Literature DB >> 19825687

Anatomy of the lisfranc ligament.

Anthony Johnson1, Keith Hill, John Ward, James Ficke.   

Abstract

Most authors agree that anatomic reduction is the key to optimal results in treatment of injuries of the Lisfranc joint; a few controversies remain. One controversy is the identification of the strongest ligament of the second metatarsal-medial cuneiform articulation-the critical ligament of the Lisfranc joint. The purpose of this study is to objectively quantify the cross-sectional area of each ligament of this crucial joint. Twenty cadaveric feet were dissected to isolate the second metatarsal-medial cuneiform articulation. The point of maximum thickness, height, and width of the dorsal, plantar, and interosseous ligaments were measured using handheld calipers at the second metatarsal attachment. The distribution failed to pass Mauchly's test of sphericity, so the Greenhouse-Geisser method was used to assess differences in the height and width to a P <or= .05 level of significance. There was a significant difference in the height, width, and area between all ligaments (P < .001). The interosseous ligament was the largest, with the greatest height, width, and cross-sectional area (P < .001). The dorsal ligament was the smallest, with the least height, width, and cross-sectional area (P < .001). Within the Lisfranc complex, the dorsal ligament is the smallest. The plantar ligament is twice as large as the dorsal ligament. The interosseous ligament is the largest. It is, on average, 4.5 times larger than the dorsal ligament and twice as large as the plantar ligament.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19825687     DOI: 10.1177/1938640007312300.

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Foot Ankle Spec        ISSN: 1938-6400


  9 in total

Review 1.  [Acute sports injuries and chronic overuse stress damage to the forefoot and midfoot].

Authors:  K Wörtler; C Schäffeler
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 2.  Lisfranc complex injuries management and treatment: current knowledge.

Authors:  Antonio Mascio; Tommaso Greco; Giulio Maccauro; Carlo Perisano
Journal:  Int J Physiol Pathophysiol Pharmacol       Date:  2022-06-15

3.  Ultrasound appearance of the normal Lisfranc ligament.

Authors:  Jatin Kaicker; Mercedes Zajac; Ravi Shergill; Hema N Choudur
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-08-06

Review 4.  The injuries to the fourth and fifth tarsometatarsal joints: A review of the surgical management by internal fixation, arthrodesis and arthroplasty.

Authors:  Xiao Yu; Qing-Jiang Pang; Guang-Rong Yu
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.088

5.  The Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI to Evaluate Acute Lisfranc Joint Injuries: Comparison With Direct Operative Observations.

Authors:  Kaoru Kitsukawa; Takaaki Hirano; Hisateru Niki; Natsuki Tachizawa; Hidefumi Mimura
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2022-01-21

6.  Shortening the Return-to-Play Times in Elite Athletes With Unstable Isolated Lisfranc Ligament Injuries Using a Knotless Interosseous Suture Button: Case Series and Literature Review.

Authors:  Martin Sullivan; Dane Peckston; Bernardino Alpuerto
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2022-06-21

7.  Outcomes of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Joint-Preserving Fixation.

Authors:  Harrison O Scofield; Kenrick C Lam; Eugene F Stautberg; William M Weiss; Ali M Mahmoud; Vinod K Panchbhavi
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 1.251

8.  Reliability of ultrasound imaging in the assessment of the dorsal Lisfranc ligament.

Authors:  David D Rettedal; Nathan C Graves; Joshua J Marshall; Katherine Frush; Vassilios Vardaxis
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2013-03-03       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  Morphological characteristics of the Lisfranc ligament.

Authors:  Y Suzuki; M Edama; F Kaneko; M Ikezu; K Matsuzawa; R Hirabayashi; I Kageyama
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 2.303

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.