Injuries of the tarsometatarsal joints:​ treatment and outcome

Malović, Mario; Milošević, Milan; Vlahović, Tomislav; Nikolić, Tatjana; Margetić, Petra; Milošević, Milan

Affiliations

¹University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, University Hospital of Traumatology, Zagreb, Croatia

²Outpatient Orthopaedic Clinic, Zagreb, Croatia

³School of Public Health, Department for Environmental and Occupational Health, Zagreb, Croatia

Abstract and keywords (English)

Between January 2005 and May 2009, a total of 26 patients, 21 males and 5 females, were admitted for treatment of Lisfranc lesion. All patients were radiologically evaluated and classified according to the criteria proposed by Myerson: 5 (19.2%) patients had a type A injury, 2 patients (7.7%) presented with a type B1 injury, 17 (65.4%) sustained the most common type B2 injury and 1 (3.8%) patient suffered from a type C1 and C2 injury. Taking radiological and clinical findings in account, fifteen patients were elected for operative treatment and eleven patients were treated conservatively. According to type of fracture we established three groups; in group I metatarsal fracture was found in fourteen (53.9%) patients, group II with phalangeal fracture in three (11.5%) cases, whereas in group III nine (34.6%) patients sustained combined metatarsal, navicular and, most commonly, a cuneiform fracture.Using the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scoring scale and SF-36 questionnaire, the functional outcome was assessed. The mean value for age distribution was 42.7±13.2 years and the mean follow up was 27.9±12.4 months. A p value <0.005 was regarded as statistically significant for the analysis of the results. We found by means of SF 36 questionnaire a statistically significant difference in the role limitation due to existence of pain (p=0.04) and poor general health (p= 0.013) in the group of patients that sustained combined foot fracture. The purpose of this study is to assess the treatment of Lisfranc injuries in our patients, according to SF 36 and AOFAS criteria, clinical outcome was evaluated. In the group I the mean AOFAS score was 74.0±9.1 and in the group II it reached 72.0±5.2 signifyng fair outcome! Poor outcome was present in the group III with mean AOFAS score 67.1±9.0. All unstable injuries require surgery. Clinical outcome is highly dependent on the restoration of normal anatomic alignment

Keywords: tarsometatarsal injury; dislocation; clinical outcome

Abstract (Croatian)

U periodu između siječnja 2005. g. i svibnja 2009. g. 26 pacijenata, od toga 21 muški i 5 žena, liječeni su zbog Lisfrancove ozljede. Izvršena je klasifikacija ozljede na temelju Myersonove klasifikacije: 5 bolesnika zadobilo je ozljedu tipa A, 2 bolesnika tipa B1 a 17 njih je pretrpilo najčešći tip ozljede B2. Ozljeda tipa C bila je prisutna u samo jednom slučaju. Na temelju RTG I kliničke slike, 15 bolesnika bilo je podvrgnuto operativnom liječenju dok je ostalih jedanaest liječeno konzervativno. Uzimajući u obzir prijelome kostiju stopala, dobili smo podjelu na tri grupacije: grupa I obuhva- ćala je prijelome metatarzalnih kostiju – 14 bolesnika (53,9%), grupa II prijelome falangi prstiju – 3 bolesnika (11,5%) te grupa III gdje su bile prisutne kombinirane frakture metatarzalnih kostiju, navikularnih i, najčešće, kuneiformnih kostiju. Koristeći klasifikaciju Američkog ortopedskog udruženja za kirurgiju stopala i gležnja (AOFAS) te SF-36 upitnik, procijenili smo rezultate liječenja. Prosječna dob bolesnika bila je 42,7±13,2 godina dok je prosječno praćenje iznosilo 27,9±12,4 mjeseci. U analizi rezultata korištena je p vrijednost, koja je bila statistički značajna u slučaju <0.005. Na temelju SF 36 upitnika uvidjeli smo statistički značajnu razliku u smanjenju aktivnosti bolesnika zbog postojanja boli (p=0,04) i lošeg općeg zdravlja (p=0,013) u grupi III. Svrha ovog rada bila je uvidjeti uspješnost liječenja Lisfrancove ozljede na temelju već spomenutih SF 36 i AOFAS kriterija. U grupi I prosječni AOFAS skor iznosio je 74,0±9,1 bod, u grupi II 72,0±5,2 bod što govori u prilog dobrog rezultata. Loši rezultati bili su prisutni u grupi III sa prosječnim AOFAS skorom 67,1±9,0 bod. Sve nestabilne ozljede tarzometatarzalne regije zahtijevaju operacijsko liječenje. Klinički ishod uvelike ovisi o uspostavljanju normalnih anatomskih odnosa.

Links

URL: http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=112363&lang=en

History

Received: 2011-08-24

Cited Works (21)

Year	Entry
1995	Tan YH, Chin TW, Mitra AK, Tan SK. Tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc's) injuries: results of open reduction and internal fixation. Ann Acad Med Singapore. November 1995;24(6):816-819.
2005	Alberta FG, Aronow MS, Barrero M, Diaz-Doran V, Sullivan RJ, Adams DJ. Ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries: a biomechanical comparison of dorsal plate and transarticular screw fixation. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(6):462-473.
1990	Faciszewski T, Burks RT, Manaster BJ. Subtle injuries of the Lisfranc joint. J Bone Joint Surg. December 1990;72A(10):1519-1522.
2006	Ly TV, Coetzee JC. Treatment of primarily ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries: primary arthrodesis compared with open reduction and internal fixation: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88B(3):514-520.
1997	Mulier T, Reynders P, Sioen W, van den Berg J, de Reymaeker G, Reynaert P, Broos P. The treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Acta Ortop Belg. 1997;63(2):82-90.
2002	Thordarson DB, Hurvitz G. PLA screw fixation of lisfranc injuries. Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23(11):1003-1007.
1986	Myerson MS, Fisher RT, Burgess AR, Kenzora JE. Fracture dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joints: end results correlated with pathology and treatment. Foot Ankle. 1986;6(5):225-242.
1995	Trevino SG, Kodros S. Controversies in tarsometatarsal injuries. Orthop Clin North Am. 1995;26(2):229-238.
2007	Sherief TI, Mucci B, Greiss M. Lisfranc injury: how frequently does it get missed? and how can we improve? Injury. 2007;38(7):856-860.
2003	Philbin T, Rosenberg G, Sferra JJ. Complications of missed or untreated Lisfranc injuries. Foot and Ankle Clinics. 2003;8(1):61-71.
1994	Mantas JP, Burks RT. Lisfranc injuries in the athlete. Clin Sports Med. 1994;13(4):719-730.
2000	Kuo RS, Tejwani NC, DiGiovanni CW, Holt SK, Benirschke SK, Hansen ST Jr, Sangeorzan BJ. Outcome after open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc joint injuries. J Bone Joint Surg. November 2000;82A(11):1609-1618.
1999	Davies MS, Saxby TS. Intercuneiform instability and the "gap" sign. Foot Ankle Int. September 1999;20(9):606-609.
1982	Hardcastle PH, Reschauer R, Kutscha-Lissberg E, Schoffmann W. Injuries to the tarsometatarsal joint: incidence, classification and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg. 1982;64B(3):349-356.
2007	Coetzee JC, Ly TV. Treatment of primarily ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries: primary arthrodesis compared with open reduction and internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg. March 2007;89A(pt 1)(suppl 2):122-127.
1909	Quénu E, Küss G. Étude sur les luxations du métatarse (luxations métatarso-tarsiennes) du diastasis entre le 1^er et le 2^e métatarsien. Rev Chir. 1909;39:1-72.
1987	Arntz CT, Hansen ST Jr. Dislocations and fracture dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joints. Orthop Clin North Am. 1987;18(1):105-114.
1989	Ouzounian TJ, Shereff MJ. In vitro determination of midfoot motion. Foot Ankle. December 1989;10(3):140-146.
2002	Nunley JA, Vertullo CJ. Classification, investigation, and management of midfoot sprains. Am J Sports Med. November–December 2002;30(6):871-878.
1998	Buzzard BM, Briggs PJ. Surgical management of acute tarsometatarsal fracture dislocation in the adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;353:125-133.
1989	Myerson M. The diagnosis and treatment of injuries to the Lisfranc joint complex. Orthop Clin North Am. 1989;20(4):655-664.

Cited By (1)

Year	Entry
2012	Lievers WB, Frimenko RE, Crandall JR, Kent RW, Park JS. Age, sex, causal and injury patterns in tarsometatarsal dislocations: a literature review of over 2000 cases. Foot. September 2012;22(3):117-124.