Search

Background: Unstable 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., Methods: Forty-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., Results: The 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., Conclusion: Both 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 Evidence: Therapeutic level I, prospective randomized controlled study.

Recommendation: The optimal antibiotic treatment after foot/ankle fractures or fusion should be determined based on the result of culture. In the absence of culture results, administered antibiotics should include coverage against common pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus ., Level of Evidence: Strong., Delegate Vote: Agree: 100%, Disagree: 0%, Abstain: 0% (Unanimous, Strongest Consensus).

At present there is controversy regarding the appropriate treatment of severely comminuted fractures of the lower extremity. Even with near-perfect anatomic reduction of severely comminuted fractures, development of posttraumatic arthritis is still present at an increased rate. Primary fusion of comminuted fractures of the foot and ankle creates successful and predictable outcomes, which dismisses the chance of developing posttraumatic arthritis and decreases complications and the need for revisional procedures., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A fusion rate of 100% would be ideal. Despite adhering to sound surgical principles, complete compliance, and no adverse comorbidities, that 100% fusion rate goal is elusive. Orthobiologics are a special class of materials developed to enhance the fusion rates in foot and ankle arthrodesis sites. Whether orthobiologics are used for the first fusion or reserved for a nonunion is debatable, especially when considering cost., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although Lisfranc injuries are uncommon, representing approximately 0.2% of all fractures, they are complex and can result in persistent pain, degenerative arthritis, and loss of function. Both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary fusion have been proposed as treatment options for these injuries, but debate remains as to which approach is better., Questions/purposes: We asked whether ORIF or primary fusion led to (1) fewer reoperations for hardware removal; (2) less frequent revision surgery; (3) higher patient outcome scores; and (4) more frequent anatomic reduction., Methods: A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Three trials met the criteria for inclusion within the meta-analysis. Qualifying articles for the meta-analysis had data extracted independently by two authors (NS, AF). The quality of each study was assessed using the Center for Evidence Based Medicine's evaluation strategy; data were extracted from articles rated as good and fair: two and one article, respectively., Results: The risk ratio for hardware removal was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.45; p < 0.001) indicating more hardware removal for ORIF than fusion. For other revision surgery, the risk ratio for ORIF was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.08-1.59; p = 0.18) favoring neither. Similarly, neither was favored using patient-reported outcomes; the standard mean difference was calculated to be 0.50 (95% CI, -2.13 to 3.12; p = 0.71). When considering the risk of nonanatomic alignment, neither was favored (risk ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.34-6.38; p = 0.60)., Conclusions: The surgeon should consider the increased risk of hardware removal along with its associated morbidity and discuss this with the patient preoperatively when considering ORIF of Lisfranc injuries. Because no new trials have been performed since 2012, further randomized controlled trials will be needed improve our understanding of these interventions., Level of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic study.