Journals / Southern Clinics of Istanbul Eurasia / 2021 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4

Are There Any Parameters to Predict the Risk of Screw Breakage Following the Transarticular Screw Fixation in Lisfranc Injuries? A Retrospective Study on 61 Patients

Pages
366–370
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: In the transarticular screw fixation of Lisfranc injury; screw’s diameter, can- nulated or solid structure, the presence of accompanying tarsal or metatarsal injuries and the reduction quality of the injured anatomic structures do not pose any risk factors for the screw breakage complication.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The Lisfranc complex is an osseo-ligamentous structure consisting of multiple tarsal and metatarsal bones, joints, and ligaments.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 61 patients with lisfranc injuries who underwent transarticular fixation with screws of different diameters and properties.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: In the transarticular screw fixation of Lisfranc injury; screw’s diameter, can- nulated or solid structure, the presence of accompanying tarsal or metatarsal injuries and the reduction quality of the injured anatomic structures do not pose any risk factors for the screw breakage complication.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The Lisfranc complex is an osseo-ligamentous structure consisting of multiple tarsal and metatarsal bones, joints, and ligaments. The transarticular screw method is the most commonly preferred fixation technique in patients with Lisfranc injury. However, screw breakage complications can be seen with a considerable frequency. Although there are stud- ies in the literature that associate the risk of screw breakage with the diameter or structure of the screw used, there is still no consensus. The aim of this study is to predict the risk of screw breakage by examining many parameters. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 61 patients with lisfranc injuries who underwent transarticular fixation with screws of different diameters and properties. We found screw breakage complications in 9 (14.7%) of the patients. Some demographic and radiological parameters were examined to predict screw breakage in these patients. Age, gender, weight, diameter and structure of the screw used, presence of accompanying cuneiform, cuboid or metatarsal base fracture, how many tarsometatarsal joints were involved and whether anatomical reduction was achieved. In addition, the development of post-traumatic arthro- sis during the 2-year follow-up, and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Association (AOFAS) -Middle Foot Score and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were also compared in clinical evaluations. Results: We could not find any radiological or demographic parameter that could predict the screw breakage complication in the results. We found only that post-traumatic arthritis was significantly more common in patients with screw breakages. We also found that there was no significant difference in AOFAS-midfoot and VAS scores in patients with or without screw breakage complications. Conclusion: In the transarticular screw fixation of Lisfranc injury; screw’s diameter, can- nulated or solid structure, the presence of accompanying tarsal or metatarsal injuries and the reduction quality of the injured anatomic structures do not pose any risk factors for the screw breakage complication.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERGÜN, S., ABUL, M. S., ECEVİZ, E. (2021). Are There Any Parameters to Predict the Risk of Screw Breakage Following the Transarticular Screw Fixation in Lisfranc Injuries? A Retrospective Study on 61 Patients. Southern Clinics of Istanbul Eurasia, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4, 366–370. https://ajindex.com/articles/400906

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ouzounian TJ, Shereff MJ. In vitro determination of midfoot motion. Foot Ankle Int 1989;10:140–6
  2. Ghate S, Sistla V, Nemade V, Vibhute D, Shashane S. Screw and wire fixation for Lisfranc fracture dislocations. J Orthop Surg 2012;20:170–5
  3. Panchbhavi VK, Vallurupalli S, Yang J, Andersen CR. Screw fixation compared with suture-button fixation of isolated Lisfranc ligament injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1143–8
  4. Cho J, Kim J, Min TH, Chun DI, Won SH, Park S, et al. Suture button vs conventional screw fixation for isolated lisfranc ligament injuries. Foot Ankle Int 2021;42:598–608
  5. Alberta FG, Aronow MS, Barrero M, Diaz-Doran V, Sullivan RJ, Adams DJ. Ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries: a biomechanical com- parison of dorsal plate and transarticular screw fixation. Foot Ankle Int 2005;26:462–73
  6. Park YH, Ahn JH, Choi GW, Kim HJ. Percutaneous reduction and 2.7-mm cortical screw fixation for low-energy lisfranc injuries. J Foot Ankle Surg 2020;59:914–8
  7. Arntz CT, Veith RG, Hansen ST Jr. Fractures and fracture-disloca- tions of the tarsometatarsal joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:173– 81
  8. Buzzard BM, Briggs PJ. Surgical management of acute tarsometa- tarsal fracture dislocation in the adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;353:125–33
  9. Rozell JC, Chin M, Donegan DJ, Hast MW. Biomechanical com- parison of fully threaded solid cortical versus partially threaded can- nulated cancellous screw fixation for lisfranc injuries. Orthopedics 2018;41:222–7
  10. Ly TV, Coetzee JC. Treatment of primarily ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries: primary arthrodesis compared with open reduction and internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:514–20
  11. VanPelt MD, Athey A, Yao J, Ennin K, Kassem L, Mulligan E, et al. Is Routine hardware removal following open reduction internal fixation of tarsometatarsal joint fracture/dislocation necessary? J Foot Ankle Surg 2019;58:226–30
  12. Renninger CH, Cochran G, Tompane T, Bellamy J, Kuhn K. Injury characteristics of low-energy lisfranc injuries compared with high-en- ergy injuries. Foot Ankle Int 2017;38:964–9.