Imaging in Lisfranc injury: a systematic literature review.
Computed tomography
Conventional radiography
Imaging
Lisfranc injury
Magnetic resonance imaging
Ultrasonography
Journal
Skeletal radiology
ISSN: 1432-2161
Titre abrégé: Skeletal Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7701953
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
18
04
2019
accepted:
08
07
2019
revised:
30
06
2019
pubmed:
2
8
2019
medline:
25
6
2020
entrez:
2
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To systematically review current diagnostic imaging options for assessment of the Lisfranc joint. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31368007
doi: 10.1007/s00256-019-03282-1
pii: 10.1007/s00256-019-03282-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM