Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis for the Treatment of Acute Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

This study aims to compare outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis in management of Lisfranc injuries. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, a systematic review was carried out. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomised studies comparing the outcomes of ORIF and primary arthrodesis for Lisfranc injuries. Random- and fixed-effect statistical models were applied to calculate the pooled outcome data. Two RCTs and 3 observational studies were identified, compiling a total of 187 subjects with acute Lisfranc injuries and a mean follow-up duration of 62.3 months. Our results demonstrate that ORIF is associated with a significantly higher need for revision surgery (odds ratio [OR] 6.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.68 to 15.11, p < .0001) and a significantly higher rate of persistent pain (OR 6.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 36.89, p = .04) compared with primary arthrodesis. However, we found no significant difference between the groups in terms of visual analogue scale pain score, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society functional score, or rates of infection. Separate analysis of RCTs showed that ORIF was associated with a more frequent need for revision surgery (OR 17.56, 95% CI 5.47 to 56.38, p < .00001), higher visual analogue scale pain score (mean difference 2.90, 95% CI 2.84 to 2.96, p < .00001), and lower American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score (mean difference -29.80, 95% CI -39.82 to -19.78, p < .00001). The results of the current study suggest that primary arthrodesis may be associated with better pain and functional outcomes and lower need for revision surgery compared with ORIF. The available evidence is limited and is not adequately robust to make explicit conclusions. The current literature requires high-quality and adequately powered RCTs.