Foot & Ankle Specialist

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ficke, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Foot & Ankle Specialist, Vol. 1, No. 1, 19-23 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1938640007312300.

Anatomy of the Lisfranc Ligament

Anthony Johnson, MD

Keith Hill, MD

John Ward, PhD

James Ficke, MD

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 ≤ .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.

Key Words: Lisfranc • tarso-metatarsal • ligament


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?