Abstract
Introduction/Purpose:
Physical activity and returning to sports are vital for athletes after foot and ankle surgery. While joint preservation is preferred, joint arthrodesis becomes necessary in certain injuries or deformities. Common procedures include Lisfranc arthrodesis, modified Lapidus for hallux valgus (HV), and first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) arthrodesis for hallux rigidus (HR), addressing pain and deformities. Prior studies show promising outcomes individually, yet lack comparisons, impeding understanding of postoperative differences in function. Comparative insights can guide patient expectations and shared decisions pre-surgery. Thus, this retrospective study aims to compare clinical outcomes and return to sports in the three procedure groups.
Methods:
Between 2006 and 2014, a study assessed 48 modified Lapidus procedures for HV (average age 37.3 years, average follow-up 2.8 years, 95.8% female), 38 Lisfranc injuries (average age 31.8 years, average follow-up 5.2 years, 47.4% female), and 50 MTP fusion for HR cases (average age 54.9 years, average follow-up 5.1 years, 66% female). The assessment focused on physical activity and return to sport, utilizing sports-specific, patient-administered questionnaires. Clinical outcomes were evaluated through the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), encompassing pain, symptoms, stiffness, daily function, sports function, and quality of life. Comparison among the surgical groups included return-to-activity difficulty, participation levels, postoperative FAOS scores, and patient satisfaction. ANOVA analysis gauged significance in FAOS subscale differences among procedures, followed by the Tukey HSD test to pinpoint specific procedure variations if significant differences arose.
Results:
Regarding FAOS scores, the procedures yielded similar outcomes in the pain subscale. No differences between Lapidus- Lisfranc in the symptom subscale (P=0.6). However, MTP fusion displayed poorer scores than Lapidus (P=0.04) and Lisfranc (P=0.005). No differences between Lapidus-Lisfranc (P=0.64) and Lapidus-MTP Fusion in Activities of Daily Living (P=0.18). Yet, MTP fusion exhibited notably worse outcomes than Lisfranc (P=0.03). For Sports, no differences between Lapidus-Lisfranc (P=0.94), while MTP fusion showed inferior outcomes to Lapidus (P=0.002) and Lisfranc (P=0.001). Although means varied, no differences were observed for Lapidus vs. Lisfranc (P=0.95), Lapidus vs. MTP Fusion (P=0.09), or Lisfranc vs. MTP fusion (P=0.06) in Quality of Life [Table 1].
Collectively, patients engaged in 40 activities. Return to sport post-surgery percentage, compared among procedure groups, yielded similar outcomes [Table 2].
Conclusion:
Although all procedure groups had similar overall return to sports and physical activities patient satisfaction rates, there were significant differences in regard to FAOS scores. Lapidus and Lisfranc procedures displayed similar postoperative outcomes in all FAOS domains. MTP Fusion showed similar postoperative outcomes to both Lapidus and Lisfranc procedures in the FAOS pain and quality of life domains, however displayed significantly worse outcomes in symptoms, activities of daily living, and sports domains. Therefore, it appears that an MTP fusion results in more functional limitations when compared to Lapidus and Lisfranc procedures.
Table 1: Comparison of FAOS Scores in Patients who Underwent Lapidus, Lisfranc, and MTP Fusion Procedures; Table 2: Postoperative Changes in Activity Difficulty and Participation Levels