Radiographic Outcomes of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with a Suture Button Device

• Published in: Foot & ankle orthopaedics Vol. 1; no. 1
• Main Authors: Kreulen, Christopher, Golshani, Behrad, Nikpour, Arian M., DeHart, Matthew, Taghavi, Cyrus E., Delman, Connor, Boutin, Robert, Giza, Eric, Roster, Brent M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.08.2016; Sage Publications Ltd; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Injuries; Open Reduction Internal Fixation; Lisfranc
• ISSN: 2473-0114; 2473-0114
• DOI: 10.1177/2473011416S00258

Category: Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Disagreement exists as to the optimal treatment of Lisfranc injuries of the midfoot. Some authors suggest that primary arthrodesis should be the treatment of choice, whereas others are proponents of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). There has been increased interest in using a suture button device in lieu of traditional screw fixation, which in general must be removed. Biomechanical studies comparing screw fixation with suture button devices have had conflicting results. The aim of this study was evaluate patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with a suture button radiographically over time. Methods: 43 patients with a Lisfranc injury treated surgically with a suture button device (Tightrope, Arthrex, Naples, FL) by two fellowship-trained orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons were identified via a database query for the CPT code 28615 (open treatment of tarsometatarsal joint dislocation). The distances between the first and second metatarsal (M1-M2) and between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal (C1-M2) were measured on anterior-posterior (AP) radiographs using standardized, readily-identifiable landmarks. All measurements were performed independently by two musculoskeletal radiologists and were averaged. Accuracy of reduction was assessed by comparing measurements on weightbearing AP radiographs of the uninjured foot with the operatively-treated foot at 6 weeks postoperatively, also weightbearing. Maintenance of reduction over time was assessed by comparing measurements at 6 weeks postoperatively with measurements taken at the time of last follow-up. Measurements were also compared between the injured foot preoperatively and at time of last follow-up. T-tests using SPSS software were performed for statistical analysis in comparing the means of the different measurements. Results: Average radiographic follow-up was 35.8 weeks (6.1-178.9). Accuracy of reduction was less than 1 mm for both the M1- M2 and C1-M2 measurements when comparing the uninjured foot with the surgically-treated foot at 6 weeks postoperatively; this difference was significant in the C1-M2 measurement (difference = 0.77 mm, p=0.032), but not in the M1-M2 measurement (difference = 0.44 mm, p=0.190). There was no significant difference in measurements between 6 weeks postoperatively and at final follow-up (difference in M1-M2=0.22 mm, p=0.435; difference in C1-M2=0.27 mm, p=0.352). There was significant improvement in the measured distances of the injured foot preoperatively to that measured at final follow-up in the C1-M2 measurements (difference in C1-M2=-0.82mm, p=0.021), while the difference in the M1-M2 measurements approached significance (difference in M1-M2= -0.56 mm, p=0.067). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first and largest series assessing radiographic outcomes of Lisfranc injuries in patients treated surgically with a suture button device. After open reduction of Lisfranc injuries, the suture-button device used in this study appears to adequately maintain this reduction over time while patients are weightbearing and back to full activity. We therefore conclude that based on our results, the suture button appears to present an effective alternative to traditional screw fixation for treatment of Lisfranc injuries.