Allograft Reconstruction of the Lisfranc Ligament

Daniel G. Weglein, Clark R. Andersen, Randal P. Morris, William L. Buford, Vinod Panchbhavi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

For Lisfranc injuries, screw fixation of the medial and middle columns is currently the standard of treatment. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically evaluate the use of allograft for a severed Lisfranc ligament compared to standard screw fixation and the intact condition. Six pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric lower extremities were prepared with reflective marker arrays and cyclically loaded to simulate partial weight bearing under 4 sequential testing conditions: (1) intact ligament, (2) disrupted ligament, (3) tendon allograft reconstructed ligament, and (4) rigid screw fixation. The relative displacement between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal was assessed via motion analysis. A mixed model analysis of variance was used to determine the significance (α =.05) of displacement differences. Mean displacements and 95% confidence intervals for each condition were as follows: (1) intact 9.1 (7.1-11.2) mm, (2) cut ligament 9.4 (7.4-11.5) mm, (3) allograft fixation 8.8 (6.8-10.9) mm, and (4) screw fixation 8.2 (6.2-10.3) mm. There were no significant differences among the specimens according to condition. Allograft fixation provided adequate strength and stability and did not differ significantly compared to intact or screw fixation. Levels of Evidence: Level V: Bench testing

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)292-296
Number of pages5
JournalFoot and Ankle Specialist
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2015

Fingerprint

Ligaments
Allografts
Metatarsal Bones
Weight-Bearing
Tendons
Lower Extremity
Analysis of Variance
Confidence Intervals
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • allograft
  • ligament repair
  • Lisfranc
  • motion analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Podiatry

Cite this

Weglein, D. G., Andersen, C. R., Morris, R. P., Buford, W. L., & Panchbhavi, V. (2015). Allograft Reconstruction of the Lisfranc Ligament. Foot and Ankle Specialist, 8(4), 292-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640015584768

Allograft Reconstruction of the Lisfranc Ligament. / Weglein, Daniel G.; Andersen, Clark R.; Morris, Randal P.; Buford, William L.; Panchbhavi, Vinod.

In: Foot and Ankle Specialist, Vol. 8, No. 4, 01.08.2015, p. 292-296.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Weglein, DG, Andersen, CR, Morris, RP, Buford, WL & Panchbhavi, V 2015, 'Allograft Reconstruction of the Lisfranc Ligament', Foot and Ankle Specialist, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 292-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640015584768
Weglein, Daniel G. ; Andersen, Clark R. ; Morris, Randal P. ; Buford, William L. ; Panchbhavi, Vinod. / Allograft Reconstruction of the Lisfranc Ligament. In: Foot and Ankle Specialist. 2015 ; Vol. 8, No. 4. pp. 292-296.
@article{76f6dd3ee32943e38285a09622f0c94a,
title = "Allograft Reconstruction of the Lisfranc Ligament",
abstract = "For Lisfranc injuries, screw fixation of the medial and middle columns is currently the standard of treatment. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically evaluate the use of allograft for a severed Lisfranc ligament compared to standard screw fixation and the intact condition. Six pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric lower extremities were prepared with reflective marker arrays and cyclically loaded to simulate partial weight bearing under 4 sequential testing conditions: (1) intact ligament, (2) disrupted ligament, (3) tendon allograft reconstructed ligament, and (4) rigid screw fixation. The relative displacement between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal was assessed via motion analysis. A mixed model analysis of variance was used to determine the significance (α =.05) of displacement differences. Mean displacements and 95{\%} confidence intervals for each condition were as follows: (1) intact 9.1 (7.1-11.2) mm, (2) cut ligament 9.4 (7.4-11.5) mm, (3) allograft fixation 8.8 (6.8-10.9) mm, and (4) screw fixation 8.2 (6.2-10.3) mm. There were no significant differences among the specimens according to condition. Allograft fixation provided adequate strength and stability and did not differ significantly compared to intact or screw fixation. Levels of Evidence: Level V: Bench testing",
keywords = "allograft, ligament repair, Lisfranc, motion analysis",
author = "Weglein, {Daniel G.} and Andersen, {Clark R.} and Morris, {Randal P.} and Buford, {William L.} and Vinod Panchbhavi",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1938640015584768",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "292--296",
journal = "Foot & ankle specialist",
issn = "1938-6400",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Allograft Reconstruction of the Lisfranc Ligament

AU - Weglein, Daniel G.

AU - Andersen, Clark R.

AU - Morris, Randal P.

AU - Buford, William L.

AU - Panchbhavi, Vinod

PY - 2015/8/1

Y1 - 2015/8/1

N2 - For Lisfranc injuries, screw fixation of the medial and middle columns is currently the standard of treatment. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically evaluate the use of allograft for a severed Lisfranc ligament compared to standard screw fixation and the intact condition. Six pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric lower extremities were prepared with reflective marker arrays and cyclically loaded to simulate partial weight bearing under 4 sequential testing conditions: (1) intact ligament, (2) disrupted ligament, (3) tendon allograft reconstructed ligament, and (4) rigid screw fixation. The relative displacement between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal was assessed via motion analysis. A mixed model analysis of variance was used to determine the significance (α =.05) of displacement differences. Mean displacements and 95% confidence intervals for each condition were as follows: (1) intact 9.1 (7.1-11.2) mm, (2) cut ligament 9.4 (7.4-11.5) mm, (3) allograft fixation 8.8 (6.8-10.9) mm, and (4) screw fixation 8.2 (6.2-10.3) mm. There were no significant differences among the specimens according to condition. Allograft fixation provided adequate strength and stability and did not differ significantly compared to intact or screw fixation. Levels of Evidence: Level V: Bench testing

AB - For Lisfranc injuries, screw fixation of the medial and middle columns is currently the standard of treatment. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically evaluate the use of allograft for a severed Lisfranc ligament compared to standard screw fixation and the intact condition. Six pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric lower extremities were prepared with reflective marker arrays and cyclically loaded to simulate partial weight bearing under 4 sequential testing conditions: (1) intact ligament, (2) disrupted ligament, (3) tendon allograft reconstructed ligament, and (4) rigid screw fixation. The relative displacement between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal was assessed via motion analysis. A mixed model analysis of variance was used to determine the significance (α =.05) of displacement differences. Mean displacements and 95% confidence intervals for each condition were as follows: (1) intact 9.1 (7.1-11.2) mm, (2) cut ligament 9.4 (7.4-11.5) mm, (3) allograft fixation 8.8 (6.8-10.9) mm, and (4) screw fixation 8.2 (6.2-10.3) mm. There were no significant differences among the specimens according to condition. Allograft fixation provided adequate strength and stability and did not differ significantly compared to intact or screw fixation. Levels of Evidence: Level V: Bench testing

KW - allograft

KW - ligament repair

KW - Lisfranc

KW - motion analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938336925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938336925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1938640015584768

DO - 10.1177/1938640015584768

M3 - Article

C2 - 25941209

AN - SCOPUS:84938336925

VL - 8

SP - 292

EP - 296

JO - Foot & ankle specialist

JF - Foot & ankle specialist

SN - 1938-6400

IS - 4

ER -