Abstract
Category:
Trauma; Midfoot/Forefoot
Introduction/Purpose:
Lisfranc injuries are complex injuries of the midfoot in which the optimal course of treatment remains controversial. The objective of this study was to identify whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was associated with greater risk for surgical complications and/or greater financial burden in comparison to a primary arthrodesis (PA).
Methods:
A retrospective database review was conducted using the PearlDiver database to identify all Medicare patients who underwent a Lisfranc ORIF or PA in an inpatient setting from 2006-2013. Exclusion criteria included age >85 years and a prior history of foot or ankle trauma/infection/malignancy within 5 years of index surgery. Patients were matched in a 1:1 statistical manner to precisely control for potential influence of comorbidities and demographics, resulting in two cohorts with 2746 patients in each. Perioperative complications (within 30 days) were compared between the cohorts, in addition to the respective costs associated with each procedure. Complications were broken down into major (PE/DVT, MI, CVA, sepsis, mortality, nerve injury) or minor (UTI, PNA, hardware failure, transfusion, wound complications) categories.
Results:
No significant differences in major perioperative complications were noted between the two procedures. Significant differences were however noted in the incidence of minor perioperative complications, including higher rates of hardware failure (OR 0.26 (CI 95%, 0.07-0.752, P=0.021) and transfusion (OR 0.37 (CI 95%, 0.13-0.94, P=0.045) in the ORIF cohort. There was additionally a higher incidence of 30 day readmission (OR 0.35 (CI 95%, 0.24-0.51, P<0.001) with ORIF. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was shorter in the PA cohort (x̅; = 2.59 days) compared to the ORIF cohort (x̅; = 5.58 days, p < 0.001). Higher mean total hospital costs were noted for ORIF (x̅ = $66,342.56) compared to PA (x̅ = $40,761.65, p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Within our study population, ORIF has a significantly higher rate of hardware failure and transfusion, and 2.5 times the risk of readmission within 30 days. When comparing the total cost of care, there was a significantly greater cost with ORIF. LOS was also significantly longer in the ORIF group. One weakness of this study was the ability to account for patients <65, as these were pooled into a single age group by the database. While revealing with regard to the aforementioned variables, further research still needs to be conducted on the functional outcomes of these procedures.
