Return to sport following scaphoid fractures:A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Scaphoid fracture is the most commonly fractured carpal bone in the athletic patient, accounting for over 85% of all sport-related carpal bone fractures, and is particularly common in sports involving high impact injuries to the wrist. The management of such injuries comprises both conservative and surgical techniques, as guided by fracture location and type. Athletes demonstrate a unique challenge with regards to the management of scaphoid fractures due to their requirement to return to sport, as soon as able.AIM To review systemically all studies recording return to sport following scaphoid fractures, to collate information on return rates to sport(RRS) and mean return times(RTS) to sport and to determine differences in sporting outcome for the various treatment methods.METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHAL, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in August 2018 using the keywords "scaphoid","fracture", "acute", "carpal", "athletes", "sports", "non-operative","conservative", "operative" and "return to sport". All studies that recorded RRS and RTS following scaphoid fractures were included. RTS was recorded as the length of time from commencement of either primary conservative management or primary surgical procedure to return to sport.RESULTS Eleven studies were included: Two randomised controlled trials, six retrospective cohort studies and three case series. Seven studies reported on conservative management(n = 77), and eight studies reported on surgical management(n =83). For conservative management, RRS was 90%(69/77), and the mean RTS was9.6 wk. Three studies allowed to return to sport in cast [RRS 89%(25/28); RTS 1.9 wk], and four studies required completion of cast treatment prior to returning to sport [RRS 90%(44/49); RTS 13.9 wk]. Four studies recorded fracture union data:Union rate 85%(47/55); mean time to union 14.0 wk. For surgical management,RRS was 98%(81/83), and RTS was 7.3 wk. Three studies reported on Percutaneous Screw Fixation [RRS 97%(32/33); RTS 6.5 wk], and five studies reported on Open Reduction Internal Fixation [RRS 98%(49/50); RTS 7.9 wk]. Six studies recorded fracture union data: Union rate 97%(69/71); mean time to union9.8 wk. On meta-analysis, RRS(RR = 1.09; 95% confidence interval(CI): 1.00-1.18;P 0.045), RTS(MD 2.3 wk; 95%CI: 0.79-3.87; P 0.002), union rates(RR = 1.14;95%CI: 1.01-1.28; P 0.030) and mean times to union(MD 4.2 wk; 95%CI: 3.94-4.36; P 0.001) were all significantly better for the surgical cohort compared to the conservative cohort.CONCLUSION Surgical management of scaphoid fractures can provide significantly improved RRS and RTS to sport compared to conservative management. Both treatments,however, remain acceptable options, and athletes should be fully informed of the benefits and risks of both prior to deciding treatment plans. Immediate return to sport in a cast should be avoided due to the significant risk of non-union.     

Return to work following shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review

BACKGROUNDMany patients prioritize the ability to return to work (RTW) after shoulder replacement surgeries such as total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), reverse TSA (rTSA), and shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA). Due to satisfactory clinical and functional long-term outcomes, the number of shoulder replacements performed will continue to rise into this next decade. With younger individuals who compose a significant amount of the workforce receiving shoulder replacements, patients will begin to place a higher priority on their ability to RTW following shoulder arthroplasty.AIMTo summarize RTW outcomes following TSA, rTSA, and HA, and analyze the effects of workers’ compensation status on RTW rates and ability.METHODSThis systematic review and analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A literature search regarding RTW following shoulder arthroplasty was performed using four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library), and the Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/). All studies in English relevant to shoulder arthroplasty and RTW through January 2021 that had a level of evidence I to IV were included. Nonclinical studies, literature reviews, case reports, and those not reporting on RTW after shoulder arthroplasty were excluded.RESULTSThe majority of patients undergoing TSA, rTSA, or HA were able to RTW between one to four months, depending on work demand stratification. While sedentary or light demand jobs generally have higher rates of RTW, moderate or heavy demand jobs tend to have poorer rates of return. The rates of RTW following TSA (71%-93%) were consistently higher than those reported for HA (69%-82%) and rTSA (56%-65%). Furthermore, workers’ compensation status negatively influenced clinical outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. Through a pooled means analysis, we proposed guidelines for the average time to RTW after TSA, rTSA, and HA. For TSA, rTSA, and HA, the average time to RTW regardless of work demand stratification was 1.93 ± 3.74 mo, 2.3 ± 2.4 mo, and 2.29 ± 3.66 mo, respectively.CONCLUSIONThe majority of patients are able to RTW following shoulder arthroplasty. Understanding outcomes for rates of RTW following shoulder arthroplasty would assist in managing expectations in clinical practice.     

Return to sport following tibial plateau fractures: A systematic review

AIM To systemically review all studies reporting return to sport following tibial plateau fracture, in order to provide information on return rates and times to sport, and to assess variations in sporting outcome for different treatment methods.METHODS A systematic search of CINAHAL, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PEDro, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science was performed in January 2017 using the keywords "tibial", "plateau", "fractures", "knee", "athletes", "sports", "non-operative", "conservative", "operative", "return to sport". All studies which recorded return rates and times to sport following tibial plateau fractures were included. RESULTS Twenty-seven studies were included: 1 was a randomised controlled trial, 7 were prospective cohort studies, 16 were retrospective cohort studies, 3 were case series. One study reported on the outcome of conservative management(n = 3); 27 reported on the outcome of surgical management(n = 917). Nine studies reported on Open Reduction Internal Fixation(ORIF)(n = 193), 11 on Arthroscopic-Assisted Reduction Internal Fixation(ARIF)(n = 253) and 7 on Frame-Assisted Fixation(FRAME)(n = 262). All studies recorded "return to sport"rates. Only one study recorded a "return to sport" time. The return rate to sport for the total cohort was 70%. For the conservatively-managed fractures, the return rate was 100%. For the surgically-managed fractures, the return rate was 70%. For fractures managed with ORIF, the return rate was 60%. For fractures managed with ARIF, the return rate was 83%. For fractures managed with FRAME was 52%. The return rate for ARIF was found to be significantly greater than that for ORIF(OR 3.22, 95%CI: 2.09-4.97, P 0.001) and for FRAME(OR 4.33, 95%CI: 2.89-6.50, P 0.001). No difference was found between the return rates for ORIF and FRAME(OR 1.35, 95%CI: 0.92-1.96, P = 0.122). The recorded return time was 6.9 mo(median), from a study reporting on ORIF.CONCLUSION Return rates to sport for tibial plateau fractures remain limited compared to other fractures. ARIF provides the best return rates. There is limited data regarding return times to sport. Further research is required to determine return times to sport, and to improve return rates to sport, through treatment and rehabilitation optimisation.     

Pediatric Lisfranc variants and equivalent injuries: A review

IntroductionPediatric Lisfranc injuries are rare and a limited number of series or case reports have been published. Diagnosis can be easily missed and long-term outcome is not sufficiently presented. The primary aim of this paper is to review the literature about pediatric Lisfranc variants and equivalent injuries. This article also provides a review on Lisfranc joint anatomy, pediatric Lisfranc injuries, and stress or acute fractures involving the first and central (second to third) metatarsal (MT) bases, in an effort to detect potential pediatric Lisfranc variants and equivalent injuries, which were not accurately diagnosed.MethodsThe bibliographic survey to identify pediatric Lisfranc variants and equivalent injuries was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases, with no time limit. Four terms were used for searching in all possible combinations: Pediatric/children, Lisfranc/tarsometatarsal, variant/equivalent, injury/fracture. The only inclusion criterion was the age of the patients, which had to be less than 12 years. Reports on adolescents or adults were excluded.ResultsThe research indicated that there was only one study mentioning the pediatric Lisfranc equivalent injury, while there were no cases recorded as pediatric Lisfranc variants. The literature review regarding the final clinical outcome of both pediatric Lisfranc injuries and fractures, either stress or acute, involving the central MT base, indicated that early degenerative changes often occur, and may be responsible for chronic pain and activity limitation, even after mild and subtle low energy injuries.Discussion/ConclusionsThis review suggests that stress fractures involving the central MT base could be considered as a variant of the Lisfranc injury in children. Care should be taken to exclude occult fractures or ligamentous injuries to the medial and central Lisfranc joint complex in the presence of fractures involving the base or proximal portion of the first MT, including injuries to the physeal plate, to rule out the pediatric Lisfranc equivalent injury.     

Treatment of paediatric Lisfranc injuries: A systematic review and introduction of a novel treatment algorithm

Background:Pediatric Lisfranc injuries (PLI) are rare injuries that have few studies published about their occurrence and treatment in pediatric population. Due to this lack of information, the diagnostic criteria and surgical or non-surgical methods for treatment have not been clearly established within the pediatric orthopedic literature. The objective of this study was to review the published literature related to treatment options and develop a concise stepwise treatment algorithm for pediatric patients presenting with Lisfranc injuries.Methods:A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed to find studies discussing the treatment of PLI with reported long-term outcomes. Data collection accounted for the mechanism of injury, diagnostic imaging modality used, injury type, fracture classification using the Myerson system, treatment method used, and postoperative complications.Results:An initial PubMed search revealed 290 articles, but only 10 studies fulfilled the criteria for in-depth review. A total of 114 patients were included in this review from the selected case reports and case series studies. Primary treatment methods were as follows: 44% (50/114) with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) using Kirschner wires (K-wires) and/or screws, 3% (3/114) with closed reduction percutaneous fixation (CRPF), 4% (4/114) with suture-button constructs, 20% (23/114) with cast immobilization, and 29% (33/114) were described as not requiring reduction.Conclusion:There were two main limitations to this study. First, there are few published studies with longitudinal outcomes of PLI treatment. Second, some case series did not disclose which procedure a patient with post-treatment complications underwent. Therefore, an overall statistical analysis of success and failure rates with associated complications of each procedure could not be conducted. In conclusion, we found that a stepwise approach to evaluating conservative and surgical treatment options based on the presentation of the PLI should be utilized to optimize long-term outcomes.     

Lisfranc injuries in adolescents: A case report and literature review

Lisfranc injuries result if bones or ligaments that support the midfoot are torn. In children and adolescents these injuries are not only rare, but are also similar to adult Lisfranc injuries, in that they are often mistaken especially if the injury is a result of a straightforward twist and fall. The goal of surgical treatment is to realign the joints.However, few studies related to Lisfranc injuries in pediatric patients exist.A case of 15 years old patient treated using an Arthrex mini tight rope is described.     

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.     

Percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc joint injuries: A systematic review of the literature

ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to present the outcome of Lisfranc joint injuries treated with closed reduction and screw percutaneous fixation.MethodsWe searched in Pubmed and Google Scholar Databases for articles regarding screw percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc injuries. Seven studies in total were found to be compatible to our search, according to PRISMA guidelines. Four of those met the criteria of the review and they were included in the meta-analysis. A total number of 106 patients were separated into five groups according to the type of injury and the mean AOFAS score of each group was calculated. Cases in which percutaneous fixation was converted to open treatment due to poor reduction were not included in the study. In addition we compared the outcome score between types of injury according to Myerson classification as well as between purely ligamentous and osseoligamentous injuries. The characteristics of all seven selected studies, such as kind of screw used for fixation, post operative protocol, complications and outcome are mentioned as well.ResultsAverage AOFAS score was 86,2 for type A, 87,54 for type B, and 85 for type C injuries respectively. In pure dislocation group the average AOFAS score was 86,43 and in fracture dislocation group was 87,36. Good to excellent outcome can be expected in patients with different types of injury according to Myerson classification following percutaneous fixation of lisfranc joint injury. Patients with type B injury or a fracture dislocation injury might have better outcome, although this difference was not found to be statistically significant.ConclusionPercutaneous fixation of tarsometatarsal joint injuries is a relatively simple and safe method of treatment, leading to a good functional outcome, especially for Myerson type B as well as for fracture dislocation type of injuries, provided that an anatomical reduction has been achieved.Level of EvidenceLevel III, Therapeutic Study.     

Return to work following surgery for lumbar radiculopathy: a systematic review

Background Context

Informing patients about postoperative return to work (RTW) expectations is of utmost importance because of the influence of realistic expectations on RTW outcomes.

A modified three-incision approach to treating three-column Lisfranc injuries

PurposeThe most popular surgical approach to manage Lisfranc fracture-dislocations is the double-incision approach, which frequently causes a variety of complications, such as skin necrosis, rotational malreduction of the first tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) and lateral column dorsoplantar malreduction of the TMTJ. We introduce a three-incision approach to treat Lisfranc fracture-dislocations with only minor postoperative complications and good foot function.MethodsWe prospectively selected 30 previously healthy patients, ranging from 18 to 60 years of age, but only 23 patients completed the follow-up and thus were finally included, with an average age of 38.1 ± 12.9 years. All patients have sustained Lisfranc fracture-dislocations involving all three-column; 13.0% (3/23) were Myerson classification type A (medial), 47.8% (11/23) were type A (lateral), and 39.1% (9/23) were type C2. All patients were treated via a three-incision approach: a long incision made along the lateral border of the second ray was used as a working incision to visualize and reduce the first three TMTJs, as well as to apply internal fixation instrumentation; a 2 cm medial incision was made at the medial side of the first TMTJ as an inspecting incision, ensuring good reduction of the first TMTJ in medial and plantar view; another 1 cm inspecting incision was made at the dorsal side of the fourth/fifth TMTJ to prevent sagittal subluxation of the lateral column. Mean ± SD was used for quantitative data such as operation time, follow-up time and foot function scores. Postoperative complications were documented, and foot function was evaluated using the American orthopaedic foot & ankle society score, foot function index and Maryland foot score at follow-up. The foot function of the injured foot and contralateral foot of the same patient was at the end of follow-up, and independent sample t-test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsThe median operation time was 117.9 ± 14.6 min (range 93 - 142 min). All complications occurred within three months after the operation, and included delayed wound healing (17.4%), superficial infection (8.7%), complex regional pain syndrome (4.3%) and neuroma (4.3%). There was no case of postoperative skin necrosis or malreduction. At the end of follow-up of 14.1 ± 1.2 months (range 12–16 months), the median American orthopaedic foot & ankle society score of the operated foot was 89.7 ± 5.7, the median foot function index was 21.7 ± 9.9, and the median Maryland foot score was 88.7 ± 4.8. There were no significant differences between the operated and contralateral sides, in terms of foot function, at the end of followup (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe three-incision approach can provide adequate visualization of all TMTJs to ensure anatomical reduction and offer sufficient working space to apply internal fixation instrumentation, which is effective in treating three-column Lisfranc fracture-dislocations with minor soft tissue complications and satisfactory functional recovery.     

Dorsal bridge plating versus. Transarticular screw fixation for lisfranc injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lisfranc injuries are relatively uncommon but carry devastating consequences if left untreated. Although many surgical techniques have been proposed for best operative management, there is an ongoing debate over which procedure is superior. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of transarticular screw fixation and dorsal bridge plating in management of Lisfranc injuries. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the outcomes between screw and dorsal plate fixation. The pooled outcome data were calculated by random and fixed effect models. One prospective cohort and three retrospective studies were identified with a total of 210 patients with mean follow up of 40.6 months. All papers were analysed for quality using the modified Newcastle Ottawa score. The results show that dorsal bridge plating is associated with better American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score (AOFAS) compared with transarticular screw fixation (OR – 0.71, 95% CI -1.31 to −0.10, p = 0.02). Dorsal plating may also be associated with fewer cases of arthritis, although this was not significant (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.89 to 6.80, p = 0.08). We found no significant differences between the groups in terms of Foot Function Index (FFI), post traumatic arthritis and failure of hardware material. Although our results suggest dorsal bridge plating may provide superior functional outcomes, there is a scarcity of literature with little robustness to make definitive conclusions. High quality randomised trials are required.     

Lisfranc损伤的诊断和治疗

目的探讨L isfranc损伤的诊治方法及影响疗效的因素。方法对63例L isfranc损伤患者的手术方法、疗效及并发症进行分析。结果46例随访1~8年(平均3年)。感染6例,克氏针松动6例,创伤后关节炎10例。依据美国矫形足踝协会(AOFAS)足评分标准对患足术后的功能进行评定。骨折脱位40例:好25例,较好10例,差5例。单纯韧带损伤6例:较好3例,差3例。结论L isfranc损伤的解剖复位、稳定固定是获得良好预后的关键,而单纯韧带损伤远期疗效不佳。     

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.     

微型钛板跨关节固定结合埋头钉治疗Lisfranc损伤

目的 观察应用微型钛板结合埋头钉治疗Lisfranc损伤的临床疗效。 方法 回顾性分析我院自2016年8月至2018年7月收治的13例Lisfranc损伤患者资料。其中男9例,女4例,年龄35-69岁,平均49.2岁,受伤至手术时间为6-22天,平均为11.5天,所有患者经术前准备完善,局部软组织条件改善后行切开复位内固定术。采用美国足踝外科协会(AOFAS)中足功能评分及视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估治疗效果,同时观察并发症情况。结果 所有患者获得随访,随访时间13个月到37个月,平均19.8个月。X线片显示术后3个月骨折端愈合,未出现再次脱位。末次随访时AOFAS评分为86.5±6.1,VAS评分为2.0±1.4,有1例患者出现伤口感染,1例患者取出内固定时发现有螺钉断裂。结论 微型钛板结合埋头钉治疗Lisfranc损伤固定效果可靠,有利于解剖复位,临床疗效满意。     

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.