Lisfranc injuries were previously described as fracture-dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joints. With advancements in modern imaging, subtle Lisfranc injuries are now more frequently recognized, revealing that their true incidence is much higher than previously thought. Injury patterns can vary widely in severity and anatomy. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to achieve good outcomes. The original classification systems were anatomy-based, and limited as tools for guiding treatment. The current review, using the best available evidence, instead introduces a stability-based classification system, with weightbearing radiographs and CT serving as key diagnostic tools. Stable injuries generally have good outcomes with nonoperative management, most reliably treated with immobilization and non-weightbearing for six weeks. Displaced or comminuted injuries require surgical intervention, with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) being the most common approach, with a consensus towards bridge plating. While ORIF generally achieves satisfactory results, its effectiveness can vary, particularly in high-energy injuries. Primary arthrodesis remains niche for the treatment of acute injuries, but may offer benefits such as lower rates of post-traumatic arthritis and hardware removal. Novel fixation techniques, including suture button fixation, aim to provide flexible stabilization, which theoretically could improve midfoot biomechanics and reduce complications. Early findings suggest promising functional outcomes, but further studies are required to validate this method compared with established techniques. Future research should focus on refining stability-based classification systems, validation of weightbearing CT, improving rehabilitation protocols, and optimizing surgical techniques for various injury patterns to ultimately enhance patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1431–1442

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

The results of treatment of Lisfranc injuries are often unsatisfactory. This retrospective study investigated 46 patients with isolated Lisfranc injuries at a minimum of two years after surgery. Thirteen patients had a poor outcome and had to change employment, or were unable to find work as a result of this injury. The presence of a compensation claim (p = 0.02) and a delay in diagnosis of more than six months were associated with a poor outcome (p = 0.01). There was no association between poor functional outcome and age, gender, mechanism of injury or previous occupation. This study may have medico-legal implications on reporting the prognosis for such injuries, and highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment

Injuries to the foot in athletes are often subtle and can lead to a substantial loss of function if not diagnosed and treated appropriately. For these injuries in general, even after a diagnosis is made, treatment options are controversial and become even more so in high level athletes where limiting the time away from training and competition is a significant consideration.

In this review, we cover some of the common and important sporting injuries affecting the foot including updates on their management and outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1299–1311.

The April 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360. looks at: Outcomes following a two-stage revision total ankle arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection; Temporary bridge plate fixation and joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury; Outcomes of fusion in type II os naviculare; Total ankle arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis; Normal saline for plantar fasciitis: placebo or therapeutic?; Distraction arthroplasty for ankle osteoarthritis: does it work?; Let there be movement: ankle arthroplasty after previous fusion; Morbidity and mortality after diabetic Charcot foot arthropathy

The December 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360 . looks at: The midfoot fusion bolt: has it had its day?; Ankle arthroplasty: only for the old?; A return to the Keller’s osteotomy for diabetic feet?; Joint sparing surgery for ankle arthritis in the context of deformity?; Beware the subtalar fusion in the ankle arthrodesis patient?; Nonunion in the foot and ankle a predictive score; Cast versus early weight bearing following Achilles tendon repair; Should we plate Lisfranc injuries?

The anatomy of the mortise of the Lisfranc joint between the medial and lateral cuneiforms was studied in detail, with particular reference to features which may predispose to injury. In 33 consecutive patients with Lisfranc injuries we measured, from conventional radiographs, the medial depth of the mortise (A), the lateral depth (B) and the length of the second metatarsal (C). MRI was used to confirm the diagnosis. We calculated the mean depth of the mortise (A+B)/2, and the variables of the lever arm as follows: C/A, C/B and C/mean depth. The data were compared with those obtained in 84 cadaver feet with no previous injury of the Lisfranc joint complex. Statistical analysis used Student’s two-sample t-test at the 5% error level and forward stepwise logistic regression. The mean medial depth of the mortise was found to be significantly less in patients with Lisfranc injuries than in the control group. Stepwise logistic regression identified only this depth as a significant risk factor for Lisfranc injuries. The odds of being in the injury group is 0.52 (approximately half) that of being a control if the medial depth of the mortise is increased by 1 mm, after adjusting for the other variables in the model. Our findings show that the mortise in patients with injuries to the Lisfranc joint is shallower than in the control group and the shallower it is the greater is the risk of injury

The August 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360 . looks at: Is orthosis more important than physio in tibialis posterior deficiency?; Radiographic evaluation of ankle injury; Sciatic catheter quite enough!; A fresh look at avascular necrosis of the talus; Total ankle and VTE; Outcomes of posterior malleolar fracture; Absorbable sutures in the Achilles tendon; Lisfranc injuries under the spotlight

The April 2023 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Displaced femoral neck fractures in patients aged 55 to 70 years: internal fixation or total hip arthroplasty?; Tibial plateau fractures: continuous passive motion approves range of motion; Lisfranc fractures: to fuse or not to fuse, that is the question; Is hardware removal after clavicle fracture plate fixation beneficial?; Fixation to coverage in Grade IIIB open fractures – what’s the time window?; Nonoperative versus locking plate fixation in the proximal humerus; Retrograde knee nailing or lateral plate for distal femur fractures?

Aims

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates.

Aims

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of bridge plating, screw fixation, and a combination of both methods for the treatment of Lisfranc fracture dislocations.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome in patients undergoing implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation below the level of the knee.

Aims

Fracture clinics are often characterised by the referral of large numbers of unselected patients with minor injuries not requiring investigation or intervention, long waiting times and recurrent unnecessary reviews. Our experience had been of an unsustainable system and we implemented a ‘Trauma Triage Clinic’ (TTC) in order to rationalise and regulate access to our fracture service. The British Orthopaedic Association’s guidelines have required a prospective evaluation of this change of practice, and we report our experience and results.

Aims

Fractures of the navicular can occur in isolation but, owing to the intimate anatomical and biomechanical relationships, are often associated with other injuries to the neighbouring bones and joints in the foot. As a result, they can lead to long-term morbidity and poor function. Our aim in this study was to identify patterns of injury in a new classification system of traumatic fractures of the navicular, with consideration being given to the commonly associated injuries to the midfoot.

We present a review of litigation claims relating to foot and ankle surgery in the NHS in England during the 17-year period between 1995 and 2012.

A freedom of information request was made to obtain data from the NHS litigation authority (NHSLA) relating to orthopaedic claims, and the foot and ankle claims were reviewed.

During this period of time, a total of 10 273 orthopaedic claims were made, of which 1294 (12.6%) were related to the foot and ankle. 1036 were closed, which comprised of 1104 specific complaints. Analysis was performed using the complaints as the denominator. The cost of settling these claims was more than £36 million.

There were 372 complaints (33.7%) involving the ankle, of which 273 (73.4%) were related to trauma. Conditions affecting the first ray accounted for 236 (21.4%), of which 232 (98.3%) concerned elective practice. Overall, claims due to diagnostic errors accounted for 210 (19.0%) complaints, 208 (18.8%) from alleged incompetent surgery and 149 (13.5%) from alleged mismanagement.

Our findings show that the incorrect, delayed or missed diagnosis of conditions affecting the foot and ankle is a key area for improvement, especially in trauma practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1510–14.

We assessed the long-term (20 years) outcome of closed reduction and immobilisation in 19 patients with an isolated fracture of the posterior malleolus of the ankle treated at a single hospital between 1985 and 1990. The assessments used were an Olerud functional questionnaire score, physical examination using a loaded dorsal and plantar range of movement measurement, radiological analysis of medial joint space widening, the Cedell score for anatomical alignment of all three malleoli, and the radiological presence of osteoarthritic change.

There were excellent or good results in 14 patients (74%) according to the Olerud score, in 18 patients (95%) according to loaded dorsal and plantar range of movement assessment, in 16 patients (84%) as judged by the Cedell score, and for osteoarthritis 18 patients (95%) had an excellent or good score. There were no poor outcomes. There was no correlation between the size of the fracture gap and the proportion of the tibiotalar contact area when compared with the clinical results (gap size: rho values -0.16 to 0.04, p ≥ 0.51; tibiotalar contact area: rho values -0.20 to -0.03, p ≥ 0.4). Conservative treatment of ‘isolated’ posterior malleolar fractures resulted in good clinical and radiological outcome in this series at long-term follow-up.