Updates on Lisfranc Complex Injuries.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yan A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8702936 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Updates on Lisfranc Complex Injuries.
Yan Alan A Chen Stephen R SR Ma Xin X Shi Zhongmin Z Hogan MaCalus M
Foot & ankle orthopaedics 20210125 1
Lisfranc injuries are a disruption of one or more of the tarsometatarsal joints and have an estimated incidence of 1/55 000 people. However, the total number of Lisfranc injuries could be underreported, because almost 20% of these injuries are initially missed. Because of the relative infrequency of these injuries, the current literature is inconsistent in regard to proper treatment. This article provides a review of Lisfranc complex injuries including relevant anatomy, diagnosis, treatment, cla ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsThis 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionThis 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.
| S-EPMC8558450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnstable Lisfranc injuries are best treated with anatomic reduction and stable fixation. There are controversies regarding which type of stabilization is best. In the present study, we compared primary arthrodesis of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint to temporary bridge plating in unstable Lisfranc injuries.MethodsForty-eight patients with Lisfranc injuries were included and followed for 2 years. Twenty-four patients were randomized to primary arthrodesis (PA) of the medial 3 TMT joints, whereas 24 patients were randomized to temporary bridge plate (BP) over the first TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the second and third TMT joints. The main outcome parameter was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale and the secondary outcome parameters were the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain). Computed tomography (CT) scans pre- and postoperatively were obtained. Radiographs were obtained at follow-ups. Pedobarographic examination was performed at the 2-year follow-up. Twenty-two of 24 patients in the PA and 23/24 in the BP group completed the 2-year follow-up.ResultsThe mean AOFAS midfoot score 2 years postoperatively was 89 (SD 9) in the PA group and 85 (SD 15) in the BP group (P = .32). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to SF-36 or VAS pain scores. The alignment of the first metatarsal was better in the BP group than in the PA group measured by the anteroposterior Meary angle (P = .04). The PA group had a reduced peak pressure under the fifth metatarsal (P = .047). In the BP group, 11/24 patients had radiologic signs of osteoarthritis in the first TMT joint.ConclusionBoth treatment groups had good outcome scores. The first metatarsal was better aligned in the BP group; however, there was a high incidence of radiographic osteoarthritis in this group.Level of evidenceTherapeutic level I, prospective randomized controlled study.
| S-EPMC7406968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe choice between primary arthrodesis (PA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for acute Lisfranc injuries remains contentious. Apart from primary treatment, arthrodesis is often used for treating chronic Lisfranc injuries, including patients in whom initial ORIF or nonoperative treatment failed. The aim of this study was to compare PA and secondary arthrodesis (SA) in terms of complications and functional outcome.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on trauma patients with Lisfranc injuries treated at a level 1 trauma center between July 1, 2010, and July 1, 2020. Selected patients were evaluated at the outpatient clinic and received a survey. Demographics, injury characteristics, management, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot score, Foot Function Index) were analyzed.ResultsTwenty-nine of 37 potential patients (78.4%; PA n = 11, SA n = 18) completed the survey with a median follow-up of 7.1 (PA) to 9.3 (SA) years (P = .01). The majority were female (n = 18, 62.1%); the mean age of PA patients was 57.1 years (SD 14.2) compared with 43.5 years (SD 17.1) in SA patients (P = .04). In the PA group, there was no infection, 100% union, and implants were removed in 5 of 11 patients. In the SA group, 11.1% (n = 2) developed infection, malunion rate was 11.1%, implants were removed in 33.3% (n = 6), and 22.2% required revision surgery. AOFAS was "good" in PA (77.7, SD 17.3) compared with rated "fair" in SA (67.1, SD 21.3, P = .19). FFI was better in PA (26.0, SD 26.2) than SA (37.6, SD 30.8, P = .32), which exceeded the minimally important clinical difference.ConclusionAlthough this study was limited by sample size, the overall results suggest equivalent functional outcome, pain and treatment satisfaction in primary arthrodesis compared with secondary arthrodesis patients for treatment of Lisfranc injury.
| S-EPMC11697498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLisfranc injuries are often managed surgically with primary arthrodesis (PA) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF); however, neither approach has been shown to be superior. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the functional and surgical outcomes of PA and ORIF in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries.MethodsThis study was performed as per the PRISMA protocol. Database searches were conducted on Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed libraries. Five RCTs were identified for inclusion involving 241 patients, of which 121 underwent PA and 120 underwent ORIF.ResultsStatistically significant differences in visual analog scale pain score at 2 years (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI 0.18-1.59), patient satisfaction (OR 10.04, 95% CI 1.78-56.76), and all-cause return to surgery (OR 27.31, 95% CI 12.72-58.63) were observed, all favoring PA. There were no statistically significant differences between PA and ORIF with regard to American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot scores at 2 years, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, and unplanned return to surgery.ConclusionThis study showed significant improvement in pain at 2 years, patient satisfaction, and all-cause return to surgery favoring PA in all instances. Given ORIF often necessitates a second operation for hardware removal, it is to be expected that all-cause return to surgery is higher in ORIF groups. Overall, these results do not have the power to confer an advantage to a particular approach because of significant heterogeneity. Further studies should focus on larger patient cohorts and longer follow-up, or analysis stratified by patient demographics and injury presentation. In the absence of clinically significant differences, cost-benefit analyses should be considered to answer the question of whether to "fix or fuse" for Lisfranc injuries.
| S-EPMC11497535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Lisfranc injuries are known to be rare and often overlooked injuries that can cause long-term disability and pain when missed or treated incorrectly. The wide variety of Lisfranc injuries ranges from subtle ligament distensions to open fracture dislocations. The treatment of Lisfranc joint injuries is still controversial and very little is known about what types of injury can be treated nonoperatively. The current literature provides only two randomized studies on dislocated Lisfranc injuries. These studies have shown that primary arthrodesis (PA) leads to a similar or better outcome and results in fewer secondary operations when compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in ligamentous injuries. There have been no previous randomized studies of the nonoperative versus operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the operative and nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries and to compare the ORIF and PA treatment of dislocated Lisfranc injuries. METHODS:This study is a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial. The trial comprises two strata: Stratum I compares cast-immobilization versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc joint injuries. Stratum II compares PA versus ORIF in the treatment of dislocated injuries of the Lisfranc joint. The main hypothesis of stratum I is that the nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries achieves a similar outcome compared with operative treatment (ORIF). The hypothesis of stratum II is that PA of dislocated Lisfranc injuries yields a similar functional outcome compared with ORIF, but that PA results in fewer secondary operations than ORIF. The main outcome measure is the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot score and the secondary outcome measures are Visual-Analogue-Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA), Visual-Analogue-Scale (VAS), rate of secondary operations and other treatment-related complications. The results will be analyzed after the 2-year follow-up period. DISCUSSION:This publication presents a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial study protocol. It provides details of patient flow, randomization, aftercare and methods of analysis of the material and ways to present and publish the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24.10.2016.
| S-EPMC6102864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLisfranc and Chopart amputations are historically controversial procedures. To obtain evidence for the pros and cons we performed a systematic review to analyze wound healing, the need for re-amputation at a higher level, and ambulation after a Lisfranc or Chopart amputation.MethodsA literature search was performed in 4 databases (Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PsycInfo), using database-specific search strategies. Reference lists were studied to include relevant studies that were missed in the search. Of the 2881 publications found, 16 studies could be included in this review. Excluded publications concerned editorials, reviews, letters to the editor, no full text available, case reports, not meeting the topic, and written in a language other than English, German, or Dutch.ResultsFailed wound healing occurred in 20% after Lisfranc amputation, in 28% after modified Chopart amputation, and 46% after conventional Chopart amputation. After Lisfranc amputation, 85% of patients were able to ambulate without prosthesis for short distances, and after modified Chopart 74%. After a conventional Chopart amputation, 26% (10/38) had unlimited household ambulation.ConclusionsThe need for re-amputation because wound healing problems occurred most frequently after conventional Chopart amputation. All 3 types of amputation levels do, however, provide a functional residual limb, with the remaining ability to ambulate without prosthesis for short distances. Lisfranc and modified Chopart amputations should be considered before proceeding to a more proximal level of amputation. Further studies are needed to identify patient characteristics to predict favorable outcomes of Lisfranc and Chopart amputations.
| S-EPMC9997832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A 26-year-old Olympic wrestling athlete presented with a pectoralis major muscle injury, glenohumeral instability and acromioclavicular joint dislocation separately. The patient underwent surgical treatment to repair these injuries. The pectoralis major muscle was reconstructed with a semitendinosus tendon graft using the endobutton technique, as described by Pochini et al. Treatment of the traumatic anterior instability was performed using the technique described by Bristow-Latarjet, and the acromioclavicular joint dislocation was repaired using the modified technique of Weaver-Dunn with the aid of an anchor. The athlete exhibited a rapid recovery and could return to normal activities 6 months after surgery. At present, 18 months postoperatively, the patient is asymptomatic.
| S-EPMC3987643 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the present treatment of choice for patients with gallbladder stones, despite its being associated with a higher incidence of biliary injuries compared with the open procedure. Injuries occurring during the laparoscopic approach seem to be more complex. A complex biliary injury is a disease that is difficult to diagnose and treat. We considered complex injuries: 1) injuries that involve the confluence; 2) injuries in which repair attempts have failed; 3) any bile duct injury associated with a vascular injury; 4) or any biliary injury in association with portal hypertension or secondary biliary cirrhosis. The present review is an evaluation of our experience in the treatment of these complex biliary injuries and an analysis of the international literature on the management of patients.
| S-EPMC2504848 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeThe aim was to assess the long-term functional outcome and quality of life after staged surgical treatment of complex Lisfranc and Chopart injuries in a patient cohort, and to perform a systematic review of the literature.MethodsA retrospective cohort of all trauma patients with complex Lisfranc and/or Chopart injuries treated at our level 1 trauma center between July 1, 2010, and July 1, 2020 with ≥ 3 years follow-up was analyzed in terms of management, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot score, AOFAS and Foot Function Index, FFI). A systematic review of the literature (according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines) was performed of studies published between January 2000 to April 2024. Inclusion criteria were acute, complex Lisfranc and/or Chopart injury, staged treatment, age ≥ 17 years, patient-reported outcome measures and ≥ 1 year follow-up.ResultsFifteen patients with a median follow-up of 6.6 years (interquartile range 4) were included. First stage treatment involved temporary K-wire fixation (n = 11), debridement (open fractures, n = 4), external fixation (n = 4) and decompression fasciotomy (n = 3). Second stage included primary arthrodesis (n = 4), open reduction and internal fixation (n = 7) or external fixation (n = 1). The median number of surgeries was 3 (2-13). Infection was seen in 5/15 patients; 7/11 patients underwent secondary arthrodesis and one patient underwent amputation due to chronic pain. Overall AOFAS was fair (54.5) and five patients had poor outcome (AOFAS < 49). Three full-length articles were included in the systematic review, reporting fair to good outcome. Risk of bias was serious and certainty of evidence very low.ConclusionSurgical management of complex Lisfranc and Chopart injuries is challenging, functional outcome was poor to fair, postoperative complication rates are high, and secondary salvage arthrodesis was required in two thirds of ORIF patients.Level of evidenceIV.
| S-EPMC11761783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The reversion-inducing cysteine-rich protein with Kazal motifs (RECK), a membrane-anchored glycoprotein, negatively regulates various membrane proteins involved in the tissue governing extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling such as metalloproteases (MMPs) and the sheddases ADAM10 and ADAM17. The significance of the present review is to summarize the current understanding of the pathophysiological role of RECK, a newly discovered signaling pathway associated with different liver injuries. Specifically, this review analyzes published data on the downregulation of RECK expression in hepatic ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury, liver-related cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), as well as in the progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). In addition, this review discusses the regulation of RECK by inducers, such as FXR agonists. The RECK protein has also been suggested as a potential diagnostic and prognostic marker for liver injury or as a biomarker with predictive value for drug treatment efficacy.
| S-EPMC10743940 | biostudies-literature