LAUSR

OBJECTIVES To determine whether PA or ORIF results in better functional outcomes via patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Reoperation rates and surgical characteristics amongst the two groups are evaluated as well. DESIGN A retrospective cohort study. SETTING Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS Eighty-one patients treated via PA or ORIF for Lisfranc injuries between January 2010 and January 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS PROMs were collected via the validated Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) questionnaire. Follow-up ranged from one to ten years post-treatment. RESULTS Two hundred patients underwent ORIF and 72 patients underwent PA. Eighty-one out of 272 patients responded to the questionnaire. The FAAM revealed ADL subscores for PA and ORIF of 69.78 ± 18.61 and 73.53 ± 25.60, respectively (P = 0.48). The Sports subscore for PA (45.81 ± 24.65) and ORIF (56.54 ± 31.13) were not significantly different (P = 0.11). Perceived levels of ADL (P = 0.32) and Sports (P = 0.81) function, compared to pre-injury levels, were also not significantly different between the two groups. Rates of reoperation were nearly identical for PA (28.1%) and ORIF (30.6%) (P = 1.00). CONCLUSION Our results suggest that neither PA nor ORIF is superior with regards to functional outcomes or rates of re-operation in the surgical treatment of Lisfranc injuries when appropriately triaged by the treating surgeon.Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.