Injury Characteristics of Low-Energy Lisfranc Injuries Compared With High-Energy Injuries

• Published in: Foot & ankle international Vol. 38; no. 9; pp. 964 - 969
• Main Authors: Renninger, Christopher H., Cochran, Grant, Tompane, Trevor, Bellamy, Joseph, Kuhn, Kevin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01-09-2017
• Subjects: Accidental Falls; Accidents, Traffic; Ankle Injuries - physiopathology; Foot; Foot Injuries - physiopathology; Foot Injuries - surgery; Fractures, Bone - surgery; Humans; Intra-Articular Fractures - physiopathology; Joint Dislocations; Ligaments, Articular - injuries; Metatarsal Bones - surgery; Tarsal Joints - surgery; trauma; Lisfranc; sports; low energy; high energy
• ISSN: 1071-1007; 1944-7876
• DOI: 10.1177/1071100717709575

Background:
Lisfranc injuries result from high- and low-energy mechanisms though the literature has been more focused on high-energy mechanisms. A comparison of high-energy (HE) and low-energy (LE) injury patterns is lacking. The objective of this study was to report injury patterns in LE Lisfranc joint injuries and compare them to HE injury patterns.
Methods:
Operative Lisfranc injuries were identified over a 5-year period. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, injury pattern, associated injuries, missed diagnoses, clinical course, and imaging studies were reviewed and compared. HE mechanism was defined as motor vehicle crash, motorcycle crash, direct crush, and fall from greater than 4 feet and LE mechanism as athletic activity, ground level twisting, or fall from less than 4 feet. Thirty-two HE and 48 LE cases were identified with 19.3 months of average follow-up.
Results:
There were no differences in demographics or missed diagnosis frequency (21% HE vs 18% LE). Time to seek care was not significantly different. HE injuries were more likely to have concomitant nonfoot fractures (37% vs 6%), concomitant foot fractures (78% vs 4%), cuboid fractures (31% vs 6%), metatarsal base fractures (84% vs 29%), displaced intra-articular fractures (59% vs 4%), and involvement of all 5 rays (23% vs 6%). LE injuries were more commonly ligamentous (68% vs 16%), with fewer rays involved (2.7 vs 4.1).
Conclusions:
LE mechanisms were a more common cause of Lisfranc joint injury in this cohort. These mechanisms generally resulted in an isolated, primarily ligamentous injury sparing the lateral column. Both types had high rates of missed injury that could result in delayed treatment. Differences in injury patterns could help direct future research to optimize treatment algorithms.
Level of Evidence:
Level III, comparative series.