Comparison of Acute vs Chronic Lisfranc Injury Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgically Treated Patients

Abstract

Category: Midfoot/Forefoot; Other Introduction/Purpose: Lisfranc injury presentations can vary from a mild sports-related midfoot sprain to severe midfoot deformity caused by a motor vehicle accident. Despite this, Lisfranc injuries are not highly prevalent. Lisfranc injuries are often difficult to diagnose, making it possible that the prevalence of these injuries is underreported. It is widely accepted that surgery to correct a Lisfranc injury should be performed as soon as possible since chronic injuries are associated with higher rates of midfoot degenerative changes. Chronic Lisfranc injuries are more commonly treated with primary arthrodesis (PA) “salvage” procedures rather than open reduction internal fixations (ORIF). The purpose of this study was to compare the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after surgery for patients with acute Lisfranc injuries to patients with chronic Lisfranc injuries. Methods: Retrospective chart review was completed to identify patients with surgically treated Lisfranc injuries by a single surgeon between May 2012 and February 2022. Acute versus chronic injury distinction was based on the amount of time between the date of injury and the date of surgery with the cutoff set at six weeks. Ambiguous injury timelines determined through clinical and surgical documentation were excluded. The acute and chronic cohorts were age-gender matched. PROMs, collected preoperatively and postoperatively, included the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scale. Patient satisfaction was assessed through a survey consisting of a 0-100 rating scale with “least satisfied” being 0 and “most satisfied” being 100. Latest follow-up PROMs < 12 months were excluded from analysis. Statistical analyses to determine significance were completed through sample t-tests assuming unequal variance with significance set at P<.05. Results: Acute and chronic injury cohorts consisted of 42 patients (42 feet) each, and the average age of both cohorts were 36.58±16.89 years and 36.70±16.65 years, respectively. In the acute cohort, 24 ORIFs and 18 PAs were performed compared to 16 ORIFs and 26 PAs in the chronic cohort. The average latest follow-up time for PROMs for acute and chronic cohorts were 36.02 (range, 12-78) months and 27.72 (range, 12-48) months, respectively. The acute cohort demonstrated significantly lower FAAM scores preoperatively, but no significant preoperative VAS differences were found. Both acute and chronic cohorts individually had significant improvement in the FAAM from preoperative to latest follow-up, but there were no significant differences found between the PROMs at latest follow-up of both cohorts (Table 1). Conclusion: This study directly comparing acute versus chronic Lisfranc injury PROMs after surgery is the first of its kind. The results concluded there were no significant differences found between the latest follow-up PROMs. These findings are despite a higher proportion of PAs to ORIFs in the chronic cohort, which some published studies have concluded to be the superior surgical technique. This study supports the notion to treat surgically indicated Lisfranc injuries acutely.