Lisfranc injuries

Clare, Michael P.

doi:10.1007/s12178-017-9387-6

Cited by 39 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12,33 Despite the relative ubiquity of such intervention, there still remains little consensus as to whether removing these implants in staged fashion actually makes a clinical difference, nor a clear guide to the optimal timing for implant removal. 5 When including hardware removal in the analysis, the reoperation rates in this study were comparable to those found in literature (72% in the ORIF group and 27.3% in the PA group). 12 In most cases (n = 83, 71.6% of ORIF cases), hardware was removed because of surgeons’ preference and without correlation to operative infections or wound healing problems ( P = .13 and P = .6, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lisfranc injuries are generally associated with high energy mechanisms, for example, fall from a height or motor vehicle accident 1 2. However, they may also occur from relatively lower energy trauma, such as a ground-level fall depending on the positon of the foot.…”

Section: Answer: Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Treatment of Lisfranc injuries depends on the stability of the injury. Poor outcomes, such as collapse of the cuneiform-metatarsal arch and/or intractable midfoot arthritis are common where injuries have been missed 1 2…”

Section: Answer: Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low energy injury to the foot

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Traditional fixation methods include percutaneous screws, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and primary arthrodesis. 3…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Suture-Augmented Ligamentplasty to Transarticular Screws in a Lisfranc Cadaveric Model

Nery

Baumfeld

et al. 2020

Foot Ankle Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Lisfranc injuries represent a spectrum of trauma from high-energy lesions, with significant instability of the midfoot, to low-energy lesions, with subtle subluxations or instability without gross displacement. Recently, treatment options that allow for physiologic fixation of this multiplanar joint are being evaluated. The purpose of this study was to analyze the stability of a cadaveric Lisfranc injury model fixed with a novel suture-augmented neoligamentplasty in comparison with a traditional transarticular screw fixation construct. Methods: Twenty-four fresh-frozen, matched cadaveric leg and foot specimens (12 individuals younger than 65 years of age) were used for this study. Two different types of Lisfranc ligament injuries were tested: partial and complete. Two different methods of fixation were compared: transarticular screws and augmented suture ligamentplasty with FiberTape. Specimens were fixed to a rotation platform in order to stress the joints while applying 400 N of axial load and internal and external rotation. Six distances were measured and compared between the intact, injured, and fixed states with a 3D Digitizer arm, in order to evaluate the stability between them. Analysis of variance was used with P < .05 considered significant. Results: Using distribution graphs and analyzing the grouped data, it was observed that there was no difference between the 2 stabilization methods, but the augmented suture ligamentplasty presented lower variability and observed distance shortenings were more likely to be around the mean. The variability of the stabilization with screws was 2.9 times higher than that with tape ( P < .001). Conclusion: We suggest that augmented suture ligamentplasty can achieve similar stability to classic transarticular screws, with less variability. Clinical Relevance: This cadaveric study adds new information on the debate about Lisfranc lesions treatment. Flexible fixations, such as the synthethic ligamentplasty used, can restore good stability such as conventional transarticular screws.

show abstract

Lisfranc injuries

Abstract: Purpose of review The purpose of this review is to discuss key anatomic and pathoanatomic factors, treatment principles, and patient outcomes of Lisfranc injuries.

Cited by 39 publications

References 20 publications

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

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

Low energy injury to the foot

Comparison of Suture-Augmented Ligamentplasty to Transarticular Screws in a Lisfranc Cadaveric Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Lisfranc injuries

Abstract: Purpose of review The purpose of this review is to discuss key anatomic and pathoanatomic factors, treatment principles, and patient outcomes of Lisfranc injuries.

Cited by 39 publications

References 20 publications

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

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

​Low energy injury to the foot

Comparison of Suture-Augmented Ligamentplasty to Transarticular Screws in a Lisfranc Cadaveric Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Low energy injury to the foot