Does Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis Improve Patient Outcomes for Lisfranc Trauma? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引:77
|
作者
Smith, Nicholas [1 ]
Stone, Craig [2 ]
Furey, Andrew [3 ]
机构
[1] Mem Univ Newfoundland, St John, NF, Canada
[2] Mem Univ Newfoundland, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Fac Med, Gen Orthopaed Foot & Ankle Surg,Discipline Surg, St John, NF, Canada
[3] Mem Univ Newfoundland, Dept Surg, Fac Med, Orthopaed Traumatol,Discipline Surg,Hlth Sci Ctr, Room 1380,300 Prince Philip Dr, St John, NF A1B 3V6, Canada
关键词
FRACTURE-DISLOCATIONS; JOINT INJURIES; BONE;
D O I
10.1007/s11999-015-4366-y
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Although Lisfranc injuries are uncommon, representing approximately 0.2% of all fractures, they are complex and can result in persistent pain, degenerative arthritis, and loss of function. Both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary fusion have been proposed as treatment options for these injuries, but debate remains as to which approach is better. We asked whether ORIF or primary fusion led to (1) fewer reoperations for hardware removal; (2) less frequent revision surgery; (3) higher patient outcome scores; and (4) more frequent anatomic reduction. A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Three trials met the criteria for inclusion within the meta-analysis. Qualifying articles for the meta-analysis had data extracted independently by two authors (NS, AF). The quality of each study was assessed using the Center for Evidence Based Medicine's evaluation strategy; data were extracted from articles rated as good and fair: two and one article, respectively. The risk ratio for hardware removal was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.45; p < 0.001) indicating more hardware removal for ORIF than fusion. For other revision surgery, the risk ratio for ORIF was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.08-1.59; p = 0.18) favoring neither. Similarly, neither was favored using patient-reported outcomes; the standard mean difference was calculated to be 0.50 (95% CI, -2.13 to 3.12; p = 0.71). When considering the risk of nonanatomic alignment, neither was favored (risk ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.34-6.38; p = 0.60). The surgeon should consider the increased risk of hardware removal along with its associated morbidity and discuss this with the patient preoperatively when considering ORIF of Lisfranc injuries. Because no new trials have been performed since 2012, further randomized controlled trials will be needed improve our understanding of these interventions. Level I, therapeutic study.
引用
收藏
页码:1445 / 1452
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction with internal fixation for Lisfranc injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis
    Han, P. F.
    Zhang, Z. L.
    Chen, C. L.
    Han, Y. C.
    Wei, X. C.
    Li, P. C.
    JOURNAL OF POSTGRADUATE MEDICINE, 2019, 65 (02) : 93 - 100
  • [2] Primary arthrodesis versus open reduction internal fixation for acute Lisfranc injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    O'Connor, Kyle P.
    Tackett, Logan B.
    Riehl, John T.
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2024, 145 (01)
  • [3] Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis for the Treatment of Acute Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Magill, Henry H. P.
    Bakr, Ahmed
    Hajibandeh, Shahab
    Shaath, Mohammed
    Mehta, Jaysheel
    JOURNAL OF FOOT & ANKLE SURGERY, 2019, 58 (02): : 328 - 332
  • [4] A systematic review and meta -analysis of the treatment of acute lisfranc injuries: Open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis
    Alcelik, Ilhan
    Fenton, Carl
    Hannant, Gary
    Abdelrahim, Musaab
    Jowett, Charlie
    Budgen, Adam
    Stanley, James
    FOOT AND ANKLE SURGERY, 2020, 26 (03) : 299 - 307
  • [5] Arthrodesis or Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Meta-analysis
    Levy, Christopher J.
    Yatsonsky, David, II
    Moral, Muhammad Z.
    Liu, Jiayong
    Ebraheim, Nabil A.
    FOOT & ANKLE SPECIALIST, 2022, 15 (02) : 179 - 184
  • [6] Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Injuries
    Weatherford, Brian M.
    Bohay, Donald R.
    Anderson, John G.
    FOOT AND ANKLE CLINICS, 2017, 22 (01) : 1 - +
  • [7] Primary Arthrodesis Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Outcomes for Lisfranc Injuries: An Analysis of Conflicting Meta-analyses Results
    Peters, Wesley
    Panchbhavi, Vinod
    FOOT & ANKLE SPECIALIST, 2022, 15 (02) : 171 - 178
  • [8] Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis for the Treatment of Acute Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (vol 58, pg 328, 2019)
    Magill, Henry H. P.
    Hajibandeh, Shahab
    Bennett, James
    Campbell, Nathan
    Mehta, Jaysheel
    JOURNAL OF FOOT & ANKLE SURGERY, 2019, 58 (03): : 608 - 608
  • [9] Open reduction and internal fixation compared with primary arthrodesis of Lisfranc injuries: a systematic review of the literature
    Lewis, Charlie
    Mauffrey, Cyril
    Dickenson, Edward
    CURRENT ORTHOPAEDIC PRACTICE, 2012, 23 (06): : 595 - 600
  • [10] Primary Arthrodesis versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Joint Fracture-Dislocations in Adults A Systematic Review
    Vesely, Bryanna D.
    Michels, Lauren
    King, Matthew A.
    Gangopadhyay, Paula
    Scott, Aaron T.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PODIATRIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2024, 114 (01)