Effectiveness of open reduction and internal fixation for acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

WU Shizhou ¹ , QIN Boquan ¹ , XIE Huiqi ² , HUANG Fuguo ³ ,  ZHANG Hui ³

1. West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China;
2. Laboratory of Stem Cell and Tissue Engineering, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China;
3. Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

ZHANG Hui, Email: caesarzh@163.com

Keywords：

Occult Lisfranc injury; acute injury; delayed injury; open reduction; internal fixation

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.201901004

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treatment of acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries.Methods A retrospective review of 26 patients with occult Lisfranc injuries who were treated with ORIF between July 2010 and July 2015 was applied. Fourteen patients were treated within 6 weeks after injury (acute group) and 12 patients were treated after 6 weeks of injury (delayed group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, affected sides, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and physical and mental scores of Study Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12) (P<0.05). The joint reduction, internal fixator, and traumatic osteoarthritis were observed by X-ray films. The pain degree, midfoot function, and quality of life were evaluated with VAS score, AOFAS score, and physical and mental scores of SF-12.Results All incisions healed by first intention with no complications. All patients were followed up with the mean follow-up time of 15 months (range, 12-24 months) in acute group and 15 months (range, 12-23 months) in delayed group. At last follow-up, the VAS score, AOFAS score, and physical and mental scores of SF-12 were superior to those before operation in the two groups (P<0.05). And there was no significant difference in all indicators between the two groups (P>0.05). The satisfaction rates were 100% and 83.3% (10/12) in acute group and delayed group, respectively. The internal fixators were removed in 20 patients (11 cases in acute group and 9 cases in delayed group) at 9-24 months after operation (mean, 14.5 months). The results of X-ray films showed no traumatic osteoarthritis, midfoot collapse, internal fixation failure, or reduction loss during follow-up period.Conclusion ORIF is an ideal method for both acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries and can obtain the similar effectiveness.

Citation： WU Shizhou, QIN Boquan, XIE Huiqi, HUANG Fuguo, ZHANG Hui. Effectiveness of open reduction and internal fixation for acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2019, 33(8): 965-969. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.201901004 Copy

1.	Eleftheriou KI, Rosenfeld PF. Lisfranc injury in the athlete: evidence supporting management from sprain to fracture dislocation. Foot Ankle Clin, 2013, 18(2): 219-236.
2.	Murphy N, Olney D. Lisfranc joint injuries: trauma mechanisms and associated injuries. J Trauma, 1994, 36(3): 464-465.
3.	Welck MJ, Zinchenko R, Rudge B. Lisfranc injuries. Injury, 2015, 46(4): 536-541.
4.	van Rijn J, Dorleijn DM, Boetes B, et al. Missing the Lisfranc fracture: a case report and review of the literature. J Foot Ankle Surg, 2012, 51(2): 270-274.
5.	Watson TS, Shurnas PS, Denker J. Treatment of Lisfranc joint injury: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2010, 18(12): 718-728.
6.	Cassinelli SJ, Moss LK, Lee DC, et al. Delayed open reduction internal fixation of missed, low-energy Lisfranc injuries. Foot Ankle Int, 2016, 37(10): 1084-1090.
7.	Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet, 1982, 9(5): 768-769.
8.	Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, et al. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int, 1994, 15(7): 349-353.
9.	Mayich DJ, Mayich MS, Daniels TR. Effective detection and management of low-velocity Lisfranc injuries in the emergency setting: principles for a subtle and commonly missed entity. Can Fam Physician, 2012, 58(11): 1199-1204.
10.	Granata JD, Philbin TM. The midfoot sprain: a review of Lisfranc ligament injuries. Phys Sportsmed, 2010, 38(4): 119-126.
11.	Krause F, Schmid T, Weber M. Current Swiss techniques in management of Lisfranc injuries of the foot. Foot Ankle Clin, 2016, 21(2): 335-350.
12.	Bleazey ST, Brigido SA, Protzman NM. Technique tip: percutaneous fixation of partial incongruous Lisfranc injuries in athletes. Foot Ankle Spec, 2013, 6(3): 217-221.
13.	Smith N, Stone C, Furey A. Does open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis improve patient outcomes for Lisfranc trauma? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2015, 474(6): 1445-1452.
14.	Marín-Peña OR, Recio FV, Gómez TS, et al. Fourteen years follow up after Lisfranc fracture-dislocation: functional and radiological results. Injury, 2012, 43(Suppl 2): S79-S82.
15.	Henning JA, Jones CB, Sietsema DL, et al. Open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis for lisfranc injuries: a prospective randomized study. Foot Ankle Int, 2009, 30(10): 913-922.
16.	Seybold JD, Coetzee JC. Lisfranc Injuries: When to observe, fix, or fuse. Clin Sports Med, 2015, 34(4): 705-723.
17.	Wright MP, Michelson JD. Lisfranc injuries. BMJ, 2013, 347: f4561.
18.	Vosbikian M, O’Neil JT, Piper C, et al. Outcomes after percutaneous reduction and fixation of low-energy Lisfranc injuries. Foot Ankle Int, 2017, 38(7): 710-715.
19.	Schepers T, Oprel PP, Van Lieshout EM. Influence of approach and implant on reduction accuracy and stability in lisfranc fracture-dislocation at the tarsometatarsal joint. Foot Ankle Int, 2013, 34(5): 705-710.
20.	Myerson MS, Cerrato RA. Current management of tarsometatarsal injuries in the athlete. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2008, 90(11): 2522-2533.
21.	Calder JD, Whitehouse SL, Saxby TS. Results of isolated Lisfranc injuries and the effect of compensation claims. J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 2004, 86(4): 527-530.

1. Eleftheriou KI, Rosenfeld PF. Lisfranc injury in the athlete: evidence supporting management from sprain to fracture dislocation. Foot Ankle Clin, 2013, 18(2): 219-236.
2. Murphy N, Olney D. Lisfranc joint injuries: trauma mechanisms and associated injuries. J Trauma, 1994, 36(3): 464-465.
3. Welck MJ, Zinchenko R, Rudge B. Lisfranc injuries. Injury, 2015, 46(4): 536-541.
4. van Rijn J, Dorleijn DM, Boetes B, et al. Missing the Lisfranc fracture: a case report and review of the literature. J Foot Ankle Surg, 2012, 51(2): 270-274.
5. Watson TS, Shurnas PS, Denker J. Treatment of Lisfranc joint injury: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2010, 18(12): 718-728.
6. Cassinelli SJ, Moss LK, Lee DC, et al. Delayed open reduction internal fixation of missed, low-energy Lisfranc injuries. Foot Ankle Int, 2016, 37(10): 1084-1090.
7. Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet, 1982, 9(5): 768-769.
8. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, et al. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int, 1994, 15(7): 349-353.
9. Mayich DJ, Mayich MS, Daniels TR. Effective detection and management of low-velocity Lisfranc injuries in the emergency setting: principles for a subtle and commonly missed entity. Can Fam Physician, 2012, 58(11): 1199-1204.
10. Granata JD, Philbin TM. The midfoot sprain: a review of Lisfranc ligament injuries. Phys Sportsmed, 2010, 38(4): 119-126.
11. Krause F, Schmid T, Weber M. Current Swiss techniques in management of Lisfranc injuries of the foot. Foot Ankle Clin, 2016, 21(2): 335-350.
12. Bleazey ST, Brigido SA, Protzman NM. Technique tip: percutaneous fixation of partial incongruous Lisfranc injuries in athletes. Foot Ankle Spec, 2013, 6(3): 217-221.
13. Smith N, Stone C, Furey A. Does open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis improve patient outcomes for Lisfranc trauma? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2015, 474(6): 1445-1452.
14. Marín-Peña OR, Recio FV, Gómez TS, et al. Fourteen years follow up after Lisfranc fracture-dislocation: functional and radiological results. Injury, 2012, 43(Suppl 2): S79-S82.
15. Henning JA, Jones CB, Sietsema DL, et al. Open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis for lisfranc injuries: a prospective randomized study. Foot Ankle Int, 2009, 30(10): 913-922.
16. Seybold JD, Coetzee JC. Lisfranc Injuries: When to observe, fix, or fuse. Clin Sports Med, 2015, 34(4): 705-723.
17. Wright MP, Michelson JD. Lisfranc injuries. BMJ, 2013, 347: f4561.
18. Vosbikian M, O’Neil JT, Piper C, et al. Outcomes after percutaneous reduction and fixation of low-energy Lisfranc injuries. Foot Ankle Int, 2017, 38(7): 710-715.
19. Schepers T, Oprel PP, Van Lieshout EM. Influence of approach and implant on reduction accuracy and stability in lisfranc fracture-dislocation at the tarsometatarsal joint. Foot Ankle Int, 2013, 34(5): 705-710.
20. Myerson MS, Cerrato RA. Current management of tarsometatarsal injuries in the athlete. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2008, 90(11): 2522-2533.
21. Calder JD, Whitehouse SL, Saxby TS. Results of isolated Lisfranc injuries and the effect of compensation claims. J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 2004, 86(4): 527-530.

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Effectiveness of open reduction and internal fixation for acute and delayed occult Lisfranc injuries

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content