High-intensity narrow-spectrum (HINS) light is a novel violet-blue light inactivation technology which kills bacteria through a photodynamic process, and has been shown to have bactericidal activity against a wide range of species. Specimens from patients with infected hip and knee arthroplasties were collected over a one-year period (1 May 2009 to 30 April 2010). A range of these microbial isolates were tested for sensitivity to HINS-light. During testing, suspensions of the pathogens were exposed to increasing doses of HINS-light (of 123mW/cm² irradiance). Non-light exposed control samples were also used. The samples were then plated onto agar plates and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours before enumeration. Complete inactivation (greater than 4-log₁₀ reduction) was achieved for all of the isolates. The typical inactivation curve showed a slow initial reaction followed by a rapid period of inactivation. The doses of HINS-light required ranged between 118 and 2214 J/cm². Gram-positive bacteria were generally found to be more susceptible than Gram-negative.

As HINS-light uses visible wavelengths, it can be safely used in the presence of patients and staff. This unique feature could lead to its possible use in the prevention of infection during surgery and post-operative dressing changes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:283–8.

Purpose: To evaluate the functional outcome of operatively treated Lisfranc injuries.

Method: Over a 7-year interval from 1998 to 2005, 184 skeletally mature patients were identified retrospectively with operatively treated Lisfranc injuries. 85 patients had prospectively measured SMFA functional outcomes and satisfaction surveys. The gender was 37 males and 48 females. Mean age was 39 years (range 17–93).

Results: The mechanism was fall (31), MVA (24), crush (15), equestrian (5), or twisting (10). Patients were operatively treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF, 53) or primary arthrodesis (PA, 32). The SMFA reliability for this patient sample was 0.892. The function and bother outcomes were 19.4 and 15.8, respectively. The function (21.5 vs. 16.0, p=.11) and bother (17.5 vs. 13.0, p=.25) outcomes were not significantly different for ORIF vs. PA, respectively. In the ORIF group, HW removal (40 of 53) performed better than HW retention (13 of 53) with outcome bother but not function measures of (14.7 vs. 26.1, p< 0.05).

Conclusion: If performed well, either ORIF or PA technique function well. Patients are more satisfied with the results and appearance of PA over ORIF. HW removal compared to HW retention positively affect bother not function measures. Secondary surgeries negatively affect both bother and function measures. Patients with pain, associated foot or polytrauma injuries function worse.