Outcome comparison of Lisfranc injuries treated through dorsal plate fixation versus screw fixation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective study was to test whether the treatment of Lisfranc injuries with open reduction and dorsal plate fixation would have the same or better functional outcomes as treatment with standard trans-articular screw fixation. METHODS: Sixty patients with primarily isolated Lisfranc joint injury were treated by open reduction and dorsal plate fixation or standard screw fixation. The patients were followed on average for 31 months. Evaluation was performed with patients' chief complaint, clinical examination, radiography, and AOFAS Midfoot Scale. RESULTS: Thirty two patients were treated with open reduction and dorsal plate fixation, and twenty eight patients were treated with open reduction and screw fixation. After two years follow-up, the mean AOFAS Midfoot score was 83.1 points in the dorsal plate fixation group and 78.5 points in the screw fixation group (p<0.01). Of the dorsal plate fixation group, radiographic analysis revealed anatomic reduction in twenty-nine patients (90.6%, 29/32) and nonanatomic reduction in three patients. Of the screw fixation group, radiographic analysis revealed anatomic reduction in twenty-three patients and nonanatomic reduction in five patients (82.1%, 23/28). CONCLUSIONS: Open reduction and dorsal plate fixation for a dislocated Lisfranc injury do have better short and median term outcome and a lower reoperation rate than standard screw ORIF. In our experience, we recommend using dorsal plate in ORIF on dislocated Lisfranc injuries. Level of Evidence II, Prospective Comparative Study.