Yantarat Sripanich1, Maxwell W Weinberg1, Nicola Krähenbühl1, Chamnanni Rungprai2, Megan K Mills3, Charles L Saltzman1, Alexej Barg4. 1. Department of Orthopedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA. 2. Department of Orthopedics, Phramongkutklao Hospital and College of Medicine, 315 Rajavithi Road, Tung Phayathai, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand. 3. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, 30 N. 1900 E. #1A071, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA. 4. Department of Orthopedics, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA. alexej.barg@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review current diagnostic imaging options for assessment of the Lisfranc joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed and ScienceDirect were systematically searched. Thirty articles were subdivided by imaging modality: conventional radiography (17 articles), ultrasonography (six articles), computed tomography (CT) (four articles), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (11 articles). Some articles discussed multiple modalities. The following data were extracted: imaging modality, measurement methods, participant number, sensitivity, specificity, and measurement technique accuracy. Methodological quality was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Conventional radiography commonly assesses Lisfranc injuries by evaluating the distance between either the first and second metatarsal base (M1-M2) or the medial cuneiform and second metatarsal base (C1-M2) and the congruence between each metatarsal base and its connecting tarsal bone. For ultrasonography, C1-M2 distance and dorsal Lisfranc ligament (DLL) length and thickness are evaluated. CT clarifies tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint alignment and occult fractures obscured on radiographs. Most MRI studies assessed Lisfranc ligament integrity. Overall, included studies show low bias for all domains except patient selection and are applicable to daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: While conventional radiography can demonstrate frank diastasis at the TMT joints; applying weightbearing can improve the viewer's capacity to detect subtle Lisfranc injury by radiography. Although ultrasonography can evaluate the DLL, its accuracy for diagnosing Lisfranc instability remains unproven. CT is more beneficial than radiography for detecting non-displaced fractures and minimal osseous subluxation. MRI is clearly the best for detecting ligament abnormalities; however, its utility for detecting subtle Lisfranc instability needs further investigation. Overall, the available studies' methodological quality was satisfactory.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review current diagnostic imaging options for assessment of the Lisfranc joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed and ScienceDirect were systematically searched. Thirty articles were subdivided by imaging modality: conventional radiography (17 articles), ultrasonography (six articles), computed tomography (CT) (four articles), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (11 articles). Some articles discussed multiple modalities. The following data were extracted: imaging modality, measurement methods, participant number, sensitivity, specificity, and measurement technique accuracy. Methodological quality was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Conventional radiography commonly assesses Lisfranc injuries by evaluating the distance between either the first and second metatarsal base (M1-M2) or the medial cuneiform and second metatarsal base (C1-M2) and the congruence between each metatarsal base and its connecting tarsal bone. For ultrasonography, C1-M2 distance and dorsal Lisfranc ligament (DLL) length and thickness are evaluated. CT clarifies tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint alignment and occult fractures obscured on radiographs. Most MRI studies assessed Lisfranc ligament integrity. Overall, included studies show low bias for all domains except patient selection and are applicable to daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: While conventional radiography can demonstrate frank diastasis at the TMT joints; applying weightbearing can improve the viewer's capacity to detect subtle Lisfranc injury by radiography. Although ultrasonography can evaluate the DLL, its accuracy for diagnosing Lisfranc instability remains unproven. CT is more beneficial than radiography for detecting non-displaced fractures and minimal osseous subluxation. MRI is clearly the best for detecting ligament abnormalities; however, its utility for detecting subtle Lisfranc instability needs further investigation. Overall, the available studies' methodological quality was satisfactory.