Lisfranc and Chopart amputation: A systematic review

Background: Lisfranc and Chopart amputations are historically controversial procedures. To obtain evidence for the pros and cons we performed a systematic review to analyze wound healing, the need for re-amputation at a higher level, and ambulation after a Lisfranc or Chopart amputation. Methods: A literature search was performed in 4 databases (Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PsycInfo), using database-specific search strategies. Reference lists were studied to include relevant studies that were missed in the search. Of the 2881 publications found, 16 studies could be included in this review. Excluded publications concerned editorials, reviews, letters to the editor, no full text available, case reports, not meeting the topic, and written in a language other than English, German, or Dutch. Results: Failed wound healing occurred in 20% after Lisfranc amputation, in 28% after modified Chopart amputation, and 46% after conventional Chopart amputation. After Lisfranc amputation, 85% of patients were able to ambulate without prosthesis for short distances, and after modified Chopart 74%. After a conventional Chopart amputation, 26% (10/38) had unlimited household ambulation. Conclusions: The need for re-amputation because wound healing problems occurred most frequently after conventional Chopart amputation. All 3 types of amputation levels do, however, provide a functional residual limb, with the remaining ability to ambulate without prosthesis for short distances. Lisfranc and modified Chopart amputations should be considered before proceeding to a more proximal level of amputation. Further studies are needed to identify patient characteristics to predict favorable outcomes of Lisfranc and Chopart amputations.