Functional Outcome and Patient Satisfaction After Primary vs Secondary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Injuries: Toward a Single-Surgery Approach.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 39503376.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1177/10711007241288853 and PMC identifier 11697498.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The choice between primary arthrodesis (PA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for acute Lisfranc injuries remains contentious. Apart from primary treatment, arthrodesis is often used for treating chronic Lisfranc injuries, including patients in whom initial ORIF or nonoperative treatment failed. The aim of this study was to compare PA and secondary arthrodesis (SA) in terms of complications and functional outcome. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on trauma patients with Lisfranc injuries treated at a level 1 trauma center between July 1, 2010, and July 1, 2020. Selected patients were evaluated at the outpatient clinic and received a survey. Demographics, injury characteristics, management, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot score, Foot Function Index) were analyzed. Twenty-nine of 37 potential patients (78.4%; PA n = 11, SA n = 18) completed the survey with a median follow-up of 7.1 (PA) to 9.3 (SA) years (<i>P</i> = .01). The majority were female (n = 18, 62.1%); the mean age of PA patients was 57.1 years (SD 14.2) compared with 43.5 years (SD 17.1) in SA patients (<i>P</i> = .04). In the PA group, there was no infection, 100% union, and implants were removed in 5 of 11 patients. In the SA group, 11.1% (n = 2) developed infection, malunion rate was 11.1%, implants were removed in 33.3% (n = 6), and 22.2% required revision surgery. AOFAS was "good" in PA (77.7, SD 17.3) compared with rated "fair" in SA (67.1, SD 21.3, <i>P</i> = .19). FFI was better in PA (26.0, SD 26.2) than SA (37.6, SD 30.8, <i>P</i> = .32), which exceeded the minimally important clinical difference. Although this study was limited by sample size, the overall results suggest equivalent functional outcome, pain and treatment satisfaction in primary arthrodesis compared with secondary arthrodesis patients for treatment of Lisfranc injury.
Medical subject headings
- Arthrodesis
- Patient Satisfaction
- Fracture Fixation, Internal
Anatomy
- foot