Esmee Wilhelmina Maria Engelmann, Jens Anthony Halm, Tim Schepers
{"title":"膝关节损伤初次关节固定术与二次关节固定术后的功能效果和患者满意度：采用单一手术方法。","authors":"Esmee Wilhelmina Maria Engelmann, Jens Anthony Halm, Tim Schepers","doi":"10.1177/10711007241288853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The choice between primary arthrodesis (PA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for acute Lisfranc injuries remains contentious. Apart from primary treatment, arthrodesis is often used for treating chronic Lisfranc injuries, including patients in whom initial ORIF or nonoperative treatment failed. The aim of this study was to compare PA and secondary arthrodesis (SA) in terms of complications and functional outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was conducted on trauma patients with Lisfranc injuries treated at a level 1 trauma center between July 1, 2010, and July 1, 2020. Selected patients were evaluated at the outpatient clinic and received a survey. Demographics, injury characteristics, management, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot score, Foot Function Index) were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine of 37 potential patients (78.4%; PA n = 11, SA n = 18) completed the survey with a median follow-up of 7.1 (PA) to 9.3 (SA) years (<i>P</i> = .01). The majority were female (n = 18, 62.1%); the mean age of PA patients was 57.1 years (SD 14.2) compared with 43.5 years (SD 17.1) in SA patients (<i>P</i> = .04). In the PA group, there was no infection, 100% union, and implants were removed in 5 of 11 patients. In the SA group, 11.1% (n = 2) developed infection, malunion rate was 11.1%, implants were removed in 33.3% (n = 6), and 22.2% required revision surgery. AOFAS was \"good\" in PA (77.7, SD 17.3) compared with rated \"fair\" in SA (67.1, SD 21.3, <i>P</i> = .19). FFI was better in PA (26.0, SD 26.2) than SA (37.6, SD 30.8, <i>P</i> = .32), which exceeded the minimally important clinical difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although this study was limited by sample size, the overall results suggest equivalent functional outcome, pain and treatment satisfaction in primary arthrodesis compared with secondary arthrodesis patients for treatment of Lisfranc injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":94011,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle international","volume":" ","pages":"46-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11697498/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Functional Outcome and Patient Satisfaction After Primary vs Secondary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Injuries: Toward a Single-Surgery Approach.\",\"authors\":\"Esmee Wilhelmina Maria Engelmann, Jens Anthony Halm, Tim Schepers\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10711007241288853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The choice between primary arthrodesis (PA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for acute Lisfranc injuries remains contentious. Apart from primary treatment, arthrodesis is often used for treating chronic Lisfranc injuries, including patients in whom initial ORIF or nonoperative treatment failed. The aim of this study was to compare PA and secondary arthrodesis (SA) in terms of complications and functional outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was conducted on trauma patients with Lisfranc injuries treated at a level 1 trauma center between July 1, 2010, and July 1, 2020. Selected patients were evaluated at the outpatient clinic and received a survey. Demographics, injury characteristics, management, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot score, Foot Function Index) were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine of 37 potential patients (78.4%; PA n = 11, SA n = 18) completed the survey with a median follow-up of 7.1 (PA) to 9.3 (SA) years (<i>P</i> = .01). The majority were female (n = 18, 62.1%); the mean age of PA patients was 57.1 years (SD 14.2) compared with 43.5 years (SD 17.1) in SA patients (<i>P</i> = .04). In the PA group, there was no infection, 100% union, and implants were removed in 5 of 11 patients. In the SA group, 11.1% (n = 2) developed infection, malunion rate was 11.1%, implants were removed in 33.3% (n = 6), and 22.2% required revision surgery. AOFAS was \\\"good\\\" in PA (77.7, SD 17.3) compared with rated \\\"fair\\\" in SA (67.1, SD 21.3, <i>P</i> = .19). FFI was better in PA (26.0, SD 26.2) than SA (37.6, SD 30.8, <i>P</i> = .32), which exceeded the minimally important clinical difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although this study was limited by sample size, the overall results suggest equivalent functional outcome, pain and treatment satisfaction in primary arthrodesis compared with secondary arthrodesis patients for treatment of Lisfranc injury.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94011,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foot & ankle international\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"46-53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11697498/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foot & ankle international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007241288853\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007241288853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Functional Outcome and Patient Satisfaction After Primary vs Secondary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Injuries: Toward a Single-Surgery Approach.
Background: The choice between primary arthrodesis (PA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for acute Lisfranc injuries remains contentious. Apart from primary treatment, arthrodesis is often used for treating chronic Lisfranc injuries, including patients in whom initial ORIF or nonoperative treatment failed. The aim of this study was to compare PA and secondary arthrodesis (SA) in terms of complications and functional outcome.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on trauma patients with Lisfranc injuries treated at a level 1 trauma center between July 1, 2010, and July 1, 2020. Selected patients were evaluated at the outpatient clinic and received a survey. Demographics, injury characteristics, management, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot score, Foot Function Index) were analyzed.
Results: Twenty-nine of 37 potential patients (78.4%; PA n = 11, SA n = 18) completed the survey with a median follow-up of 7.1 (PA) to 9.3 (SA) years (P = .01). The majority were female (n = 18, 62.1%); the mean age of PA patients was 57.1 years (SD 14.2) compared with 43.5 years (SD 17.1) in SA patients (P = .04). In the PA group, there was no infection, 100% union, and implants were removed in 5 of 11 patients. In the SA group, 11.1% (n = 2) developed infection, malunion rate was 11.1%, implants were removed in 33.3% (n = 6), and 22.2% required revision surgery. AOFAS was "good" in PA (77.7, SD 17.3) compared with rated "fair" in SA (67.1, SD 21.3, P = .19). FFI was better in PA (26.0, SD 26.2) than SA (37.6, SD 30.8, P = .32), which exceeded the minimally important clinical difference.
Conclusion: Although this study was limited by sample size, the overall results suggest equivalent functional outcome, pain and treatment satisfaction in primary arthrodesis compared with secondary arthrodesis patients for treatment of Lisfranc injury.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
