Evidence Hub

Return to sport following Lisfranc injuries in elite athletes-2024 International Foot and Ankle Sports Consensus and systematic review

Webber KJ, Balboni JM, Semelsberger SD, Boggiano VJ, Levine AR, Butler J, Gianakos AL, IFASC Committee

Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2026

2 citations

Abstract

Purpose: Lisfranc injuries, also referred to as tarsometatarsal joint injuries, are relatively uncommon within the general population and can possess profound clinical implications, especially for elite athletes. Existing follow-up and return to sport (RTS) protocols remain poorly defined and variable based on surgeon preference or institutional protocols. The purpose of this study was to both perform a systematic review and determine if consensus on postoperative protocols and RTS timelines could be reached among an expert panel of orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons who manage Lisfranc injuries in the elite athlete.

Methods: The systematic review evaluated the post-operative management of sports-related Lisfranc injuries. A consensus process was then conducted using a modified Delphi technique with four rounds of questionnaires. General consensus was defined as 75%-85% agreement, strong consensus as 86%-99% agreement and unanimous consensus as 100% agreement.

Results: The systematic review found patients with ligament Lisfranc injuries were permitted to begin weightbearing at an average of 3.5 weeks. The mean time for these athletes to RTS was 8.9 months. Those with bony Lisfranc injuries were allowed to partially weightbear at 4.5 weeks, on average. Bony Lisfranc injuries treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) allowed the athlete to RTSs at a median of 8 weeks (range 3-12 weeks). There are nine consensus statements presented that illustrate the expected…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free