ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2026
Trends in Surgical Management of Lisfranc Injuries: An Analysis of American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Candidates.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Historically, Lisfranc injuries have most commonly been managed by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Over the past 2 decades, literature has suggested that arthrodesis, an alternative option, may be the superior surgical treatment. It is unclear, however, how much orthopaedic clinical practice has responded to the new evidence. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of the Part II Oral Examination Case List American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) database to identify Lisfranc injuries treated with ORIF or arthrodesis from 1999 to 2022. Cases performed by early-career orthopaedic surgeons were selected using relevant Results: A total of 3068 surgically managed Lisfranc injuries were identified. Of these, 574 (18.7%) were managed with arthrodesis and 2494 (81.3%) with ORIF. The rate of arthrodesis increased over time: from 7.7% (95% CI 6.3-9.3) in 1999-2009 to 20.7% (95% CI 18.5-23.1) in 2010-2017 ( Conclusion: Although still the less utilized approach, arthrodesis for Lisfranc injuries has increased substantially among early-career orthopaedic surgeons in parallel to emerging evidence. This trend is more apparent among foot and ankle specialists. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.