Clinical and radiological outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation of lisfranc injuries: A single centre experience

Functional Outcomes of Dorsal Bridge Plating for Lisfranc Injuries With Routine Implant Retention: A Major Trauma Center Experience

“…The reported superficial infection rate of 2% also compares well with existing literature, which includes rates between 0% and 13.9% and has included some deep infections. [7][8][9][10][11]14,15 Female patients were more likely to need removal of implants. There is little documented literature on this specific topic, but we hypothesize that this may be because of footwear choices, or anatomical differences between the male and female foot.…”

“…To our knowledge, this is the largest series to date that documents functional outcomes in patients undergoing open reduction and DPB fixation of unstable Lisfranc complex injuries. The largest preceding studies have included between 19 and 33 cases [7][8][9]11,14,15 with one other study appraising 45 pure DBP cases and a further 25 cases that implemented a hybrid DBP and screw fixation technique. 10 This is also the first study to report on outcomes using a surgical methodology involving routine retention of implants.…”

“…Previous reported AOFAS scores after DBP fixation have a range between 63.3 and 85. [7][8][9][10][11]14,15 In comparison, the most recent published systematic review of fixation techniques for displaced Lisfranc injuries found a weighted mean AOFAS score of 74.2 6 9.4 for TA screw fixation. 20 It is of interest to contrast our results with other studies that have removed implants as part of their surgical methodology.…”

“…Eight patients in this study went on to require early secondary arthrodesis (9%). Previous studies have reported rates ranging from 0% to 8%, [7][8][9][10]14,15 whereas the most recent systematic review of TA screws found a rate of 7.8%. 26 Secondary arthrodesis is an accepted salvage procedure in patients with debilitating post-traumatic arthritis.…”

“…Routine removal is most often described, 7,11,14 or otherwise the decision has simply been left to surgeon discretion. 8–10,15 It has been recognized that some patients do not want implants removed 8 and that routine removal may be associated with an increased risk of damage to neurovascular structures. 16…”