Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis for the Treatment of Acute Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This study aims to compare outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis in management of Lisfranc injuries. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, a systematic review was carried out. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomised studies comparing the outcomes of ORIF and primary arthrodesis for Lisfranc injuries. Random- and fixed-effect statistical models were applied to calculate the pooled outcome data. Two RCTs and 3 observational studies were identified, compiling a total of 187 subjects with acute Lisfranc injuries and a mean follow-up duration of 62.3 months. Our results demonstrate that ORIF is associated with a significantly higher need for revision surgery (odds ratio [OR] 6.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.68 to 15.11, p < .0001) and a significantly higher rate of persistent pain (OR 6.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 36.89, p?=?.04) compared with primary arthrodesis. However, we found no significant difference between the groups in terms of visual analogue scale pain score, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society functional score, or rates of infection. Separate analysis of RCTs showed that ORIF was associated with a more frequent need for revision surgery (OR 17.56, 95% CI 5.47 to 56.38, p < .00001), higher visual analogue scale pain score (mean difference 2.90, 95% CI 2.84 to 2.96, p < .00001), and lower American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score (mean difference –29.80, 95% CI –39.82 to –19.78, p < .00001). The results of the current study suggest that primary arthrodesis may be associated with better pain and functional outcomes and lower need for revision surgery compared with ORIF. The available evidence is limited and is not adequately robust to make explicit conclusions. The current literature requires high-quality and adequately powered RCTs.     

Primary fusion versus open reduction internal fixation for purely ligamentous lisfranc injuries: A Prospective comparative study and analysis of factors affecting the outcomes

BackgroundThe studies evaluating the outcomes of treatment of purely ligamentous unstable Lisfranc injuries are scarce. This study aimed at comparing outcomes of primary tarso-metatarsal joints fusion versus open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of such condition and determining the possible factors that may alter the outcomes.MethodsThis study comprised 30 patients; 16 in fusion group and 14 in ORIF group. One column was operated on in 2 patients, two columns in 21, and three columns in 7. The mean follow-up period was 36 months.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding patients or injury characteristics. The mean AOFAS and FFI-Rs scores were 88.9 and 22.7 in the fusion group, compared to 61.7 and 34.5 in the ORIF group (P = .03,.04 respectively). At final follow-up all patients in the primary arthrodesis group were maintaining an anatomical reduction versus 71.5% in the ORIF group. Sixteen patients (53%) reported prominent hardware troubles that required removal. Five patients in ORIF group developed osteoarthritis, and four of them underwent secondary fusion. There was significantly higher incidence of posttraumatic osteoarthritis in patients with non-anatomical reduction and complete injuries. Better mean AOFAS and FFI-Rs scores occurred with non-smokers and with anatomical reduction.ConclusionBased on this limited case series, purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries were found to have better outcomes when managed with a primary fusion as compared to ORIF.Achieving and maintaining anatomical reduction was the most important factor that is significantly attributed to improved outcomes. Possible arthritic changes and additional surgeries apart from implant removal could be avoided by primary fusion.Level of evidencelevel I- prospective comparative case study.     

Combined Medial Column Arthrodesis with Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Central Column for Treatment of Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation: A Review of Consecutive Cases

Lisfranc fracture-dislocations can be devastating injuries with significant long-term sequelae with or without surgical intervention. The main goal of treatment is to minimize the common long-term complications including pain, progressive arch collapse, degenerative joint disease, hardware failure, and reoperation. Partial primary fusion involving the first, second, and third tarsometatarsal joints has become a common approach for primarily dislocation injuries, with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) favored for Lisfranc injuries involving fracture. ORIF commonly requires revision surgery for hardware removal or delayed fusion. Major revision creates hardship for the patient due to the prolonged recovery required, and even “simple” hardware removal can be traumatic to local nerve, artery, and tendon structures. A common injury pattern includes the findings of primary dislocation and instability of the first tarsometatarsal joint with oftentimes comminuted fracture to the second and third tarsometatarsal joints, which does not fit the standard surgical approach. We report a review of our preferred surgical approach consisting of medial column primary arthrodesis combined with central column ORIF and lateral column temporary pinning. We undertook an institutional review board-approved review of 35 consecutive Lisfranc injuries treated with this hybrid approach. Mean follow-up time was 22.14?±?22.39 (range 2.5 to 84) months. All but 2 (5.71%) patients had radiographic evidence of union at 10 weeks. Complications included 3 with neuritis, 1 with medial column nonunion that was treated with a bone stimulator, and 1 with revision of second metatarsal nonunion. The present retrospective series highlights our experience with isolated primary fusion of the medial column in both subtle and obvious Lisfranc injuries.     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Primary Arthrodesis Versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Primarily Ligamentous Lisfranc Injuries

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether surgical intervention with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) for Lisfranc injuries is more cost effective. We conducted a formal cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and decision tree to explore the healthcare costs and health outcomes associated with a scenario of ORIF versus PA for 45 years postoperatively. The outcomes assessed included long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY gained. The costs were evaluated from the healthcare system perspective and are expressed in U.S. dollars at a 2017 price base. ORIF was always associated with greater costs compared with PA and was less effective in the long term. When calculating the cost required to gain 1 additional QALY, the PA group cost $1429/QALY and the ORIF group cost $3958/QALY. The group undergoing PA overall spent, on average, $43,192 less than the ORIF group, and PA was overall a more effective technique. Strong dominance compared with ORIF was demonstrated in multiple scenarios, and the model's conclusions were unchanged in the sensitivity analysis even after varying the key assumptions. ORIF failed to show functional or financial benefits. In conclusion, from a healthcare system's standpoint, PA would clearly be the preferred treatment strategy for predominantly ligamentous Lisfranc injuries and dislocations.     

Does temporary bridge plate fixation preserve joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury?

BackgroundRecently, temporary bridge plate fixation has gained popularity in the treatment of unstable Lisfranc injuries. The technique aims to reduce the risk of posttraumatic osteoarthritis, and after plate removal, the goal is to regain joint mobility. Here we explore marker-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure motion in the 1st tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint and asses the radiological outcome in patients treated with this surgical technique.MethodTen patients with an unstable Lisfranc injury were included. All were treated with a dorsal bridge plate over the 1st TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the 2nd and 3rd TMT joints. The plate was removed four months postoperatively. Non- and weight-bearing RSA images were obtained one and five years postinjury to assess joint mobility and signs of osteoarthritis.ResultsDetectable 1st TMT joint motion was observed in 2/10 patients after one year, and 6/9 patients after five years. At the final follow-up, mean 1st TMT dorsiflexion was 2.0°. Radiologically, the incidence of posttraumatic osteoarthritis was present in 4/10 patients after one year, and 5/9 patients after five years. All patients had observed TMT joint stability throughout the follow-up period.ConclusionPreservation of joint motion can be achieved with a temporary bridge plate fixation over the 1st TMT joint.Type of study/level of evidenceProspective cohort study/Therapeutically level IV.     

Nonoperative management of lisfranc injuries – A systematic review of outcomes

BackgroundHistorically, most Lisfranc injuries have been considered to be unstable and treated with surgical intervention. However, with better access to cross-sectional imaging, stable injury patterns are starting to be recognised. The aims of the current study were to perform a systematic review of outcomes of Lisfranc injuries treated non-operatively.MethodsA literature review was performed of studies reporting nonoperative management of Lisfranc injuries (PROSPERO registered and following PRISMA guidelines). Following exclusions, 8 papers were identified: 1 prospective and 7 retrospective studies. A total of 220 patients were studied with a mean age of 39.8 years and a mean follow-up of 4.3 years. Outcomes included function, displacement, and rates of surgery.ResultsHigh heterogeneity was observed with variable outcomes. Four papers reported good outcomes, with adjusted functional scores ranging from 82.6 to 100 (out of 100). However, one study reported late displacement in 54 % of patients. Rates of secondary osteoarthritis ranged from 5 % to 38 %. Rates of surgical intervention were as high as 56 %. Several studies compared operative to non-operative treatment, reporting superior outcomes with surgery. Those injuries with no displacement on CT, measured at the medial cuneiform-second metatarsal had the best outcomes.ConclusionReported outcomes following nonoperative treatment of Lisfranc injuries vary widely, including high rates of conversion to surgery. In contrast, some studies have reported excellent functional outcomes. CT seems to be an important diagnostic tool in defining a stable injury. Due to limited data and lack of a clear definition of a stable injury or treatment protocol, prospective research is needed to determine which Lisfranc injuries can be safely treated nonoperatively.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of acute lisfranc injuries: Open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis

BackgroundInjuries to the Lisfranc complex, although relatively rare carry a high morbidity and are often associated with other injuries. Despite a number published studies to determine the best operative management, there is an ongoing debate to whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) produces the best outcomes for patients. There have been further studies published in the last few years that have not been assessed as part of the wider literature and therefore we wished to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with inclusion of outcomes not assessed in the previous studies.MethodsWe performed a structured search for retrospective and prospective comparative papers and identified 8 relevant articles (2 RCT studies and 6 non-RCT studies) that compared the outcomes of ORIF versus PA; these studies included a total of 547 patients. Each of the studies was assessed for suitability and quality before inclusion. We performed a statistical analysis of the aggregated results as part of the review.ResultsWe found no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of ORIF versus PA in terms of return to work or activity (Odds Ratio 0.80 (CI 95%, 0.32–2.02, P = 0.64)) and satisfaction rates (Odds Ratio 0.15 (CI 95%, 0.01–.00, P = 0.25)). Patients undergoing ORIF have a higher risk of undergoing further surgery to remove the metalwork (Odds Ration 13.13 (CI 95%, 7.65–22.54, P < 0.00001)) or to undergo secondary fusion, but, the overall complication rates appear to be equivalent in both groups (risk difference 0.03 (CI 95%, –0.15–0.21, P = 0.76)).ConclusionsAlthough there were no significant differences in the functional outcomes, the overall power of the studies is low. The rates of metalwork removal and secondary fusion were higher in the ORIF group and this risk should be presented to the patient when counselling them for any procedure. We noted that there is a high level of heterogeneity in the type of injuries and measured outcomes included in each study and, therefore, further trials are needed to determine the best treatment across the spectrum of Lisfranc complex injuries.     

伴第2跖骨基底部粉碎的Lisfranc损伤的手术治疗

目的 :探讨切开复位内固定治疗伴第2跖骨基底部粉碎的Lisfranc损伤的临床疗效。方法:选取2007年3月至2012年6月伴第2跖骨基底部粉碎的Lisfranc损伤患者7例,男5例,女2例;年龄22~51岁,平均42岁;扭伤4例,交通伤3例。Myerson分型:A型1足,B型3足,C型3足。在手术内固定同时,用克氏针从内侧楔骨至第2跖骨基底部固定Lisfranc韧带。术后采用美国足踝外科协会(AOFAS)足评分标准进行功能评估;术前、术后摄X线正位、侧位、斜位片及CT检查,进行影像学评估。结果:所有患者获得随访,时间12~20个月,平均16.8个月。末次随访AOFAS评分(86.1±5.5)分;优3例,良3例,一般1例。所有切口Ⅰ期愈合,未见皮肤坏死,感染,克氏针松动、断裂等并发症。结论:在手术内固定同时,用克氏针固定伴第2跖骨基底部粉碎的Lisfranc韧带损伤,有良好的临床疗效,可避免行关节融合术。     

Operatively Treated Talus Fractures: Complications and Survivorship in a Large Patient Sample

Talus fractures are relatively uncommon; however, the sequelae of talus fractures can cause significant morbidity. Although avascular necrosis has been a consistently reported complication, the reported rates of subsequent arthrodesis have varied widely. The purpose of the present study was to report the complications in a large patient sample of operatively treated talus fractures and to describe the survivorship of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of the talus. Patients undergoing talus ORIF for closed or open fractures from 2007 to 2011 were identified in the United Healthcare System database by International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, code 825.21 and Current Procedural Terminology codes 28445, 28436, and 28430. Patients with a nonoperative talus fracture or isolated osteochondral defect were excluded, leaving 1527 patients in the final analysis. We also identified patients who had required subsequent subtalar, pantalar, and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodeses using Current Procedural Terminology codes 28725, 28705, and 28715, respectively. Complications and demographic data were recorded. Of the 1527 patients, 29 (1.9%) had undergone subsequent arthrodesis within 4 years; 64 patients (4.2%) developed wound complications that did not require surgical intervention, 11 patients (0.7%) were readmitted, 204 (13.3%) presented to the emergency department (ED), and 96 (6.3%) underwent operative irrigation and debridement (I&D). The overall complication rate was 19.5%. Patients aged >34 years had a significantly greater rate of ED visits (54.7%, p?=?.015) and overall complications (56.8%, p?<?.001). In conclusion, ORIF of talus fractures has good survivorship when considering the failure of initial surgery or the requirement for secondary arthrodesis. Medical complications and hospital readmission were relatively rare; however, ED visits and infection requiring I&D were relatively common after ORIF of talus fractures.     

The surgical outcome of Lisfranc injuries accompanied by multiple metatarsal fractures: A multicenter retrospective study

Background

This study assessed the surgical outcomes of Lisfranc injuries accompanied by multiple metatarsal fractures. Metatarsal fractures here refers to metatarsal head, neck, and shaft (including shaft fractures accompanied by fractures of the base) fractures, as well as mixed (i.e., segmental fracture) fractures, as seen on imaging studies.

Lisfranc injuries: Incidence,mechanisms of injury and predictors of instability

BackgroundIn Lisfranc injuries the stability of the tarsometatarsal joints guides the treatment of the injury. Determining the stability, especially in the subtle Lisfranc injuries, can be challenging. The purpose of this study was to identify incidence, mechanisms of injury and predictors for instability in Lisfranc injuries.MethodsEighty-four Lisfranc injuries presenting at Oslo University Hospital between September 2014 and August 2015 were included. The diagnosis was based on radiologically verified injuries to the tarsometatarsal joints. Associations between radiographic findings and stability were examined.ResultsThe incidence of Lisfranc injuries was 14/100,000 person-years, and only 31% were high-energy injuries. The incidence of unstable injuries was 6/100,000 person–years, and these were more common in women than men (P = 0.016). Intraarticular fractures in the two lateral tarsometatarsal joints increased the risk of instability (P = 0.007). The height of the second tarsometatarsal joint was less in the unstable injuries than in the stable injuries (P = 0.036).ConclusionThe incidence of Lisfranc injuries in the present study is higher than previously published. The most common mechanism of injury is low-energy trauma. Intraarticular fractures in the two lateral tarsometatarsal joints, female gender and shorter second tarsometatarsal joint height increase the risk of an unstable injury.Level of EvidenceLevel III, cross-sectional study.     

Lisfranc injury: A review and simplified treatment algorithm

BackgroundLisfranc injuries encompass large spectrum of injuries varying from low energy to high energy complex fracture dislocations. Whilst multiple complex classification systems exist; these do little to aid and direct the clinical management of patients. Therefore, this study aims to provide a simplified treatment algorithm allowing clinicians to standardise care of Lisfranc injuries.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed, and abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant literature.ResultsDelay in diagnosis has a negative impact on outcome. If a Lisfranc injury is suspected and plain radiographs are inconclusive; computed tomography and if necessary magnetic resonance imaging are indicated if there is still an index of suspicion. In the absence of joint dislocation/subluxation management will be determined by stability which can be best assessed by weightbearing radiographs. If stable, injuries can be treated conservatively in a non-weight bearing cast for 6 weeks followed by a period of graduated weight bearing. Evidence is mounting that with regard to unstable purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries primary arthrodesis (PA) has: better functional outcomes, increased cost effectiveness and reduced rates of return to theatre. With regard to bony unstable Lisfranc injuries more research is required before a single treatment modality - PA or open reduction internal fixation can be advocated, due to the lack of randomized control trials and limited patient follow-up periods in existing studies.ConclusionA simplified treatment algorithm excluding the requirement for complex classifications is suggested. This may help with the diagnosis and management of these injuries. It is our believe that this algorithm will aid health professionals to standardize care for these injuries. Further prospective research trials are required to assess outcomes of different modalities of operative management, particularly with regards to open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis for bony Lisfranc injuries.Level of evidenceLevel 5.     

Functional outcomes of traumatic midfoot injuries

IntroductionMidfoot injuries are rare injuries, often the result of high-energy trauma and occurring in the context of multiple trauma. This study aimed to evaluate functional outcomes and health-related quality of life after open reduction and internal fixation for midfoot injuries at a level 1 trauma center treating complex foot injuries.MethodsRetrospective single level 1 center study with follow-up by questionnaire. All adult patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for Lisfranc and/or Chopart injuries between 2000 and 2016 were included and invited to complete the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Score, the EuroQOL Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS), and the EuroQOL five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Chart reviews were performed to collect demographic, injury, and treatment characteristics.ResultsForty patients with 45 midfoot injuries were included. Follow-up was available for 29 patients (31 feet), leading to a response rate of 83%. The majority of patients suffered high-energy trauma and nearly all patients had a concomitant injury. Secondary arthrodesis was performed in 7/45 injuries. Median AOFAS score was 64 (IQR 47–78). Higher injury severity score (ISS) was associated with poorer functionality as measured with the AOFAS Midfoot Score (p = 0.046), concomitant injuries were associated with lower quality of life (p = 0.01). EQ-5D scores were significantly lower when compared to the Dutch reference population (p< 0.001).ConclusionsInjuries of the midfoot have negative effects on mid- to long-term quality of life after trauma, with considerable potential for long-term impaired functionality. When counseling patients with these rare injuries after high-energy trauma mechanisms or in the context of multiple trauma, realistic expectations on postoperative recovery should be given.     

Outcome following osteosynthesis or primary arthrodesis of calcaneal fractures: A cross-sectional cohort study

BackgroundCalcaneal fractures are uncommon and have a substantial impact on hindfoot function and quality of life. Several surgical treatment options are available; both in surgical approach and type of operation. The aim of this study was to compare functional outcome and quality of life following ORIF and primary arthrodesis. Furthermore, predictors of worse functional outcome were explored.MethodsA retrospective cross-sectional cohort study was performed in patients with surgical fixation of a calcaneal fracture with a minimum follow-up of 18 months. Patients received ORIF through the 1) Extended Lateral Approach (ELA), 2) Sinus Tarsi Approach (STA) or 3) primary arthrodesis via STA. Participants were presented a questionnaire containing demographics, the AOFAS hindfoot scale, Foot Function Index, SF-36, EQ-5D and patient satisfaction.ResultsIn total 95 patients participated in this study. The three groups were comparable regarding patient characteristics. A median score of 74.5 points on the AOFAS hindfoot scale and 11.9 on the FFI was found for the entire group. There were no statistically significant differences between patients with ORIF of primary arthrodesis. Patients scored a median of 49.0 on the Physical Component Scale of the SF-36 and 55.4 on the Mental Component Scale. On the EQ-5D patients scored a median of 0.8 points. Again no statistically significant differences were observed between the three subgroups. Socio-economic status was the only statistically significant predictor of worse functional outcome (β: 4.06, 95% CI: 0.50–7.62) after multivariable analysis.InterpretationGood midterm outcomes following in terms of functional outcome and in quality of life are observed. We observed no statistical significant difference in functional outcome between patients with ORIF and patients with primary arthrodesis. The only predictor of worse functional outcome is a lower socio-economic status.     

Outcome after nonoperative treatment of stable Lisfranc injuries. A prospective cohort study

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome after nondisplaced and stable Lisfranc injuries.Methods26 patients with injuries to the Lisfranc joint complex detected on CT scans, but without displacement were tested to be stable using a fluoroscopic stress test. The patients were immobilized in a non-weightbearing short leg cast for 6 weeks. The final follow-up was 55 (IQR 53–60) months after injury.ResultsAll the Lisfranc injuries were confirmed to be stable on follow-up weightbearing radiographs at a minimum of 3 months after injury. Median American Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score at 1-year follow-up was 89 (IQR 84–97) and at final follow-up 100 (IQR 90–100); The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1-year (P=.005). The median visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was 0 (IQR 0–0) at the final follow-up. One patient had radiological signs of osteoarthritis at 1-year follow-up.ConclusionStable Lisfranc injuries treated nonoperatively had an excellent outcome in this study with a median follow-up of 55 months. The AOFAS score continued to improve after 1 year.     

Do columns or sagittal displacement matter in the assessment and management of Lisfranc fracture dislocation? An alternate approach to classification of the Lisfranc injury

AimThe classification of a Lisfranc injury has conventionally been based around Myerson's system. The aims of this study were to review whether a novel classification system based on sagittal displacement of the tarsometatarsal joint and breadth of injury as determined by a columnar theory was associated with functional outcomes and thus had a greater utility.PatientsWe retrospectively reviewed 54 Lisfranc injuries with a minimum follow up of two years at our Level One Trauma Centre. Each fracture was sub-classified based on our novel classification system which assessed for evidence of sagittal displacement and involvement of columns of the midfoot. Our primary outcome measures were the FFI and AOFAS midfoot scores.ResultsInjuries involving all three of the columns of the midfoot were associated with significantly worse functional outcome scores (FFI p = 0.004, AOFAS p = 0.036). Conversely, sagittal displacement, whether dorsal or plantar, had no significance (FFI p = 0.147, AOFAS p = 0.312). The best predictor of outcome was the quality of anatomical reduction (FFI p = 0.008, AOFAS p = 0.02).ConclusionColumn involvement and not sagittal displacement is the most significant factor in considering the severity Lisfranc injury and long term functional outcomes. This classification system has greater clinical utility than those currently proposed.     

Is Routine Hardware Removal Following Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Tarsometatarsal Joint Fracture/Dislocation Necessary?

Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) is an accepted treatment for displaced tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) fracture dislocations. In general, hardware is routinely removed after 4 months to allow restoration of joint motion and avoid complications of hardware failure. Because few studies report outcomes of TMTJ fractures with retained hardware, there is little consensus regarding the optimal time for hardware removal or if hardware retention leads to adverse outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed the radiographic outcomes of retained hardware after ORIF of TMTJ fractures/dislocations in 61 patients. The mean age at the time of operation was 37.3 ± 14.9 years. ORIF was performed with 3.5 fully threaded cortical screws. Assessment of clinical and radiographic results was performed at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgical treatment. Out of the 61 patients that were included in this study, only 2 demographic variables demonstrated a trend for an adverse outcome. Older age correlated with lost reduction and elevated body mass index correlated with hardware failure. The presence of diabetes was correlated with an increased risk of postoperative infection but not hardware failure. During our follow-up period there were 49 patients (80.3 %) without failure of fixation. In conclusion, our study suggests that routine removal of hardware following open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc injuries in patients may not be necessary.     

不同方法治疗跖跗关节损伤疗效分析

目的探讨不同方法治疗跖跗关节损伤的临床疗效。方法分别采用石膏固定、闭合复位经皮内固定、开放复位内固定和二期关节融合术治疗35例跖附关节损伤患者。结果患者均获随访,时间12～36(22±1.5)周,骨折愈合时间16～28(18±2)周。术后12周33例患者能穿平常鞋子在各种地面上行走,步态基本正常。按AOFAS评分:优11例,良18例,可5例,差1例。结论解剖复位、牢靠固定是治疗跖跗关节损伤的基本原则。重建跖跗关节复合体是稳定的关键,并且需要重视对跖跗关节的整体化治疗。     

Does a fibula-sparing approach improve outcomes in tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis?

BackgroundTibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) arthrodesis is considered a salvage procedure for either complex deformity or arthritis about the hindfoot, and can be performed via fibula-resection (FR) or fibula-sparing (FS) approaches. The primary aim of this study was to investigate differences in outcomes in FR versus FS TTC arthrodeses.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study reviewing outcomes of TTC arthrodesis at a single institution. Patients who underwent a TTC arthrodesis from 2005 to 2017 and had minimum two-year follow-up were included. Preoperative diagnosis, pre- and post-operative radiographic coronal alignment, fixation methods, and complications were compared between groups.Results107 patients (110 ankles) underwent TTC arthrodesis, with a mean age of 57.0 years (sd, 14.0 years). The mean clinical follow-up was 50.7 months (range, 24–146) and mean radiographic follow-up was 45.8 months (range, 6–146 months). Pre-operative diagnoses included arthritis (N = 40), prior non-union (N = 21), Charcot neuro-arthropathy (N = 15), failed total ankle arthroplasty (N = 15) and avascular necrosis of the talus (N = 19). Sixty-nine ankles comprised the FS group and 41 comprised the FR group. There was no significant difference in the non-union rate between groups (29% FR vs 38% FS, p = 0.37), complication rate (59% FR vs 64% FS, p = 0.59), or post-operative coronal standing radiographic alignment (89.6 degrees FR, 90.5 degrees FS, p = 0.26). Logistic regression analyses demonstrated a pre-operative diagnosis of failed TAA was associated with post-operative nonunion (OR:3.41,CI:1.13–11.04,p = 0.03). Pre-operative indication for TTC arthrodesis of arthritis alone was associated with a decreased risk of non-union (OR:0.27,CI:0.11–0.62,p = 0.002).ConclusionTTC arthrodesis is a successful surgical option for complex hindfoot deformity, arthritis, and limb salvage regardless of surgical approach. We did not detect a difference in the union rate, incidence of complications, or coronal plane radiographic alignment in fibula-sparing versus fibula-resection constructs. Patients with a pre-operative indication for surgery of arthritis may be at decreased risk of developing non-union.Level of evidenceIII – Retrospective cohort study