Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34643414›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2021

Lisfranc injuries: fix or fuse? : a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature presenting outcome after surgical treatment for Lisfranc injuries.

Noortje Anna Clasina van den Boom, Guido A N L Stollenwerck, Laureanne Lodewijks, Jeroen Bransen, Silvia M A A Evers, Martijn Poeze

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Outcomes and complications after open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc injuries: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Lisfranc complex injuries management and treatment: current knowledge.International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Noortje Anna Clasina van den BoomDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0652-8546
Guido A N L StollenwerckDepartment of Surgery - Trauma Surgery, Alrijne Hospital, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Laureanne LodewijksDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Jeroen BransenDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Silvia M A A EversNutrim School of Nutrition & Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Martijn PoezeDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLAlrijne Ziekenhuis · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis.

resultsA total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively.

conclusionThis is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I Cite this article:

Indexed as

American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society scoreAOFASCINAHLLisfrancLisfranc injuriesopen reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)ORIFpatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)primary arthrodesisPrimary arthrodesisrandomized controlled trialsShort-Form Health Surveystatistical analysisTreatmentVisual Analogue Scale (VAS)

Identifiers

PMID34643414
PMCPMC8558450
OpenAlexW3205224787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.