Reoperation Rate Differences Between Open Reduction Internal Fixation and Primary Arthrodesis of Lisfranc Injuries

Buda, Matteo; Kink, Shaun; Stavenuiter, Ruben; Hagemeijer, Catharina Noortje; Chien, Bonnie; Hosseini, Ali; Johnson, Anne H.; Guss, Daniel; DiGiovanni, Christopher W.

doi:10.1177/1071100718774005

Cited by 30 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…55–57 Table 4 summarises the comparative studies of ORIF versus primary arthrodesis in lesions of the Lisfranc joint. 16,19,20,58,60…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Buda et al in a recent article concluded that if we exclude hardware removal, patients with Lisfranc lesions treated with ORIF do not have a higher rate of re-operation (29.5%) compared with those who are treated with a primary partial arthrodesis (29.6%). 20 The most common causes of re-operation are post-traumatic OA in patients treated with ORIF and non-union in those treated with primary arthrodesis.…”

Section: Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management

Moracia-Ochagavía¹,

Rodríguez-Merchán²

2019

EFORT Open Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is essential to know and understand the anatomy of the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint (Lisfranc joint) to achieve a correct diagnosis and proper treatment of the injuries that occur at that level. Up to 20% of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations go unnoticed or are diagnosed late, especially low-energy injuries or purely ligamentous injuries. Severe sequelae such as post-traumatic osteoarthritis and foot deformities can create serious disability. We must be attentive to the clinical and radiological signs of an injury to the Lisfranc joint and expand the study with weight-bearing radiographs or computed tomography (CT) scans. Only in stable lesions and in those without displacement is conservative treatment indicated, along with immobilisation and initial avoidance of weight-bearing. Through surgical treatment we seek to achieve two objectives: optimal anatomical reduction, a factor that directly influences the results; and the stability of the first, second and third cuneiform-metatarsal joints. There are three main controversies regarding the surgical treatment of Lisfranc injuries: osteosynthesis versus primary arthrodesis; transarticular screws versus dorsal plates; and the most appropriate surgical approach. The surgical treatment we prefer is open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with transarticular screws or with dorsal plates in cases of comminution of metatarsals or cuneiform bones. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:430-444. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180076

show abstract

“…55–57 Table 4 summarises the comparative studies of ORIF versus primary arthrodesis in lesions of the Lisfranc joint. 16,19,20,58,60…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management

Moracia-Ochagavía¹,

Rodríguez-Merchán²

2019

EFORT Open Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crush-Verletzungen, wie sie im Rahmen von Hochrasanztraumen vorkommen, sind prognostisch am ungünstigsten [10,11,26]. schen Auswertung heraus, ergeben sich keine Differenzen in der Reoperationsrate [42]. Eine Cochrane-Metaanalyse musste ohne wegweisende Erkenntnisse hinsichtlich des optimalen Therapiealgorithmus für Lisfranc-Luxationen eingestellt werden [43,44].…”

Section: Ergebnisseunclassified

Chopart- und Lisfranc-Luxationsverletzungen – operative Zugangswege, Lagerungstechniken sowie intraoperative Erfolgskontrolle

Rinas¹,

Mittlmeier²

2021

OP-JOURNAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungEine hohe Zahl von Kombinationsverletzungen der Fußwurzel wird primär nicht erkannt (20 – 25%). Insbesondere Luxationsfrakturen sind folgenschwere Verletzungen und können mit erheblichen funktionellen Einschränkungen verbunden sein. Eine suffiziente Primärdiagnostik beinhaltet Standardröntgenaufnahmen des Fußes in 3 Ebenen. Bei klinischem Verdacht sollte die Indikation zur erweiterten Schnittbildgebung mittels Computertomografie mit multiplanaren Rekonstruktionen großzügig gestellt werden. Die physiologische Rekonstruktion der Gelenkstrukturen und Lagebeziehungen der medialen zur zentralen und lateralen Fußsäule sowie die Erfassung und Therapie ligamentärer Instabilitäten sind elementare Bestandteile einer adäquaten Behandlung. Können diese Prinzipien nicht erreicht werden, sind Korrekturarthrodesen im Verlauf unvermeidlich. Mittels Bildverstärker können latente Instabilitäten auch im Stresstest dynamisch untersucht werden. Bei chronischen Beschwerden können Belastungsaufnahmen im Stehen helfen, Instabilitäten und Fehlstellungen zu erkennen.

show abstract

“…These are uncommon injuries, with an estimated incidence of 39.2/100000/year 1 . Despite this, numerous techniques exist for their fixation, including the use of plate fixation, fixation with Kirschner wires and fixation with screws 2–8 . Internal fixation using plating may be performed using pre‐contoured dedicated foot plates, which are designed specifically for the anatomy of the foot.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a non‐anatomic mini‐fragment fixation system for foot fractures

Hague

Pintar

Nielsen

et al. 2023

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Plating techniques for the fixation of foot fractures can utilize pre‐contoured region‐specific plates or non‐anatomic non‐specific mini‐fragment plating systems, however there is limited published data describing complication rates. Methods This study reviewed the complication rates and performed a cost analysis of 45 foot fractures that had fixation with the use of mini‐fragment non‐anatomic implants, comparing them to a series from the same centre fixed using anatomic implants and the published literature. Results Complication rates seemed equivalent. Cost analysis demonstrated that non‐anatomic implants were more expensive on average. Conclusions Non‐anatomic mini‐fragment fixation is an appropriate method for use in a variety of foot trauma situations, with comparable complication rates to pre‐contoured implants, although the potential for cost savings has not been realized in this patient cohort.

show abstract

Reoperation Rate Differences Between Open Reduction Internal Fixation and Primary Arthrodesis of Lisfranc Injuries

Abstract: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Cited by 30 publications

References 37 publications

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management

Chopart- und Lisfranc-Luxationsverletzungen – operative Zugangswege, Lagerungstechniken sowie intraoperative Erfolgskontrolle

Use of a non‐anatomic mini‐fragment fixation system for foot fractures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About