Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction and internal fixation in patients with Lisfranc fracture instability (The BFF Study) study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

N A C van den Boom, G A N L Stollenwerck, S M A A Evers, M Poeze, N A C van den Boom, G A N L Stollenwerck, S M A A Evers, M Poeze

Abstract

Background: The Lisfranc injury is a complex injury of the midfoot. It can result in persistent pain and functional impairment if treated inappropriately. In Lisfranc fracture dislocation, treatment options are primary arthrodesis of the midfoot joints or open reduction and internal fixation. The purpose of the proposed study is to define the optimal treatment for the Lisfranc fracture dislocation, either primary arthrodesis or open reduction and internal fixation, in regard to quality of life, complications, functional outcomes, and cost effectiveness.

Methods: Study design: A prospective multicenter RCT.

Study population: All patients of 18 years and older with an acute (< 6 weeks) traumatic fracture dislocation in the Lisfranc midfoot joints, displaced on static radiographic evaluation or unstable with dynamic evaluation, weight bearing radiographs or fluoroscopic stress testing under anesthesia, and eligible for either one of the surgical procedures. In total, this study will include n = 112 patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation.

Interventions: Patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation will be randomly allocated to treatment in "The Better to Fix or Fuse Study" (The BFF Study) with either PA or ORIF. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome parameter: the quality of life.

Secondary outcomes: complications, functional outcomes, secondary surgical interventions and cost effectiveness. Nature and extent of the burden: PA is expected to have a better outcome, however both treatments are accepted for this injury with a similar low risk of complications. Follow up is standardized and therefore this study will not add extra burden to the patient.

Discussion: This study protocol provides a comprehensive overview of the aims and methods of the attached clinical study. Limitations of this study are the absence of patient blinding since it is impossible in surgical intervention, and the outcome measure (AOFAS) that has limited validity not for these injuries. This study will be the first with enough power to define optimal treatment for Lisfranc fracture dislocations. This is necessary since current literature is unclear on this topic. Trial registration Current controlled Trial: NCT04519242 with registration date: 08/13/2020. Retrospectively registered; Protocol date and version: Version 4 05/06/2020.

Keywords: Cost effectiveness; ORIF; PA; Quality of life; Traumatic Lisfranc fracture dislocation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors and sponsor declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart describing the recruitment and follow-up process

References

    1. Lau S, Bozin M, Thillainadesan T. Lisfranc fracture dislocation: a review of a commonly missed injury of the midfoot. Emerg Med J. 2016;34(1):52–56. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2015-205317.
    1. Wolf JH. François Chopart (1743–1795)—inventor of the partial foot amputation at the tarsometatarsal articulation. Orthop Traumatol. 2000;8:314–317. doi: 10.1007/BF03181113.
    1. Myerson MS, Fisher RT, Burgess AR, Kenzora JE. Fracture dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joints: end results correlated with pathology and treatment. Foot Ankle. 1986;6(5):225–242. doi: 10.1177/107110078600600504.
    1. Rammelt S, Schneiders W, Schikore H, Holch M, Heineck J, Zwipp H. Primary open reduction and fixation compared with delayed corrective arthrodesis in the treatment of tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) fracture dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90-B(11):1499–1506. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.90b11.20695.
    1. Stødle AH, Hvaal KH, Brøgger HM, Madsen JE, Husebye EE. Temporary bridge plating vs primary arthrodesis of the first tarsometatarsal joint in lisfranc injuries: randomized controlled trial. Foot Ankle Int. 2020;41(8):901–910. doi: 10.1177/1071100720925815.
    1. Henning JA, Jones CB, Sietsema DL, Bohay DR, Anderson JG. Open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis for lisfranc injuries: a prospective randomized study. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(10):913–922. doi: 10.3113/fai.2009.0913.
    1. Ly TV, Goetze JC. Treatment of primarily ligamentous lisfranc joint injuries: primary arthrodesis compared with open reduction and internal fixation: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2006;88(3):514. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.e.00228.
    1. Van Hoeve S, Stollenwerck G, Willems P, Witlox M, Meijer K, Poeze M. Gait analysis and functional outcome in patients after Lisfranc injury treatment. Foot Ankle Surg. 2018;24(6):535–541. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2017.07.003.
    1. Kirzner N, Teoh W, Toemoe S, Maher T, Mannambeth R, Hughes A, Et Al H. Primary arthrodesis versus open reduction internal fixation for complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations: a retrospective study comparing functional and radiological outcomes. ANZ J Surg. 2019;90(4):585–590. doi: 10.1111/ans.15627.
    1. Qiao YS, Li JK, Shen H, Bao HY, Jiang M, Liu Y, et al. Comparison of arthrodesis and non-fusion to treat lisfranc injuries. Orthop Surg. 2017;9(1):62–68. doi: 10.1111/os.12316.
    1. Fan MQ, Li XS, Jiang XJ, Shen JJ, Tong PJ, Huang JF. The surgical outcome of Lisfranc injuries accompanied by multiple metatarsal fractures: a multicenter retrospective study. Injury. 2019;50(2):571–578. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.12.023.
    1. Cochran G, Renninger C, Tompane T, Bellamy J, Kuhn K. Primary arthrodesis versus open reduction and internal fixation for low-energy lisfranc injuries in a young athletic population. Foot Ankle Int. 2017;38(9):957–963. doi: 10.1177/1071100717711483.
    1. Hawkinson MP, Tennent DJ, Belisle J, Osborn P. Outcomes of lisfranc injuries in an active duty military population. Foot Ankle Int. 2017;38(10):1115–1119. doi: 10.1177/1071100717719532.
    1. Mulier T, Reynders P, Dereymaeker G, Broos P. Severe lisfrancs injuries: primary arthrodesis or ORIF? Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23(10):902–905. doi: 10.1177/107110070202301003.
    1. Wang LP, Yang C, Huang JF, Shen JJ, Chuan H, Tong PJ. Open reduction and internal fixation versus primary partial arthrodesis for lisfranc injuries accompanied by comminution of the second metatarsal base. Acta Orthop Belg. 2017;83(3):396–404.
    1. Siddiqui NA, Galizia MS, Almusa E, Omar IM. Evaluation of the tarsometatarsal joint using conventional radiography, CT, and MR imaging. Radiographics. 2014;34(2):514–531. doi: 10.1148/rg.342125215.
    1. Wedmore I, Young S, Franklin J. Emergency department evaluation and management of foot and ankle pain. Emerg Med Clin N Am. 2015;33(2):363–396. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2014.12.008.
    1. Mann RA, Prieskorn D, Sobel M. Mid-tarsal and tarsometatarsal arthrodesis for primary degenerative osteoarthrosis or osteoarthrosis after trauma*. J Bone Joint Surg. 1996;78(9):1376–1385. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199609000-00013.
    1. Johnson JE, Johnson KA. Dowel arthrodesis for degenerative arthritis of the tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) joints. Foot Ankle. 1986;6(5):243–253. doi: 10.1177/107110078600600505.
    1. Smith N, Stone C, Furey A. Does open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis improve patient outcomes for lisfranc trauma? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(6):1445–1452. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4366-y.
    1. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12195.
    1. Barnds B, Tucker W, Morris B, Tarakemeh A, Schroeppel JP, Mullen S, et al. Cost comparison and complication rate of Lisfranc injuries treated with open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis. Injury. 2018;49(12):2318–2321. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.10.002.
    1. Albright RH, Haller S, Klein E, Baker JR, Weil L, Weil LS, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction internal fixation for primarily ligamentous lisfranc injuries. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2018;57(2):325–331. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.10.016.
    1. Kuo RS, Tejwani NC, DiGiovanni CW, Holt SK, Benirschke SK, Hansen ST, et al. Outcome after open reduction and internal fixation of lisfranc joint injuries*. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2000;82(11):1609–1618. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200011000-00015.
    1. Crates JM, Barber FA, Sanders EJ. Subtle lisfranc subluxation: results of operative and nonoperative treatment. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;54(3):350–355. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2014.07.015.
    1. Dubois-Ferrière V, Lübbeke A, Chowdhary A, Stern R, Dominguez D, Assal M. Clinical outcomes and development of symptomatic osteoarthritis 2 to 24 years after surgical treatment of tarsometatarsal joint complex injuries. J Bone Joint Surg. 2016;98(9):713–720. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.15.00623.
    1. Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Van den Linden N, Bouwmans C, Kanters T, Tan SS. Kostenhandleiding: methodologie van kostenonderzoek en referentieprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2016.
    1. Tan SS, Bouwmans CAM, Rutten FFH, Hakkaart-van Roijen L. Update of the Dutch manual for costing in economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):152–158. doi: 10.1017/s0266462312000062.
    1. Versteegh M, Knies S, Brouwer W. From good to better: new Dutch guidelines for economic evaluations in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(11):1071–1074. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0431-y.
    1. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Jaime Caro J, Lee KM, Minchin M, et al. Budget impact analysis—principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 budget impact analysis good practice II task force. Value Health. 2014;17(1):5–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere