A Comparison of Complications and Reoperations Between Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis Following Lisfranc Injury

• Published in: Foot and ankle specialist 2024-06, Vol.17 (3), p.194-200
• Main Authors: So, Eric, Lee, Jonathan, Pershing, Michelle L., Chu, Anson K., Wilson, Matthew, Halaharvi, Chandana, Mandas, Vincent, Hyer, Christopher F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1938-6400; 1938-7636; 1938-7636
• DOI: 10.1177/19386400211058264

There is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding optimal treatment methods for Lisfranc injuries, and recent literature has emphasized the need to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA). The purpose of the current study is to compare reoperation and complication rates between ORIF and PA following Lisfranc injury in a private, outpatient, orthopaedic practice. A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing operative intervention for Lisfranc injury between January 2009 and September 2015. A total of 196 patients met the inclusion criteria (130 ORIF, 66 PA), with a mean follow-up of 61.3 and 81.7 weeks, respectively. The ORIF group had a higher reoperation rate than the PA group, due to hardware removal. When hardware removals were excluded, the reoperation rate was similar. Postsurgical complications were compared between the 2 groups with no significant difference. In conclusion, ORIF and PA had similar complication rates. When hardware removals were excluded, the reoperation rates were similar, although hardware removals were more common in the ORIF group compared with the PA group. Levels of Evidence: Level III