Search

Background: The incidence of Lisfranc fractures is rising, along with the incidence of foot fractures in general. These injuries can lead to long-term healthcare use and societal costs. Current economic evaluation studies are scarce in Lisfranc fracture research, and only investigate the healthcare costs. The aim of the present study was to accurately measure the monetary societal burden of disease and quality of life in the first 6 months after the injury in patients with Lisfranc fractures in the Netherlands., Materials and Methods: This study used a prevalence-based, bottom-up approach. Patients were included through thirteen medical centres in the Netherlands. Both stable and unstable injuries were included. The societal perspective was used. The costs were measured at baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months using the iMTA MCQ and PCQ questionnaires. Reference prices were used for valuation. Quality-of-life was measured using the EQ-5D-5 L and VAS scores., Results: 214 patients were included. The mean age was 45.9 years, and 24.3% of patients had comorbidities. The baseline questionnaires yielded approximately €2023 as the total societal costs in the 3 months prior to injury. The follow-up questionnaires and surgery costs assessment yielded approximately €17,083 as the total costs in the first 6 months after injury. Of these costs, approximately two thirds could be attributed to productivity losses. The EQ-5D-5 L found a mean index value of 0.449 at baseline and an index value of 0.737 at the 6-month follow-up., Conclusion: The total monetary societal costs in the first 6 months after injury are approximately €17,083. Approximately two thirds of these costs can be attributed to productivity losses. These costs appear to be somewhat higher than those found in other studies. However, these studies only included the healthcare costs. Furthermore, the baseline costs indicate relatively low healthcare usage before the injury compared to the average Dutch patient. The mean QoL index was 0.462 at baseline and 0.737 at 6 months, indicating a rise in QoL after treatment as well as a long-lasting impact on QoL. To our knowledge, this is only the first study investigating the societal costs of Lisfranc injuries, so more research is needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors of this article have no competing interests to declare, (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To determine from a patient perspective what improves the quality of care and patient satisfaction during the treatment and recovery process of Lisfranc fractures and to reveal possible points for improvement in this process., Methods: We performed a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with patients treated for a Lisfranc fracture-dislocation in the Netherlands with either open reduction and internal fixation or primary arthrodesis, until data saturation was reached, focusing on the quality of care during treatment and recovery, from a patient perspective., Results: Data saturation was reached after interviewing 10 patients. The main themes emerging from the analysis were expectation management regarding the recovery period; communication with and between health care providers; information provided during consultations; and support during the recovery period. Participants expressed a need for improved provision of information about the different treatment options, the different kinds of pain that can arise, the expected duration of the recovery period, education on strong pain killers, likelihood of a second surgery, risks of osteoarthritis, risks of the surgery itself, allied health care and patient experiences. Participants mentioned the importance of good allied health care and a preference for starting allied health care as soon as possible. Insoles and compression socks were also appreciated by various participants. Finally, multiple patients saw a positive attitude on the part of the health care providers towards the recovery period as a key factor in recovery., Conclusion: This study found that patients value more tailored approaches to the pre-and post-operative care program, more guidance regarding allied health care (physiotherapy), and a broader scope of available references and information for patients, both oral (during consultations and in informative videos) and written, such as brochures or evidence-based web pages and mobile platforms, which may be offered during consultations or when being discharged from the hospital., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: This 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., Methods: A 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., Results: A 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., Conclusion: This 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.

Background: The Lisfranc injury is a complex injury of the midfoot. It can result in persistent pain and functional impairment if treated inappropriately. In Lisfranc fracture dislocation, treatment options are primary arthrodesis of the midfoot joints or open reduction and internal fixation. The purpose of the proposed study is to define the optimal treatment for the Lisfranc fracture dislocation, either primary arthrodesis or open reduction and internal fixation, in regard to quality of life, complications, functional outcomes, and cost effectiveness., Methods: Study design: A prospective multicenter RCT., Study Population: All patients of 18 years and older with an acute (< 6 weeks) traumatic fracture dislocation in the Lisfranc midfoot joints, displaced on static radiographic evaluation or unstable with dynamic evaluation, weight bearing radiographs or fluoroscopic stress testing under anesthesia, and eligible for either one of the surgical procedures. In total, this study will include n = 112 patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation., Interventions: Patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation will be randomly allocated to treatment in "The Better to Fix or Fuse Study" (The BFF Study) with either PA or ORIF. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome parameter: the quality of life., Secondary Outcomes: complications, functional outcomes, secondary surgical interventions and cost effectiveness. Nature and extent of the burden: PA is expected to have a better outcome, however both treatments are accepted for this injury with a similar low risk of complications. Follow up is standardized and therefore this study will not add extra burden to the patient., Discussion: This study protocol provides a comprehensive overview of the aims and methods of the attached clinical study. Limitations of this study are the absence of patient blinding since it is impossible in surgical intervention, and the outcome measure (AOFAS) that has limited validity not for these injuries. This study will be the first with enough power to define optimal treatment for Lisfranc fracture dislocations. This is necessary since current literature is unclear on this topic. Trial registration Current controlled Trial: NCT04519242 with registration date: 08/13/2020. Retrospectively registered; Protocol date and version: Version 4 05/06/2020., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Stem cell therapy is an emerging treatment for tendon disorders., Purpose: To systematically review the efficacy of stem cell therapy for patients with tendon disorders., Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus; trial registers; and gray literature were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, cohort studies, and case series with 5 or more cases. Studies investigating any type of stem cell therapy for patients with tendon disorders were eligible if they included patient-reported outcome measures or assessed tendon healing. Risk of bias was assessed through use of the Cochrane risk of bias tools., Results: This review included 8 trials (289 patients). All trials had moderate to high risk of bias (level 3 or 4 evidence). In Achilles tendon disorders, 1 trial found that allogenic-derived stem cells led to a faster recovery compared with platelet-rich plasma. Another study found no retears after bone marrow-derived stem cell therapy was used in addition to surgical treatment. There were 4 trials that studied the efficacy of bone marrow-derived stem cell therapy for rotator cuff tears. The controlled trials reported superior patient-reported outcomes and better tendon healing. A further 2 case series found that stem cell therapy improved patient-reported outcomes in patients with patellar tendinopathy and elbow tendinopathy., Conclusion: Level 3 evidence is available to support the efficacy of stem cell therapy for tendon disorders. The findings of available studies are at considerable risk of bias, and evidence-based recommendations for the use of stem cell therapy for tendon disorders in clinical practice cannot be made at this time. Stem cell injections should not be used in clinical practice given the lack of knowledge about potentially serious adverse effects., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This systematic review was supported by the Dutch National Olympic Committee. However, this funding had no influence on the collection, analysis, interpretation, and writing of the current manuscript. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2020.)