Influence of different osteosynthesis procedures and included joint pockets on the clinical and functional outcome after Lisfranc arthrodesis

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

DRKS

Registry ID

DRKS00012635

Enrollment

100

Registered

2019-07-01

Start date

2017-11-03

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

M19.07

Interventions

Group 1: The patient is first contacted and informed about the planned study project. Subsequently, patients are contacted by telephone and asked whether they would like to participate in the study pr

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

18 Years to No maximum

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Performed arthrodesis of at least 2 articular TMT and / or intercuneiform in domo

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Younger than 18 years, wheelchair user, further arthrodeses NC / TN / CC / USG / OSG

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
On the basis of the clinical scores (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Score, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), SF-36, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale) and the revision rate, the clinical outcome after Lisfranc arthrodesis is generally to be assessed well. There should be a difference between the pre- and postoperative state.	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
There are differences in clinical and functional outcome with the use of pure screw arthrodesis, additive plate osteosynthesis, or different plate systems, especially with regard to revision / pseudoarthrosis.	—

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactSarah Ettinger

Orthopädische Klinik der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover im Annastift

sarah.ettinger@diakovere.de0511-5354-709

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026