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

Purpose of study. Transarticular screw fixation offers acceptably high fusion rates but is not possible in 18% of patients due to a high riding vertebral artery. It also requires pre-operative anatomical reduction which is not always possible. The Harms' technique utilises a posterior C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screw. This allows easier access due to the angle of drilling and has become an increasingly popular surgical technique. The aim of this study is to review and compare the above techniques with regard to surgery, complications and outcome. Description of methods. This study is a retrospective chart and radiographic review of patients undergoing posterior C1-2 fusion in a single institution in the period 2003 to 2011. The most common aetiology was rheumatoid arthritis and post-traumatic instability. All atlanto-axial instability patients that came to surgery are included in this study, and only cases with less than six months follow-up were excluded. We report on surgical indications, surgical outcomes, complications and radiographic outcomes. Summary of results. No statistically significant differences were found in blood loss (p=0.47) or surgical time (p=0.44) using the Mann-Whitney U test. Complications in patients undergoing transarticular screw fixation included the need to abandon transarticular screws in two cases due to technical difficulty, metalware failure in two cases and intra-operative cerebrospinal fluid leaks in 2 cases. The Harms technique was associated with a single case of cerebrospinal fluid leak. Conclusion. There is no significant difference in surgical time and blood loss between the two techniques. Both are reliable in terms of fusion. The Harms technique offers the advantage of intra-operative reduction and a smaller wound due to the direction of access. The decision to use one or the other is based on the surgeons skill levels, ability to pre-operative reduce the joint and possibly the cost. NO DISCLOSURES