Lisfranc injuries account for 0.2% of all fractures and have been linked to poorer functional outcomes, in particular resulting in post-traumatic arthritis, midfoot collapse and chronic pain. This study assesses the longitudinal functional outcomes in patients with low and high energy Lisfranc injuries treated both operatively and non-operatively.

Patients above 16 years with Lisfranc injuries from January 2008 and December 2017 were identified through the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes (VOTOR) registry. Follow-up performed at 6, 12 and 24 months through telephone interviews with response rate of 86.1%, 84.2% and 76.2% respectively. Longitudinal functional outcome data using Global Outcome Assessment, EQ-5D-5L, numerical pain scale, Short-Form 12, the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule and return to work status were collected. Univariate analysis was performed and variables showing a significant difference between groups (p < 0.25) were analysed with multivariable mixed effects regression model.

745 patients included in this retrospective cohort study. At 24 months, both the operative and non-operative groups demonstrated similar functional outcomes trending towards an improvement. Mixed effect regression models for the EQ items for mobility (OR 1.80, CI 0.91 – 3.57), self-care (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.09-3.49), usual activities (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99-1.03), pain (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61-1.89), anxiety (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.72-2.34) and pain scale (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.51 – 2.22) and return to work (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.56-2.91) between groups were very similar and not statistically significantly different.

We concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between operative and non-operative patients with low and high energy Lisfranc injuries. Current clinical practices in Lisfranc injury management are appropriate and not inadvertently causing any further harm to patients. Future research comparing fracture patterns, fixation types and corresponding functional outcomes can help determine gold standard Lisfranc injury management.

The Lisfranc fracture dislocation of the tarsometatarsal joint (TMTJ) is a complex injury with a reported incidence of 9.2 to 14/100,000 person-years. Lisfranc fixation involves dorsal bridge plating, transarticular screws, combination or primary arthrodesis. We aimed to identify predictors of poor patient reported outcome measures at long term follow up after operative intervention.

127 patients underwent Lisfranc fixation at our Level One Trauma Centre between November 2007 and July 2013. At mean follow-up of 10.7 years (8.0-13.9), 85 patients (66.92%) were successfully contacted. Epidemiological data including age, gender and mechanism of injury and fracture characteristics such as number of columns injured, direction of subluxation/dislocation and classification based on those proposed by Hardcastle and Lau were recorded. Descriptive analysis was performed to compare our primary outcomes (AOFAS and FFI scores). Univariate analysis and multivariate regression analysis was done adjusted for age and sex to compare the entirety of our data set. p<0.05 was considered significant. The primary outcomes were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot Score and the Foot Function Index (FFI).

The number of columns involved in the injury best predicts functional outcomes (FFI, P <0.05, AOFAS, p<0.05) with more columns involved resulting in poorer outcomes. Functional outcomes were not significantly associated with any of the fixation groups (FFI, P = 0.21, AOFAS, P = 0.14). Injury type by Myerson classification systems (FFI, P = 0.17, AOFAS, P = 0.58) or open versus closed status (FFI, P = 0.29, AOFAS, P = 0.20) was also not significantly associated with any fixation group.

We concluded that 10 years post-surgery, patients generally had a good functional outcome with minimal complications. Prognosis of functional outcomes is based on number of columns involved and injured. Sagittal plane disruption, mechanism and fracture type does not seem to make a difference in outcomes.

The aim of the study was to highlight the absence of an important pitfall in the Advanced Trauma Life Support protocol in application of rigid collar to patients with potentially unstable cervical spine injury.

We present a case series of two patients with ankylosed cervical spines who developed neurological complications following application of rigid collar for cervical spine injuries as per the ATLS protocol.

This has been followed up with a survey of A&E and T&O doctors who regularly apply cervical collars for suspected unstable cervical spine injuries. The survey was conducted telephonically using a standard questionnaire. 75 doctors completed the questionnaire. A&E doctors = 42, T&O = 33. Junior grade = 38, middle grade = 37. Trauma management frontline experience >1yr = 50, <1yr = 25. Of the 75 respondents 68/75 (90.6%) would follow the ATLS protocol in applying rigid collar in potentially unstable cervical spine injuries. 58/75 (77.3%) would clinically assess the patient prior to applying collar. Only 43/75 (57.3%) thought the patients relevant past medical history would influence collar application.

Respondents were asked whether they were aware of any pitfalls to rigid collar application in suspected neck injuries. 34/75 (45.3%) stated that they were NOT aware of pitfalls. The lack of awareness was even higher 17/25 (68%) amongst doctors with less that 12 months frontline experience. When directly asked whether ankylosing spondylitis should be regarded as a pitfall then only 43/75 (57.3%) answered in the affirmative.

We would like to emphasise the disastrous consequences of applying a rigid collar in patients with ankylosed cervical spine. The survey demonstrates the lack of awareness (∼ 50%) amongst A&E and T&O doctors regarding pitfalls to collar application. We recommend the ATLS manual highlight a pitfall for application of rigid collars in patients with ankylosed spines and suspected cervical spine injuries.

On 7 July 2005, four bombs were detonated on the London transport system. Three of these bombs exploded almost simultaneously at 08:50h affecting the underground tube network at Aldgate, King's Cross and Edgware Road stations. The fourth bomb exploded at 09:47h on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. There were 54 deaths in total at the scenes and over 700 injured.

194 patients were brought to the Royal London Hospital. 167 were assessed in a designated minor injuries unit and discharged on the same day. 27 patients were admitted of whom 7 required ITU care, 1 died in theatre and 1 died post-operatively. The median Injurity Severity Score (ISS) in this group of patients was 6 (range 0-48) and the mean ISS was 12. The general pattern of injury in the critically ill patients was of mangled lower limbs and multiple, severely contaminated fragment wounds. Hepatitis B prophylaxis was administered to those patients with wounds contaminated by foreign biological material. 11 primary limb amputations were performed in 7 patients. 9 limb fasciotomies, 5 laparotomies and 1 sternotomy were carried out. 3 patients had blast lung injury. All patients who underwent primary amputations and debridement received further regular inspections in theatre. These inspections formed the majority of our theatre work. Under no circumstance was initial reconstructive surgery attempted. Delayed primary closure and split skin grafting of all wounds was completed by the end of the second week. There have been no sepsis-related deaths.

Our experience at The Royal London has allowed us to revisit the principles of blast wound management in a peacetime setting. A number of lessons were learned regarding communication and resource allocation. A multi-disciplinary approach with the successful execution of a major incident plan is the key to managing an event of this magnitude.