Abstract
Background:
This closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF) technique utilizing suspensory fixation is indicated for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries with displacement or instability of the tarsometatarsal joint complex—and typically only for low-energy, purely ligamentous Lisfranc injuries. The goal of this procedure is to restore joint stability and prevent common complications of Lisfranc injuries (e.g., midfoot arch collapse and posttraumatic arthritis) while avoiding the complications and risks associated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis. We recommend performing the procedure within 10 to 14 days of the injury; otherwise, an open debridement may be necessary to address scar tissue formation.
Description:
We start with the patient in the supine position and perform a fluoroscopic stress examination of the joint. Next, the Lisfranc joint undergoes closed reduction, which is held in place with a clamp. Following reduction, a guidewire is drilled from the lateral border of the base of the 2nd metatarsal medially through the medial cuneiform, followed by a medial-to-lateral cannulated drill. The suspensory fixation is then passed lateral-to-medial, placing the suture button on the lateral cortex of the 2nd metatarsal base. The tape is then tensioned while a bioabsorbable interference screw is inserted to maintain tension.
Alternatives:
Prior studies have assessed both operative and nonoperative alternatives to CRPF with suspensory fixation for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Nonoperative treatment with closed reduction and cast immobilization of Lisfranc injuries is typically reserved for nondisplaced injuries; however, a number of studies have shown poor outcomes with use of this technique1-3. The 2 most common operative alternatives are ORIF and primary arthrodesis4.
Rationale:
CRPF with suspensory fixation offers several benefits over both traditional surgical techniques such as ORIF and primary arthrodesis, as well as over percutaneous reduction and internal fixation (PRIF) with a screw. Compared with ORIF and primary arthrodesis, a number of studies have shown that percutaneous treatment of Lisfranc injuries minimizes soft-tissue trauma and reduces the risk of postoperative complications such as wound breakdown, infection, and complex regional pain syndrome, while allowing for earlier participation in rehabilitation5-10. A systematic review of outcomes following PRIF with screw fixation also showed that percutaneous treatment of Lisfranc injuries is a safe and effective technique with good functional outcomes11. When comparing PRIF with a screw to our technique of CRPF with suspensory fixation, CRPF has the added benefit of creating a nonrigid fixation in the Lisfranc joint, which allows for increased range of motion of the medial column and improved return to activity12,13. The rigid fixation in PRIF with a screw can also lead to metal irritation, intra-articular screw fracture, and impaired mobility, which often necessitate the need for screw removal13-15. This fixation-related drawback is not present with our technique, and also avoids the need for use of a biologic substitute such as tendon grafts13.
Expected Outcomes:
Following CRPF with suspensory fixation, patients can expect to return to full activity at 12 to 16 weeks postoperatively. Postoperatively, patients are typically kept non-weight-bearing for 6 weeks. The operative foot is kept immobilized in a splint for the first 2 weeks, then transitioned to a boot. Between postoperative weeks 6 and 12, partial progressive weight-bearing is introduced with use of an arch support, progressing toward full weight-bearing13,16,17.
For comparison, patients who underwent PRIF with screw fixation had a similar postoperative course, but almost all required screw removal at 4 to 6 months postoperatively13,16. Cho et al. retrospectively reviewed the results of 63 patients who underwent either PRIF with screw fixation (n = 32) or CRPF with a suture button (n = 31) and found that CRPF patients had significantly better American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot scale scores (81 versus 74 points) and visual analog scale scores (3.1 versus 4.6 points) at 6 months postoperatively and prior to screw removal in the PRIF group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in these scores, radiographic outcomes, weight-bearing analysis, or complications at 1 year postoperatively. The authors concluded that both techniques provided comparable fixation stability and clinical outcomes. Of note, however, the PRIF group had 4 patients whose postoperative course was complicated by screw breakage13.
Important Tips:
Start with a fluoroscopic stress examination to identify all components of instability.
Ensure that the reduction clamp does not interfere with or affect your guidewire path.
If the joint cannot be reduced, convert to an open procedure and debride the obstruction.
Acronyms and Abbreviations:
ORIF = open reduction and internal fixation
PRIF = percutaneous reduction and internal fixation
CRPF = closed reduction and percutaneous fixation
NSAID = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug
OR = operating room
AP = anteroposterior
CT = computed tomography
MRI = magnetic resonance imaging
AOFAS = American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society
VAS = visual analog scale
ROM = range of motion
PT = physical therapy
ASA = acetyl-salicylic acid (aspirin)
BID = twice daily
PRN = as needed
Published outcomes of this procedure can be found at: Foot Ankle Int. 2021 May;42(5):598-608, J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020 Nov-Dec;59(6):1139-43, and J Dance Med Sci. 2015 Dec;19(4):135-9.
Investigation performed at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSEST/A403).
References
- 1.Chen J, Sagoo N, Panchbhavi VK. The Lisfranc Injury: A Literature Review of Anatomy, Etiology, Evaluation, and Management. Foot Ankle Spec. 2021. Oct;14(5):458-67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Goossens M, De Stoop N. Lisfranc’s fracture-dislocations: etiology, radiology, and results of treatment. A review of 20 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983. Jun;(176):154-62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Myerson MS. The diagnosis and treatment of injury to the tarsometatarsal joint complex. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999. Sep;81(5):756-63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Moracia-Ochagavía I, Rodríguez-Merchán EC. Lisfranc fracture-dislocations: current management. EFORT Open Rev. 2019. Jul 2;4(7):430-44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Abdelgaid S. Closed Reduction & Percutaneous Fixation of Lisfranc Joints Injuries: Possibility, Technique & Results. Clin Res Foot Ankle. 2013;1:109. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Vosbikian M, O’Neil JT, Piper C, Huang R, Raikin SM. Outcomes After Percutaneous Reduction and Fixation of Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries. Foot Ankle Int. 2017. Jul;38(7):710-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Benirschke SK, Meinberg EG, Anderson SA, Jones CB, Cole PA. Fractures and dislocations of the midfoot: Lisfranc and Chopart injuries. Instr Course Lect. 2013;62:79-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Reinhardt KR, Oh LS, Schottel P, Roberts MM, Levine D. Treatment of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations with primary partial arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. 2012. Jan;33(1):50-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Trevino SG, Kodros S. Controversies in tarsometatarsal injuries. Orthop Clin North Am. 1995. Apr;26(2):229-38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Aronow MS. Joint Preserving Techniques for Lisfranc Injury. Tech Orthop. 2011;26(1):43-49. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Stavrakakis IM, Magarakis GE, Christoforakis Z. Percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc joint injuries: A systematic review of the literature. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019. Nov;53(6):457-62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lee CA, Birkedal JP, Dickerson EA, Vieta PA, Webb LX, Teasdall RD. Stabilization of Lisfranc joint injuries: a biomechanical study. Foot Ankle Int. 2004. May;25(5):365-70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Cho J, Kim J, Min TH, Chun DI, Won SH, Park S, Yi Y. Suture Button vs Conventional Screw Fixation for Isolated Lisfranc Ligament Injuries. Foot Ankle Int. 2021. May;42(5):598-608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Henning JA, Jones CB, Sietsema DL, Bohay DR, Anderson JG. Open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis for Lisfranc injuries: a prospective randomized study. Foot Ankle Int. 2009. Oct;30(10):913-22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.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 Am. 2006. Mar;88(3):514-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Watson TS, Shurnas PS, Denker J. Treatment of Lisfranc joint injury: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010. Dec;18(12):718-28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Nunley JA, Vertullo CJ. Classification, investigation, and management of midfoot sprains: Lisfranc injuries in the athlete. Am J Sports Med. 2002. Nov-Dec;30(6):871-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]