Citation

Robertson GAJ, Ang KK, Maffulli N, Keenan G, Wood AM. Foot Ankle Surg. 2018; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Affiliation

Leeds General Infirmary, Great George St, Leeds LS1 3EX, United Kingdom.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.fas.2018.07.008

PMID

30321929

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information regarding return rates (RR) and mean return times (RT) to sport following Lisfranc injuries remains limited.

METHODS: A systematic search of nine major databases was performed to identify all studies which recorded RR or RT to sport following lisfranc injuries.

RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included (n=366). For undisplaced (Stage 1) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=35), RR was 100% and RT was 4.0 (0-15) wks. For stable minimally-displaced (Stage 2) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=16), RR was 100% and RT was 9.1 (4-14) wks. For the operatively-managed injuries, Percutaneous Reduction Internal Fixation (PRIF) (n=42), showed significantly better RR and RT compared to both: Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) (n=139) (RR - 98% vs 78%, p<0.019; RT - 11.6 wks vs 19.6 wks, p<0.001); and Primary Partial Arthrodesis (PPA) (n=85) (RR - 98% vs 85%, p<0.047; RT - 11.6 wks vs 22.0 wks, p<0.002).

CONCLUSIONS: Stage 1 and stable Stage 2 Lisfranc injuries show good results with nonoperative management. PRIF offers the best RR and RT from the operative methods, though this may not be possible with high-energy injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. Systematic Review of Level I to Level IV Studies.

Copyright © 2018 European Foot and Ankle Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Language: en

Keywords

Lisfranc; Mid-foot; Rate; Return; Sport; Tarso-metarsal; Time