A prospective, cohort study comparing weight-bearing computed tomography with weight-bearing radiography in patients with an acute Lisfranc injury.
Injury to the tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint complex in the midfoot is referred to as a Lisfranc injury. The broad spectrum of these injuries includes simple sprains to severe fracture-dislocations. Variable clinical presentations and radiographic findings make Lisfranc injuries notoriously difficult to detect, especially in the case of subtle ligament injuries. Nowadays, up to 30% of unstable Lisfranc injuries are overlooked or misdiagnosed. This can potentially lead to severe sequelae such as post-traumatic osteoarthritis and foot deformities. For obvious injuries involving diastasis, subluxation, or dislocation, the diagnosis is relatively easy to establish using any imaging modality. However, for subtle injuries without gross bone separation, a dynamic imaging modality facilitating weight-bearing are to be preferred. Many consider weight-bearing conventional radiography as the current gold standard in acute Lisfranc injury diagnostics. However, conventional radiography is a 2D technique that can neither display nor measure the true dimensions of a detailed 3D object, such as the tarsal bones in the foot. Computed tomography (CT) provides greater accuracy in visualizing bone microarchitecture. In combination with weight-bearing, it can be ideal for detecting minor fractures and occult instability caused by load/stress. To this day, there are no prospective studies comparing weight-bearing CT and weight-bearing radiography for acute Lisfranc injuries. In the current study, participants will be assigned to non-operative or operative treatment based on Lisfranc joint stability evaluation by the initial weight-bearing CT.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
38
Patients with negativ weight-bearing CT will be treated conservative
Patients with positive weight-bearing CT will be operated by minimally invasive stabilization (eg, isolated homerun screw)
Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål
Oslo, Norway
Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOxFQ)
Foot-Ankle specific PROM (0-100 with 0 representing the best possible outcome)
Time frame: 1 year
American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Midfoot score
Foot-Ankle specific PROM (0-48 with 48 representing the best possible outcome)
Time frame: 1 year
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain
Scores pain at rest and on activity (0-10 with 0 representing no pain)
Time frame: 1 year
Short-Form (SF) 36
Patient reported score measuring quality of life and health status (0-100 with 100 representing the best possible outcome)
Time frame: 1 year
Posttraumatic osteoarthritis
The presence of osteoarthritis of the tarsometatarsal joints using the Kellgren \& Lawrence classification system
Time frame: 1 year
Incidence of complications
Yes/no for deep or superficial infection, nerve or tendon injury, deep venous thrombosis, hardware complaints and secondary surgery. Regards the patients that have undergone surgical treatment.
Time frame: 1 year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.