OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of screw and bone plate internal fixation in the treatment of Lisfranc injury.
METHODS: The databases of Wanfang, CNKI, Pubmed, EMBASE, VIP, BIOSIS and other databases were retrieved by computer, and the clinical trial literature from January 1, 2000 to August 1, 2021 was retrieved, the methodological quality of the included studies was strictly evaluated and the data were extracted, and the obtained data were meta-analyzed by Revman 5.4 software.
RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trial literature and 10 retrospective cohort studies were included, of which 416 patients in the experimental group were treated with screw internal fixation, and 435 patients in the control group were treated with bone plate internal fixation. Meta-analysis showed that the surgical time of the bone plate internal fixation group was longer than that of the screw internal fixation group [MD=-14.40, 95%CI(-17.21, -11.60), P<0.000 01], the postoperative X-ray anatomical reduction of the bone plate internal fixation group [MD=0.47, 95%CI(0.25, 0.86), P=0.01], the excellent and good rate of postoperative American orthopedic foot and ankle society(AOFAS) foot function score[MD=0.25, 95%CI(0.15, 0.42), P<0.000 01], postoperative AOFAS foot function score [MD=-5.51, 95%CI(-10.10, -0.92), P=0.02] of the bone plate fixation group was better than those of the screw internal fixation group. Two kinds of operation method had no statistical different for postoperative fracture healing time[MD=1.91, 95%CI(-1.36, 5.18), P=0.25], postoperative visual analgue scale(VAS)[MD=0.38, 95%CI(0.09, 0.86), P=0.11], postoperative complications [MD=1.32, 95%CI(0.73, 2.40), P=0.36], the postoperative infection [MD=0.84, 95%CI(0.48, 1.46), P=0.53], the postoperative fracture internal fixation loosening [MD=1.25, 95% CI(0.61, 2.53), P=0.54], the postoperative incidence of traumatic arthritis [MD=1.80, 95%CI(0.83, 3.91), P=0.14].
CONCLUSIONS: Bone plate fixation has better short-term and medium-term results and lower reoperation rate in the treatment of Lisfranc injury, so it is recommended to use bone plate fixation in the treatment of Lisfranc injury.

BACKGROUND: Lisfranc injuries mainly involve the tarsometatarsal joint complex and are commonly misdiagnosed or missed in clinical settings. Most medical institutions prefer to use conventional radiography. However, existing studies on conventional radiographs in Lisfranc injury lack a large population-based sample, influencing the validity of the results. We aimed to determine the diagnostic validity and reliability of conventional radiography for Lisfranc injury and whether computed tomography can alter clinical decision-making.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 307 patients with, and 100 patients without, Lisfranc injury from January 2017 to December 2019. Diagnosis was confirmed using computed tomography. A senior and junior surgeon independently completed two assessments of the same set of anonymised conventional radiographs at least 3 months apart. The surgeons were then asked to suggest one of two treatment options (surgery or conservative treatment) for each case based on the radiographs and subsequently on the CT images.
RESULTS: All inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were moderate to very good (all κ coefficients > 0.4). The mean (range) true positive rate was 81.8% (73.9%-87.0%), true negative rate was 90.0% (85.0%-94.0%), false positive rate was 10.0% (6.0%-15.0%), false negative rate was 18.2% (13.0%-26.1%), positive predictive value was 96.1% (93.8%-97.8%), negative predictive value was 62.4% (51.5%-69.7%), classification accuracy was 83.8% (76.7%-88.2%), and balanced error rate was 14.1% (10.2%-20.5%). Three-column injuries were most likely to be recognized (mean rate, 92.1%), followed by intermediate-lateral-column injuries (mean rate, 81.5%). Medial-column injuries were relatively difficult to identify (mean rate, 60.7%). The diagnostic rate for non-displaced injuries (mean rate, 76.7%) was lower than that for displaced injuries (mean rate, 95.5%). The typical examples are given. A significant difference between the two surgeons was found in the recognition rate of non-displaced injuries (p = 0.005). The mean alteration rate was 21.9%; the senior surgeon tended to a lower rate (15.6%) than the junior one (28.3%) (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity, specificity, and classification accuracy of conventional radiographs for Lisfranc injury were 81.8%, 90.0%, and 83.8%, respectively. Three-column or displaced injuries were most likely to be recognized. The possibility of changing the initial treatment decision after subsequently evaluating computed tomography images was 21.9%. The diagnostic and clinical decision-making of surgeons with different experience levels demonstrated some degree of variability. Protected weight-bearing and a further CT scan should be considered if a Lisfranc injury is suspected and conventional radiography is negative.

UNASSIGNED: To investigate the clinical efficacy of staged surgery for patients with closed Lisfranc injury and dislocation.
UNASSIGNED: This study included 48 patients with acute closed Lisfranc injury and dislocation admitted between July 2016 and July 2021. The patients were divided into two groups. 23 patients in group A underwent staged surgeries included emergency reduction within 4-8 h after injury, and open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc injury and first tarsometatarsal joint fusion after the swelling had subsided. 25 patients in group B underwent open reduction and internal fixation as an elective procedure after the swelling had subsided. American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scores and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were used for assessment at the final follow-up.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 48 patients with closed Lisfranc injury and dislocation were included. The lengths of hospitalization were 11.52 ± 1.61 day and 19.80 ± 2.37 day in groups A and B, respectively. The total lengths of surgery were 67.34 ± 1.71 min and 104.36 ± 8.31 min in groups A and B, respectively. 48 patients completed the final follow-up (follow-up period range: 12-24 months, mean: 18 months). All fractures had healed at 12-18 weeks after surgery (mean: 14.6 weeks). At the 1-year postoperative follow-up, the AOFAS and VAS score was 86.87 ± 4.24 and 1.91 ± 0.78, respectively, during weight-bearing walking in group A patients and 71.72 ± 5.46 and 3.20 ± 1.17 in group B. By the end of the follow-up period, only 2 patients in group B had developed traumatic arthritis and no patients had joint re-dislocation or required secondary surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Staged surgery for closed Lisfranc injury with dislocation reduced the incidence of perioperative complications and achieved good surgical outcomes while shortening the lengths of surgery and hospitalization.

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a popular method for treatment of displaced Lisfranc injuries. However, even with anatomic reduction and solid internal fixation, treatment does not provide good outcomes in certain severe dislocations. The purpose of this study was to compare ORIF and primary arthrodesis (PA) of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint for Lisfranc injuries with the first TMT joint dislocation.
Seventy-eight Lisfranc injuries with first TMT joint dislocation were finally enrolled and analyzed in a prospective, randomized trial comparing ORIF and PA. They were 50 males and females with a mean age of 40.7 years and randomized to ORIF group and PA group. Outcome measures included radiographs, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports subscale, visual analog scale (VAS), and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Complications and revision rate were also analyzed.
Forty patients were treated by ORIF, while PA group includes 38 cases. Patients were followed up for 37.8(range, 24-48) months. At final follow-up, the mean AOFAS midfoot score (P < 0.01), the FAAM Sports subscale (P < 0.01), the physical function score (P < 0.05), and the Bodily Pain score of SF-36 (P < 0.05) after ORIF treatment were significantly lower than PA group. The mean VAS score in ORIF group was higher (P < 0.01). In ORIF group, redislocation of the first TMT joint was observed in ten cases, and thirteen patients had pain in midfoot. No redislocation and no hardware failure were identified in PA group.
PA of the first TMT joint provided a better medium-term outcome than ORIF for Lisfranc injuries with the first TMT dislocation. Possible complications and revision could be avoided by PA for dislocated first ray injuries.

Multiple studies have compared primary arthrodesis versus open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) for surgical treatment of fractures of the Lisfranc joint, but their results have been inconsistent. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical efficacy of arthrodesis versus ORIF for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries.
Through searching the Embase, PubMed, PMC, CINAHL, PQDT, and Cochrane Library databases (from July 1998 to July 2018), we identified five case-controlled trials and two randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical efficacy of primary arthrodesis and ORIF for treating Lisfranc injuries. The extracted data were analyzed using Review manager 5.3 software.
Through comparisons of data for primary arthrodesis and ORIF groups, we found no significant differences in the anatomic reduction rate, revision surgery rate, and total rate of complications between the different treatment approaches. However, arthrodesis was associated with a significantly better American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, return to duty rate, and visual analog scale score with a lower incidence of hardware removal compared with ORIF.
For the treatment for Lisfranc injuries, primary arthrodesis was superior to ORIF based on a higher AOFAS score, better return to duty rate, lower postoperative pain, and lower requirement for internal fixation removal. Further evidence from future randomized controlled trials with higher quality and larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the surgical outcomes of Lisfranc injuries accompanied by multiple metatarsal fractures. Metatarsal fractures here refers to metatarsal head, neck, and shaft (including shaft fractures accompanied by fractures of the base) fractures, as well as mixed (i.e., segmental fracture) fractures, as seen on imaging studies.
METHODS: Between 2002 and 2015, one hundred and seventy-six patients were followed-up for a mean of 92 months, including eight patients who underwent secondary arthrodesis due to severe arthritis after ORIF. All the patients underwent surgical fusion (primary partial arthrodesis, PPA; n = 78) or non-fusion (percutaneous or open reduction and internal fixation, ORIF; n = 98) procedures and the outcomes were evaluated by clinical examinations, radiography, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the Short Form (SF)-36 physical and SF-36 mental questionnaires. The parameters between the fusion and non-fusion groups were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were then further analyzed using a two-independent-samples t-test.
RESULTS: Anatomical reduction was achieved in 161 patients. At the last follow-up, the mean AOFAS score was 74.67 (range: 39-91) in the non-fusion group and 82.79 (range: 67-97) in the fusion group (P = 0.003). The PPA and ORIF groups differed significantly with respect to the VAS pain score (1.93 vs. 1.21), the SF-36 physical (75.87 vs. 80.90) and mental (75.76 vs. 81.33) components, and the FAOS pain (72.74 vs. 84.06), symptoms (71.87 vs. 82.49), activities of daily life (ADLs: 73.12 vs. 81.54), sport/recreation (sport/rec: 57.99 vs. 73.23), and quality of life (QoL: 79.95 vs. 86.67) components. In the ORIF group, 23 patients had mild/moderate post-traumatic osteoarthritis.
CONCLUSIONS: With longer and more conservative postoperative management, fusion results in a better outcome than non-fusion in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries accompanied by multiple metatarsal fractures.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the value of computed tomography (CT) post-processing images in postoperative assessment of Lisfranc injuries compared with plain radiographs.
METHODS: A total of 79 cases with closed Lisfranc injuries that were treated with conventional open reduction and internal fixation from January 2010 to June 2016 were analyzed. Postoperative assessment was performed by two independent orthopedic surgeons with both plain radiographs and CT post-processing images. Inter- and intra-observer agreement were analyzed by kappa statistics while the differences between the two postoperative imaging assessments were assessed using the χ 2 test (McNemar\'s test). Significance was assumed when p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Inter- and intra-observer agreement of CT post-processing images was much higher than that of plain radiographs. Non-anatomic reduction was more easily identified in patients with injuries of Myerson classifications A, B1, B2, and C1 using CT post-processing images with overall groups (p < 0.05), and poor internal fixation was also more easily detected in patients with injuries of Myerson classifications A, B1, B2, and C2 using CT post-processing images with overall groups (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: CT post-processing images can be more reliable than plain radiographs in the postoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement for Lisfranc injuries.

OBJECTIVE: \"Lisfranc joint injury\" is comprised of a tarsometatarsal joint-complex injury. The Lisfranc complex injury is always a challenge for orthopedists, and the optimum treatment is still up for debate. Anatomic reduction and stable internal fixation prove to have no satisfactory outcomes. This research aims to compare the clinical curative effects, complications and radiographic features of arthrodesis and non-fusion of the Lisfranc joint in the follow-up of the patients who suffered Lisfranc injuries.
METHODS: A comparative retrospective study of 25 patients with acute or subacute Lisfranc complex injuries was conducted between September 2013 and March 2015 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. All patients were classified by Myerson classification. Eight patients were treated with arthrodesis, while 17 patients received non-fusion operations. The clinical curative effects, complications and image differences were compared between the two groups. American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score, Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score were evaluated for each patient during the follow-up. All statistics were analyzed using the SPSS software system.
RESULTS: All fractures healed for both the arthrodesis group and the non-fusion group. Patients in the arthrodesis group had a higher AOFAS score compared with patients in the non-fusion group (94.00 vs. 88.58, P = 0.034). Complications occurred in eight patients (8/17, 47%) in the non-arthrodesis group, including the second and third phalanx abduction (1), talipes cavus (2), eversion deformity of front foot (3), eversion deformity of calcaneus (1), as well as postoperative infection (1). Only two patients (2/8, 25%) in the arthrodesis group suffered complications. One was a limitation of motion of the front foot and pain during walking; the other was an eversion deformity of front foot.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary arthrodesis has advantages compared to primary open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF): reduced foot deformity rates, sustained biomechanical morphology of the feet, reduced complications, higher level of function recovery, shorter time of surgical procedures, fewer complications, higher AOFAS score and fewer frequency of complications. According to our research, primary arthrodesis may be a better choice for treating Lisfranc injury.