vehicle accident (37%), motor bike accident (19%) and fall (18%). 24 (16%) injuries were open, 5 of which required soft tissue reconstruction at the primary surgery. A total of 34 wound related complications occurred (22%); superficial infection (14), delayed wound healing (7), wound dehiscence (5), CRPS (4), impaired sensation (3), neuroma (1). Re-operation was necessary in the 5 patients who experienced wound dehiscence; 4 requiring split skin grafts and 1 requiring a free flap. Crush injuries were 10 times more likely to have wound complications than those sustained in motor vehicle accidents. Patients undergoing ROM were more likely to have wound complications than those who did not. Conclusion. The modified dorsal approach using subcutaneous windows to access the midfoot joints offers a viable alternative to existing approaches

Background. Anatomical reduction and stable internal fixation has been recommended as the standard treatment for fracture dislocations of the tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) joint. Many methods of fixation have been utilised including K-wires and screw fixation, the latter being the preferred method as it provides a stronger more stable construct. However, the screws require removal after the injury has healed. We present a different method and technique of stabilisation utilising memory staples. The technique is extra-articular and avoids breaching the TMTJ joint surface, is simple and avoids the necessity of removal of hardware. Methods. 11 patients with isolated ligamentous Lisfranc injuries were treated with memory staple fixation over the past 4 years at our centre. Patients' outcome was assessed with use of the Foot & Ankle Disability Index (FADI) Score, the American Foot & Ankle Score, radiographic and clinical follow-up at an average time of 2 years post surgery. Results. The average FADI score was 86.4 (on a scale of 100 points, with 100 points indicating an excellent outcome). The average American Foot & Ankle score was 90 out of a 100. All patients demonstrated stable long term reduction of the TMT joints and none have required subsequent fusion. In all but 1 patient, there had been fatigue failure of the memory staples making hardware removal unnecessary. Conclusion. Internal fixation of Lisfranc joint fracture-dislocation with memory staples is an effective fixation method with results comparable to conventional screw fixation with the added benefit of alleviating the need for further surgery to remove the metal work

Introduction: Up to 20% of Lisfranc injuries can go unrecognised with resultant long-term morbidity. Spontaneous relocation may mask the injury. Standard AP, lateral and oblique views of the foot are the primary radiological views. Weight bearing views may not be possible acutely and stress views may require anaesthesia. The standard AP view does not show the tarso-metatarsal joint clearly with alignment of the medial border of the second metatarsal to the medial border of the intermediate cuneiform all important. Materials and methods: We used a tangential AP view of the tarso-metatarsal joint taken by tilting the x-ray beam cephalad. The degree of tilt was dictated by the declination angle of the first metatarsal seen on the lateral view of the foot (20–25 degrees for most people). Sixteen patients had standard AP, lateral and oblique views of their foot at the time of injury and were not diagnosed to have a Lisfranc injury. They remained symptomatic for an average period of 5 weeks (range, 2 to 15 weeks) before they had the tangential view of the Lisfranc joint. Results: In all 16 patients the first and second tarso-metatarsal joint and the first inter-metatarsal space were more clearly visible. Thirteen patients had abnormal findings to confirm the diagnosis of Lisfranc injury and for 2 surgical treatment would have been appropriate if identified earlier than 14 and 15 weeks respectively. Discussion and conclusion: This view confirmed the diagnosis in 13 patients who would have otherwise been discharged as a minor soft tissue injury. We have also used this view successfully for injecting local anaesthetic in the tarso-metatarsal joints to elucidate the exact source of pain. We recommend this simple view should be routinely used in addition to the standard AP, lateral and oblique views of the foot for mid foot injuries

The results of treatment of Lisfranc injuries are often unsatisfactory. This retrospective study investigated 46 patients with isolated Lisfranc injuries at a minimum of two years after surgery. Thirteen patients had a poor outcome and had to change employment, or were unable to find work as a result of this injury. The presence of a compensation claim (p = 0.02) and a delay in diagnosis of more than six months were associated with a poor outcome (p = 0.01). There was no association between poor functional outcome and age, gender, mechanism of injury or previous occupation. This study may have medico-legal implications on reporting the prognosis for such injuries, and highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment

Background. Lisfranc/midfoot injuries are complex injuries with a reported incidence of 1 in 55000 in literature and frequently overlooked. But, recently they are becoming more commonly diagnosed with advent of CT scan and examination under anaesthesias (EUA) for suspicion fractures. Here we present a case series results of a single surgeons experience over the last 6 years. Methods. Retrospective review of 68 patients treated by a single surgeon over the last 6 years. Injuries were diagnosed on plain Xrays, clinic examination. Any suspicious injury were further assessed by a CT scan, all injuries were confirmed by EUA and treated with open reduction and internal fixation within 4 weeks of injury. Post-operative immobilisation in full cast for 6 weeks then a removal boot with non-weight bearing for a total of 3months. They were followed up regularly initially at 3, 6 and 12months. At final review the following data was collected: clinical examination, plain x-ray looking for: late deformity, signs of OA in Lisfranc joint, Auto fusion rate, rate of metal work failure. The x-rays findings were correlated with: (1) type of fixation. (2) The following scores: FAOS, AOFAS-M, specially designed new foot and ankle score. Results. 43 males: 25 females. 37 right: 31 left sided injuries. 90% were fully weight bearing with minimal discomfort after 6months. In 12 months all of them returned to their normal daily life activities. Wound complications: 2 of them had initial wound complications which were treated successfully with 2 weeks of oral antibiotics, 2 had lateral scar tenderness. One had loosened metal work, revised to fusion. Conclusion. Early operative intervention with good anatomical reduction can minimise the potential chronic disability associated with these injuries. This is a largest series of Lis-franc injuries of a single surgeon with good clinical outcome following surgical fixation

Purpose: To evaluate the functional outcome of operatively treated Lisfranc injuries. Method: Over a 7-year interval from 1998 to 2005, 184 skeletally mature patients were identified retrospectively with operatively treated Lisfranc injuries. 85 patients had prospectively measured SMFA functional outcomes and satisfaction surveys. The gender was 37 males and 48 females. Mean age was 39 years (range 17–93). Results: The mechanism was fall (31), MVA (24), crush (15), equestrian (5), or twisting (10). Patients were operatively treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF, 53) or primary arthrodesis (PA, 32). The SMFA reliability for this patient sample was 0.892. The function and bother outcomes were 19.4 and 15.8, respectively. The function (21.5 vs. 16.0, p=.11) and bother (17.5 vs. 13.0, p=.25) outcomes were not significantly different for ORIF vs. PA, respectively. In the ORIF group, HW removal (40 of 53) performed better than HW retention (13 of 53) with outcome bother but not function measures of (14.7 vs. 26.1, p< 0.05). Conclusion: If performed well, either ORIF or PA technique function well. Patients are more satisfied with the results and appearance of PA over ORIF. HW removal compared to HW retention positively affect bother not function measures. Secondary surgeries negatively affect both bother and function measures. Patients with pain, associated foot or polytrauma injuries function worse

Introduction. Lisfranc joint injuries are increasingly recognised in elite soccer and rugby players. Currently no evidence-based guidelines exist on timeframes for return to training and competition following surgical treatment. This study aimed to see whether return to full competition following surgery for Lisfranc injuries was possible in these groups and to assess times to training, playing and possible related factors. Material/Methods. Over 46-months, a consecutive series of fifteen professional soccer (6) and rugby(9) players in the English Premierships/Championship, was assessed using prospectively collected data. All were isolated injuries, sustained during competitive matches. Each had clinical and radiological evidence of injury and was treated surgically within thirty-one days. A standardised postoperative regime was used. Results. Follow-up was obtained in all fifteen cases. Eight cases were ligamentous injuries and seven were bony. Time from injury to fixation ranged from 10–31 days. One athlete retired following a ligamentous injury. All remaining fourteen returned to training and full competition. Excluding the retired case, mean return to training time was 20.2 weeks and to full competition was 25.6 weeks. No significant difference existed between the mean return to competition time for rugby (27.8 weeks) and soccer(24.7 weeks). A significant difference existed between the mean return to competition time for ligamentous (23.7 weeks) compared to bony(27.6 weeks) injuries(p = 0.012). Three patients suffered deep peroneal nerve sensation loss, two of which fully recovered. Discussion/Conclusion. Return to competitive elite-level soccer and rugby is possible following surgically treated Lisfranc injuries. Return to training can take up to 24 weeks and playing up to 31 weeks, with bony injuries taking longer. To our knowledge this is the largest series of its kind and whilst we recognise it contains small numbers, we feel it provides some guidance on rehabilitative timeframes for those who treat and those who sustain these injuries. Evidence Level: 4

Injuries to the tarsometatarsal joint complex are uncommonly recognised. Many treatment modalities have been advocated. In recent years anatomic reduction and temporary rigid fixation with trans -articular screws has become popular. This is a study conducted over a period of at least two years. It reviews the management and subsequent outcome of a series of consecutive patients with an average age of 40.1 who suffered tarsometatarsal injury, or Lisfranc fracture. Anatomic or near anatomic reduction was achieved using temporary bridging plate fixation of the TMT joints and occasionally also with second metatarsal base medial cuneiform screw fixation. Two years post surgery a good or excellent functional result was generally achieved; however midfoot stiffness was a common problem

Introduction. In this study we decided to observe the incidence of osteoarthritis following ORIF of Lisfranc joint injury. We also intended to point out the influence of different factors such as late diagnosis of the fracture, co-fractures, and open or close fractures on the incidence of osteoarthritis. Methods. Patients with a dislocation more than 2 millimeters in simple AP, lateral and oblique radiograms of the foot who went through ORIF were included. Patients were classified according to: Anatomic or non-anatomic reduction, open or close fractures, presence of other fractures and early or late diagnosis (up to 6 weeks). The incidence of osteoarthritis was then compared in these groups. Results. In 20 patients (45%), post traumatic osteoarthritis occurred. In the 10 patients with non-anatomic reduction, 8 (80%) experienced osteoarthritis, when from the 34 patients with anatomic reduction 12(35%) did so (p = 0.004). Discussion. 9% of the cases were not diagnosed in the 1st visit and 22% attended the hospital with delay. According to the findings, having either open or close fracture or delayed diagnosis up to 6 weeks has no influence on the prevalence of osteoarthritis after trauma, and the only important factor affecting the prevalence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis is anatomic reduction

There is debate whether a home run screw (medial cuneiform to 2nd metatarsal base) combined with k-wire fixation of 4th & 5th rays is sufficient to stabilise Lisfrance injuries or if fixation of the 3rd ray is also required. Unlike the 2nd, 4th and 5th TMTJ, stabilisation of the 3rd requires either intra-articular screw or a cross joint plate which both risk causing chondrolysis and/or OA. Using 8 Theil embalmed specimens, measurements of TMTJ dorsal displacement at each ray (1st to 5th) and 1st – 2nd metatarsal gaping were made during simulated weight bearing with sequential ligamentous injury and stabilisation to determine the contribution of anatomical structures and fixation to stability. At baseline mean dorsal TMTJ displacement of the intact specimens during simulated weight bearing (mm) was: 1st: 0.14, 2nd: 0.1, 3rd:0, 4th: 0, 5th: 0.14. The 1st-2nd IM Gap was 0mm. After transection of the Lisfranc ligament only, there was 1st-2nd intermetatarsal gaping (mean 4.5mm), but no increased dorsal displacement. After additional transection of all the TMTJ ligaments dorsal displacement increased at all joints (1st: 4.5, 2nd: 5.1, 3rd: 3.6, 4th: 2, 5th: 1.3). Stabilisation with the home run screw and 4th and 5th ray k-wires virtually eliminated all displacement. Further transection of the 3rd/4th inter-metatarsal ligaments increased mean dorsal displacement of the 3rd ray to 2.5mm. K-wire fixation of the 3rd ray completely eliminated dorsal displacement. The results suggest that stabilising the 2nd and 4/5th TMTJs will stabilise the 3rd if the inter-metatarsal ligaments are intact. Thus 3rd TMTJ stability should be checked after stabilising the 2nd and 4/5th. Provided the intermetatarsal ligaments (3rd-4th) are intact the 3rd ray does not need to be stabilised routinely

Introduction: Unstable Lisfranc (tarsometatarsal) joint injuries are increasingly being treated by open reduction and internal fixation. Hypothesis: A good outcome is achievable by anatomical reduction and internal fixation of these injuries. Methods: This was a retrospective outcome-analysis involving 21 patients. Six were treated non-operatively. There sere eight ligamentous and seven ligamentous/osseous injuries. The patients’ outcomes were assessed with the use of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and the long-form Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) score. Results: The average follow-up was11 months. One patient developed a post-operative infection, and another developed a deep-vein thrombosis. The average AOFAS score was 71 and the average MFA score was 32. The study group as a whole sustained their injuries through low-energy trauma, therefore comparison with other studies should take this into account. Conclusions: Follow-up in this study was short an this was reflected in the scoring. Longer follow-up will allow a greater evaluation of final outcome

We present the results of a multicentre retrospective study of closed fracture dislocations of the Lisfranc joint treated by closed reduction and percutaneous screw fixation (follow-up: almost 5 years). Forty-two patients that presented between 1994 and 1999 to the authors™ institutions were selected for this study (follow-up AOFAS score 81.0 ± 13.5). A review of the literature shows that opinions differ as to the most appropriate method of treatment, be it closed or open reduction, screws or K-wires fixation, but most of the authors agree that it is imperative to achieve anatomical reduction. In our study, no statistically significant differences could be detected when outcome scores of patients with anatomical reduction were compared with outcome scores of patients with nearly anatomical reduction, in both the combined fracture dislocation and pure dislocation subgroups. The conclusion is that even a nearly anatomical reduction is considered acceptable and predictive of a satisfactory outcome. Furthermore, we found a statistically significant difference in the AOFAS score between patients with combined fracture dislocations and pure dislocations, with the latter having a worse AOFAS score. This suggests that the ligament bone interface cannot heal with sufficient strength to regain stable long-term function

1. The mechanism of injury in tarso-metatarsal dislocation and fracture-dislocation has been investigated by experimental studies in the cadaver. Two distinct types of injury were observed.

2. Five cases of simple tarso-metatarsal dislocation and seventeen cases of fracture-dislocation are reviewed.

3. The treatment of the injury is discussed.

The April 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Displaced femoral neck fractures in patients aged 55 to 70 years: internal fixation or total hip arthroplasty?; Tibial plateau fractures: continuous passive motion approves range of motion; Lisfranc fractures: to fuse or not to fuse, that is the question; Is hardware removal after clavicle fracture plate fixation beneficial?; Fixation to coverage in Grade IIIB open fractures – what’s the time window?; Nonoperative versus locking plate fixation in the proximal humerus; Retrograde knee nailing or lateral plate for distal femur fractures?

Background. Undisplaced Lisfranc-type injuries are subtle but potentially unstable fracture-dislocations with little known about the natural history. These injuries are often initially managed conservatively due to lack of initial displacement and uncertainty regarding subsequent instability at the tarsometatarsal joints (TMTJ). The aim of this study was to determine the secondary displacement rate and the need for delayed operative intervention in undisplaced Lisfranc injuries that were managed conservatively at initial presentation. Methods. Over a 6-year period (2011 to 2017), we identified 24 consecutive patients presenting to a university teaching hospital with a diagnosis of an undisplaced Lisfranc-type injury that was initially managed conservatively. Pre-operative radiographs were reviewed to confirm the undisplaced nature of the injury (defined as a diastasis< 2mm at the second TMTJ). The presence of a ‘fleck’ sign (small bony avulsion of the second metatarsal) was also noted. Electronic patient records and sequential imaging (plain radiographs/CT/MRI) were scrutinized for demographics, mechanism of injury and eventual outcome. Results. The mean age of the patients at the time of injury was 42 years (19 Female). 96% (23/24) were low energy injuries and 88% (21/24) had a positive ‘fleck sign’. The secondary displacement rate in this group of patients was 62.5% (15/24) over a median interval of 14 days (range 0 to 482 days). 12 patients underwent open reduction internal fixation after a median interval of 29 days (range 1 to 294 days) from their initial injury. One patient required TMTJ fusion at 19 months and two patients were managed non-operatively. The injury remained undisplaced in 37.5% patients (9/24) with only one patient requiring subsequent TMTJ fusion at 5 months. Conclusion. Undisplaced Lisfranc injuries have a high rate of secondary displacement and warrant close follow-up. Early primary stabilisation of undisplaced Lisfranc injuries should be considered to prevent unnecessary delays in surgical treatment

The April 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360. looks at: Outcomes following a two-stage revision total ankle arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection; Temporary bridge plate fixation and joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury; Outcomes of fusion in type II os naviculare; Total ankle arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis; Normal saline for plantar fasciitis: placebo or therapeutic?; Distraction arthroplasty for ankle osteoarthritis: does it work?; Let there be movement: ankle arthroplasty after previous fusion; Morbidity and mortality after diabetic Charcot foot arthropathy

Background. Research on midfoot injuries have primarily concentrated on the central column and the Lisfranc ligament without amassing evidence on lateral column injuries. Lateral column injuries have historically been treated with Kirschner wire fixation when encountered. Objective. Our aim in this study was to analyse lateral column injuries to the midfoot, their method of treatment and the radiological lateral column outcomes. Our nul hypothesis being that fixation is required to obtain and maintain lateral column alignment. Methods. Data was retrospectively collected from four centres on surgically treated midfoot fracture dislocations between 2011 and 2021. Radiographs were analysed using departmental PACS. All statistics was performed using SPSS 26. Results. A total of 235 cases were diagnosed as having a lateral column injury out of the 409 cases included. On cross tabulation, there was a significant association with having a central column injury (234/235, p<.001) and 70% of cases (166/235) also had an additional medial column injury. Of the 235 lateral column injuries, data was available regarding fixation radiographic alignment on 222 cases. There were 44 cases which underwent Kirschner wire fixation, 23 plate fixations and 3 screw fixations. Lateral column alignment loss was seen in 2.84% (4/141) of those which didn't undergo fixation, 13.64% (6/44) which underwent K wires, and 0 % in those fixed by screws or K wires. Conclusion. Lateral column injury occurs in over half of midfoot fractures in this study. It rarely occurs alone and is most commonly related to three column injuries. Nevertheless, following stabilisation of the central column, additional fixation of injuries to the lateral column do not appear beneficial. The use of a bridge plate to fix the central column appears protective and purely ligamentous injury was a higher risk than an injury that included the bone

Ligamentous injury of the tarsometatarsal joint complex is uncommon but disabling. Injuries to individual ligaments can be visualised with MRI. The relative mechanical contribution of the three ligaments of the second TMTJ is unknown. Methods. The second and third metatarsals and the first cuneiform were dissected from twenty pairs of cadaveric feet. In group I, seven pairs were submaximally loaded to determine stiffness with the dorsal, plantar, and Lisfranc ligaments intact. One of each pair underwent sectioning of the dorsal ligament and was then loaded to failure. In the contralateral specimen both plantar and Lisfranc ligaments were divided before retesting. In group II all 13 pairs underwent dorsal ligament excision and stiffness determination. One of each pair was randomly assigned to undergo sectioning of the plantar ligament, the other sectioning of the Lisfranc ligament, before retesting. Results and Conclusions. The Lisfranc ligament is stronger and stiffer than the plantar ligament. The dorsal ligament is weaker than the Lisfranc/plantar complex. This suggests that ligamentous injuries of the second tarsometatarsal joint may be considered stable if the Lisfranc ligament is intact – even if the other two ligaments are disrupted. If the Lis-franc ligament is injured then the complex is less stiff and may be unstable

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

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.

Purpose: Severe trauma in the mid-foot induces various foot deformities, causing pain. The mechanism and treatment of foot deformities following mid-foot trauma were evaluated. Materials: We evaluated feet showing dislocation and/or fracture of 2 or more joints or 2 or more tarsal bones encountered at our department between 1983 and 1996. The subjects were 24 males (26 feet) and 8 females (8 feet) aged 21–58 years (mean, 37 years). The injury that caused foot deformities was navicular bone fracture in 1 case, Chopart dislocation in 3, Lisfranc dislocation in 23, and fracture dislocation of the cuneiform in 5, The follow-up period was 2 years and 4 months _ 8 years (mean, 4 years and 9 months). Deformities occurred in these cases and associated factors were evaluated. Results: Flat foot deformity occurred in the 1 case of navicular bone dislocation and 2 of fracture dislocation of the cuneiform. Cavovarus deformity occurred in the 6 cases of Lisfranc fracture dislocation. Other deformities were observed in 3 feet. All patients complained of pain and fatigability during walking and were treated by corrective osteotomy and arthrodesis. Though the pain reduced, discomfort in the foot persisted, making heavy labor impossible in 3 cases. Discussion: In the mid-foot, there are many small tarsal bones, to which many tendons and ligaments are attached, forming the foot arch. Even though injury of one joint or one ligament (tendon), foot deformity can be induced. It is also possible that intraarticular injury was already severe at the time of injury, inducing secondary deformity. In trauma of the mid-foot involving multiple joints, the injured area should be adequately evaluated by preoperative stress X-P or MRI

Lisfranc injuries make up 0.2% of all fractures. With or without midfoot injuries, treatment requires early accurate diagnosis, anatomical reduction and stable internal fixation. Some surgeons prefer K-wire fixation, while others rely on rigid screw fixation, especially of the medial column. To assess the radiological and functional outcome of K-wire fixation of Lisfranc injuries, we carried out a prospective study between January 1999 and December 2000. The ages of our 15 male and four female patients ranged from 15 to 47 years. Using the Quenu and Kuss system to classify injuries, we treated five isolated, nine homolateral and five divergent injuries. In eight patients there were associated midfoot injuries, and four had compound fractures. We treated 11 fractures with closed reduction and K-wires. Open reduction with K-wire fixation was carried out on eight fractures, including the four compound fractures, within 19 days of admission. All patients were kept non-weight-bearing in a short backslab, and the wires removed at six weeks. Follow-up times ranged from 4 to 19 months. To assess functional outcome we used the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society’s midfoot scoring system, which has a maximum score of 100. The mean score of our patients was 70 (52 to 85). Mild or occasional foot pain and slight gait abnormality resulted in limitation of recreational activities. At three months, 15 patients were fully weight-bearing. A single case of superficial sepsis resolved, and there were no cases of implant failure or loss of reduction. K-wire fixation following anatomical reduction is a satisfactory option for the treatment of tarsometatarsal injuries, especially when severe injuries involve the midfoot. The technique is minimally invasive and the K-wires are easily inserted and removed

The flat foot is a frequent deformity in children and results in various levels of functional alterations. A diagnosis based on foot morphology is not sufficient to define the therapeutic approach. In fact, the degree of severity of the deformity and the effects of treatments require careful functional assessment. In case of functional flatfoot, subtalar arthroereisis is the surgical treatment of choice. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the functional outcomes of two different bioabsorbable implants designed for subtalar arthroereisis in childhood severe flat foot by means of thorough gait analysis. Ten children (11.3 ± 1.6 yrs, 19.7 ± 2.8 BMI) were operated for flat foot correction [1,2] in both feet, one with the calcaneo-stop method, i.e. a screw implanted into the calcaneus, the other with an endoprosthesis implanted into the sinus-tarsi. Gait analysis was performed pre- and 24 month post-operatively using a 8-camera motion system (Vicon, UK) and a surface EMG system (Cometa, Italy) to detect muscular activation of the main lower limb muscles. A combination of established protocols, for lower limb [3] and multi-segment foot [4] kinematic analysis, was used to calculate joint rotations and moments during three level walking trials for each patient. At the foot, the tibio-talar, Chopart, Lisfranc, 1. st. metatarso-phalangeal joints were tracked in three-dimensions, together with the medial longitudinal arch. Significant differences in standard X-ray measurements were observed between pre- and post-op, but not between the two treatment groups. Analysis of the kinematic variables revealed functional improvements after surgery. In particular, a reduction of eversion between the shank and calcaneus (about 15° on average) and a reduction of inversion between metatarsus and calcaneus (about 18° on average) were detected between pre- and post-operatively after both treatments. Activation of the main plantar/dorsiflexor muscles was similar at both pre- and post-op assessments with both implants. The combined lower limb and multi-segment foot kinematic analyses were found adequate to provide accurate functional assessment of the feet and of the lower limbs. Both surgical treatments restored nearly normal kinematics of the foot and of the lower limb joints, associated also to a physiologic muscular activation

Lisfranc fracture dislocations of the midfoot are uncommon but serious injuries, associated with posttraumatic arthrosis, progressive deformity, and persistent pain. Management of the acute injury aims to restore anatomic tarsometatarsal alignment in order to minimise these complications. Reduction and stabilisation can be performed using image-guided percutaneous reduction and screw stabilisation (aiming to minimise the risk of wound infection) or through open plating techniques (in order to visualise anatomic reduction, and to avoid chondral damage from transarticular screws). This retrospective study compares percutaneous and open treatment in terms of radiographic reduction and incidence of early complications. Case records and postoperative radiographs of all patients undergoing reduction and stabilisation of unstable tarsometatarsal joint injuries between 2011 and 2014 in our institution were reviewed. Dorsoplantar, oblique and lateral radiographs were assessed for accuracy of reduction, with malreduction being defined as greater than 2mm tarsometatarsal malalignment in any view. The primary outcome measure was postoperative radiographic alignment. Secondary outcome measures included the incidence of infection and other intra- or early postoperative complications. During the study period, 32 unstable midfoot injuries were treated, of which 19 underwent percutaneous reduction and screw stabilisation and 13 underwent open reduction and internal fixation. Of the percutaneous group, no wound infections were reported, and there were four (21.1%) malreduced injuries. Of the open group, two infections (15.4%) were observed, and no cases of malreduction. In conclusion, our study shows a strong trend towards increased risk of malreduction when percutaneous techniques are used to treat midfoot injuries, and an increased risk of infection when open surgery is used. Whilst conclusions are limited by the retrospective data collection, this study demonstrates the relative risks to consider when selecting a surgical approach

During the cold snap in the West of Scotland 20 December 2009 to 10 January 2010 there was a cluster of uncommon lower limb injuries in children from sledging accidents. These cases are presented as a series. This retrospective descriptive study details acute orthopaedic admissions for the period of the cold snap. The case-notes for all admissions were reviewed for diagnosis, mechanism of injury. Five (ex 20 ie 1/4) trauma admissions involved sledging: (1) combined avulsion of anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments left knee (2) Lisfranc injury, (3) distal femoral fracture, (4) distal tibial plafond fracture, (5) pelvis, patella also forearm and facial fractures. These cases are analysed in more detail. Sledging injuries comprise a substantial portion of workload and morbidity. In children, there is a propensity for lower limb and higher energy trauma. Tertiary referrals and non-standard trauma equipment may be required