Primary Arthrodesis or Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics Pub Date : 2024-10-18 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1177/24730114241286892
Lachlan Mactier, Genevieve Cox, Rajat Mittal, Mayuran Suthersan
{"title":"Primary Arthrodesis or Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Lachlan Mactier, Genevieve Cox, Rajat Mittal, Mayuran Suthersan","doi":"10.1177/24730114241286892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lisfranc injuries are often managed surgically with primary arthrodesis (PA) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF); however, neither approach has been shown to be superior. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the functional and surgical outcomes of PA and ORIF in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was performed as per the PRISMA protocol. Database searches were conducted on Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed libraries. Five RCTs were identified for inclusion involving 241 patients, of which 121 underwent PA and 120 underwent ORIF.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically significant differences in visual analog scale pain score at 2 years (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI 0.18-1.59), patient satisfaction (OR 10.04, 95% CI 1.78-56.76), and all-cause return to surgery (OR 27.31, 95% CI 12.72-58.63) were observed, all favoring PA. There were no statistically significant differences between PA and ORIF with regard to American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot scores at 2 years, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, and unplanned return to surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed significant improvement in pain at 2 years, patient satisfaction, and all-cause return to surgery favoring PA in all instances. Given ORIF often necessitates a second operation for hardware removal, it is to be expected that all-cause return to surgery is higher in ORIF groups. Overall, these results do not have the power to confer an advantage to a particular approach because of significant heterogeneity. Further studies should focus on larger patient cohorts and longer follow-up, or analysis stratified by patient demographics and injury presentation. In the absence of clinically significant differences, cost-benefit analyses should be considered to answer the question of whether to \"fix or fuse\" for Lisfranc injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":12429,"journal":{"name":"Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics","volume":"9 4","pages":"24730114241286892"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11497535/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/24730114241286892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lisfranc injuries are often managed surgically with primary arthrodesis (PA) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF); however, neither approach has been shown to be superior. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the functional and surgical outcomes of PA and ORIF in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries.

Methods: This study was performed as per the PRISMA protocol. Database searches were conducted on Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed libraries. Five RCTs were identified for inclusion involving 241 patients, of which 121 underwent PA and 120 underwent ORIF.

Results: Statistically significant differences in visual analog scale pain score at 2 years (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI 0.18-1.59), patient satisfaction (OR 10.04, 95% CI 1.78-56.76), and all-cause return to surgery (OR 27.31, 95% CI 12.72-58.63) were observed, all favoring PA. There were no statistically significant differences between PA and ORIF with regard to American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot scores at 2 years, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, and unplanned return to surgery.

Conclusion: This study showed significant improvement in pain at 2 years, patient satisfaction, and all-cause return to surgery favoring PA in all instances. Given ORIF often necessitates a second operation for hardware removal, it is to be expected that all-cause return to surgery is higher in ORIF groups. Overall, these results do not have the power to confer an advantage to a particular approach because of significant heterogeneity. Further studies should focus on larger patient cohorts and longer follow-up, or analysis stratified by patient demographics and injury presentation. In the absence of clinically significant differences, cost-benefit analyses should be considered to answer the question of whether to "fix or fuse" for Lisfranc injuries.

膝关节损伤的初次关节固定术或开放复位和内固定术:随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。
背景:Lisfranc损伤通常采用原发性关节固定术(PA)或切开复位内固定术(ORIF)进行手术治疗,但这两种方法均未显示出优越性。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了随机对照试验(RCT),以比较PA和ORIF治疗Lisfranc损伤的功能和手术效果:本研究按照 PRISMA 协议进行。在 Cochrane、Embase 和 PubMed 图书馆进行了数据库检索。结果:视觉模拟量表的统计学差异有显著性:结果:在2年的视觉模拟量表疼痛评分(平均差异为0.89,95% CI为0.18-1.59)、患者满意度(OR为10.04,95% CI为1.78-56.76)和全因重返手术室(OR为27.31,95% CI为12.72-58.63)方面观察到了统计学意义上的显著差异,所有这些差异都有利于PA。在2年后美国矫形足踝协会中足评分、36项简表健康调查(SF-36)评分和非计划手术复诊方面,PA和ORIF之间没有统计学意义上的差异:结论:本研究显示,在2年后疼痛明显改善、患者满意度和全因手术复发方面,PA在所有情况下都更胜一筹。鉴于 ORIF 通常需要进行第二次手术以移除硬件,预计 ORIF 组的全因复发率较高。总体而言,由于存在显著的异质性,这些结果并不能证明某种方法具有优势。进一步的研究应侧重于更大的患者队列和更长的随访时间,或根据患者的人口统计学特征和受伤表现进行分层分析。在没有临床显著差异的情况下,应考虑进行成本效益分析,以回答对Lisfranc损伤进行 "固定还是融合 "的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1152
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信