Biomechanical Evaluation With a Novel Cadaveric Model Using Supination and Pronation Testing of a Lisfranc Ligament Injury.
Lisfranc fracture
Lisfranc model
Lisfranc repair
biomechanical model
cadaveric model
Journal
Foot & ankle orthopaedics
ISSN: 2473-0114
Titre abrégé: Foot Ankle Orthop
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101752333
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
entrez:
31
1
2022
pubmed:
14
1
2020
medline:
14
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Lisfranc joint injuries can be due to direct or indirect trauma and while the precise mechanisms are unknown, twisting or axial force through the foot is a suspected contributor. Cadaveric models are a useful way to evaluate injury patterns and models of fixation, but a frequent limitation is the amount of joint displacement after injury. The purpose of this study was to test a cadaveric model that includes axial load, foot plantarflexion and pronation-supination motion, which could re-create bone diastasis similar to what is seen in subtle Lisfranc injuries. Our hypothesis was that applying pronation and supination motion to a cadaveric model would produce reliable and measurable bone displacements. Twenty-four fresh-frozen lower leg cadaveric specimens were used. The medial (C1) and intermediate (C2) cuneiforms and the first (M1) and second (M2) metatarsal bones were marked. A complete ligament injury was performed between C1-C2 and C1-M2 in 12 specimens (group 1), and between C1-C2, C1-M2, C1-M1, and C2-M2 in 12 matched specimens (group 2). Foot pronation and supination in addition to an axial load of 400 N was applied to the specimens. A 3D digitizer was used to measure bone distances. After ligament injury, distances changed as follows: C1-C2 increased 3 mm (23%) with supination; C1-M2 increased 4 mm (21%) with pronation (no differences between groups). As expected, distances between C1-M1 and C2-M2 only changed in group 2, increasing 3 mm (14%) and 2 mm (16%), respectively (no differences between pronation and supination). M1-M2 and C2-M1 distances did not reach significant difference for any condition. Pronation or supination in addition to axial load produced measurable bone displacements in a cadaveric model of Lisfranc injury using sectioned ligaments. Distances M1-M2 and C2-M1 were not reliable to detect injury in this model. This new cadaveric Lisfranc model included foot pronation-supination in addition to axial load delivering measurable bone diastasis. It was a reliable Lisfranc cadaveric model that could be used to test different Lisfranc reconstructions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Lisfranc joint injuries can be due to direct or indirect trauma and while the precise mechanisms are unknown, twisting or axial force through the foot is a suspected contributor. Cadaveric models are a useful way to evaluate injury patterns and models of fixation, but a frequent limitation is the amount of joint displacement after injury. The purpose of this study was to test a cadaveric model that includes axial load, foot plantarflexion and pronation-supination motion, which could re-create bone diastasis similar to what is seen in subtle Lisfranc injuries. Our hypothesis was that applying pronation and supination motion to a cadaveric model would produce reliable and measurable bone displacements.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-four fresh-frozen lower leg cadaveric specimens were used. The medial (C1) and intermediate (C2) cuneiforms and the first (M1) and second (M2) metatarsal bones were marked. A complete ligament injury was performed between C1-C2 and C1-M2 in 12 specimens (group 1), and between C1-C2, C1-M2, C1-M1, and C2-M2 in 12 matched specimens (group 2). Foot pronation and supination in addition to an axial load of 400 N was applied to the specimens. A 3D digitizer was used to measure bone distances.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After ligament injury, distances changed as follows: C1-C2 increased 3 mm (23%) with supination; C1-M2 increased 4 mm (21%) with pronation (no differences between groups). As expected, distances between C1-M1 and C2-M2 only changed in group 2, increasing 3 mm (14%) and 2 mm (16%), respectively (no differences between pronation and supination). M1-M2 and C2-M1 distances did not reach significant difference for any condition.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Pronation or supination in addition to axial load produced measurable bone displacements in a cadaveric model of Lisfranc injury using sectioned ligaments. Distances M1-M2 and C2-M1 were not reliable to detect injury in this model.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
CONCLUSIONS
This new cadaveric Lisfranc model included foot pronation-supination in addition to axial load delivering measurable bone diastasis. It was a reliable Lisfranc cadaveric model that could be used to test different Lisfranc reconstructions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35097361
doi: 10.1177/2473011419898265
pii: 10.1177_2473011419898265
pmc: PMC8697228
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2473011419898265Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ICMJE forms for all authors are available online.
Références
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1987;9(4):160-5
pubmed: 18797010
Bone Joint J. 2016 Oct;98-B(10):1299-1311
pubmed: 27694582
Clin Sports Med. 2015 Oct;34(4):705-23
pubmed: 26409591
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009 Jul-Aug;48(4):427-31
pubmed: 19577717
Foot Ankle Int. 2016 Dec;37(12):1374-1380
pubmed: 27899721
Foot Ankle Spec. 2015 Aug;8(4):292-6
pubmed: 25941209
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89(10):2225-32
pubmed: 17908900
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972 Nov;54(4):677-86
pubmed: 4639441
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1963 Aug;45:546-51
pubmed: 14058332
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jun;474(6):1445-52
pubmed: 26022112
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1998 Apr;84(2):197-201
pubmed: 9775065
Foot Ankle Surg. 2019 Feb;25(1):71-78
pubmed: 29409256
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 May;91(5):1143-8
pubmed: 19411463
Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2015;43(2-3):213-38
pubmed: 27278743
Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Apr;32(4):422-31
pubmed: 21733447
Foot Ankle Surg. 2013 Dec;19(4):267-72
pubmed: 24095236
Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Jun;26(6):462-73
pubmed: 15960913