Research Article| Volume 57, ISSUE 2, P325-331, March 2018

Download started.


Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Primary Arthrodesis Versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Primarily Ligamentous Lisfranc Injuries

Published:December 20, 2017DOI:


      The purpose of the present study was to determine whether surgical intervention with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) for Lisfranc injuries is more cost effective. We conducted a formal cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and decision tree to explore the healthcare costs and health outcomes associated with a scenario of ORIF versus PA for 45 years postoperatively. The outcomes assessed included long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY gained. The costs were evaluated from the healthcare system perspective and are expressed in U.S. dollars at a 2017 price base. ORIF was always associated with greater costs compared with PA and was less effective in the long term. When calculating the cost required to gain 1 additional QALY, the PA group cost $1429/QALY and the ORIF group cost $3958/QALY. The group undergoing PA overall spent, on average, $43,192 less than the ORIF group, and PA was overall a more effective technique. Strong dominance compared with ORIF was demonstrated in multiple scenarios, and the model's conclusions were unchanged in the sensitivity analysis even after varying the key assumptions. ORIF failed to show functional or financial benefits. In conclusion, from a healthcare system's standpoint, PA would clearly be the preferred treatment strategy for predominantly ligamentous Lisfranc injuries and dislocations.

      Level of Clinical Evidence


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Mantas J.P.
        • Burks R.T.
        Lisfranc injuries in the athlete.
        Clin Sports Med. 1994; 13: 719-730
        • Trevino S.G.
        • Kodros S.
        Controversies in tarsometatarsal injuries.
        Orthop Clin North Am. 1995; 26: 229-238
        • Henning J.A.
        • Jones C.B.
        • Sietsema D.L.
        • Bohay D.R.
        • Anderson J.G.
        Open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis for Lisfranc injuries: a prospective randomized study.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2009; 30: 913-922
        • Cassinelli S.J.
        • Moss L.K.
        • Lee D.C.
        • Phillips J.
        • Harris T.G.
        Delayed open reduction internal fixation of missed, low-energy Lisfranc injuries.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2016; 37: 1084-1090
        • Ly T.V.
        • Coetzee J.C.
        Treatment of primarily ligamentous Lisfranc joint injuries: primary arthrodesis compared with open reduction and internal fixation: A prospective, randomized study.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88: 514-520
        • Smith N.
        • Stone C.
        • Furey A.
        Does open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis improve patient outcomes for Lisfranc trauma? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 1445-1452
        • Mulier T.
        • Reynders P.
        • Dereymaeker G.
        • Broos P.
        Severe Lisfranc injuries: primary arthrodesis or ORIF?.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2002; 23: 902-905
        • Dubois-Ferriere V.
        • Lubbeke A.
        • Chowdhary A.
        • Stern R.
        • Dominguez D.
        • Assal M.
        Clinical outcomes and development of symptomatic osteoarthritis 2 to 24 years after surgical treatment of tarsometatarsal joint complex injuries.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016; 98: 713-720
        • Ara R.
        • Brazier J.
        Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available).
        Value Health. 2008; 11: 1131-1143
        • Bennett P.J.
        • Patterson C.
        • Dunne M.P.
        Health-related quality of life following podiatric surgery.
        J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001; 91: 164-173
        • Groarke P.
        • Galvin R.
        • Kelly J.
        • Stephens M.M.
        Quality of life in individuals with chronic foot conditions: a cross sectional observational study.
        Foot (Edinb). 2012; 22: 66-69
        • Lopez D.L.
        • Callejo Gonzalez L.
        • Losa Iglesias M.E.
        • Canosa J.L.
        • Sanz D.R.
        • Lobo C.C.
        • Becerro de Bengoa Vallejo R.
        Quality of life impact related to foot health in a sample of older people with hallux valgus.
        Aging Dis. 2016; 7: 45-52
        • Maher A.J.
        • Kilmartin T.E.
        An analysis of Euroqol EQ-5D and Manchester Oxford foot questionnaire scores six months following podiatric surgery.
        J Foot Ankle Res. 2012; 5: 17
        • Neary K.C.
        • Mormino M.A.
        • Wang H.
        Suture button fixation versus syndesmotic screws in supination-external rotation type 4 injuries: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 210-217
        • Schepers T.
        • Kieboom B.C.
        • van Diggele P.
        • Patka P.
        • Van Lieshout E.M.
        Pedobarographic analysis and quality of life after Lisfranc fracture dislocation.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2010; 31: 857-864
        • Gold M.
        • Siegel J.
        • Russel L.
        • Weinstein M.
        Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
        Oxford University Press, New York, NY1996
        • Shepard D.S.
        Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. By M.R. Gold, J.E Siegel, L.B. Russell, and M.C. Weinstein (eds). New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
        J Ment Health Policy Econ. 1999; 2: 91-92
        • Gray A.
        • Clarke P.
        • Wolstenholme J.
        • Wordsworth S.
        Applied Methods of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health Care.
        Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK2011
        • Onche I.I.
        • Osagie O.E.
        • Inuhu S.
        Removal of orthopaedic implants: indications, outcome and economic implications.
        J West Afr Coll Surg. 2011; 1: 101-112
        • Busam M.L.
        • Esther R.J.
        • Obremskey W.T.
        Hardware removal: indications and expectations.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006; 14: 113-120
        • Lalli T.A.
        • Matthews L.J.
        • Hanselman A.E.
        • Hubbard D.F.
        • Bramer M.A.
        • Santrock R.D.
        Economic impact of syndesmosis hardware removal.
        Foot (Edinb). 2015; 25: 131-133
        • Maetzel A.
        • Li L.C.
        • Pencharz J.
        • Tomlinson G.
        • Bombardier C.
        • Community Hypertension and Arthritis Project Study Team
        The economic burden associated with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and hypertension: a comparative study.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 2004; 63: 395-401