Radiographic Value of the Lisfranc Diastasis in a Standardized Population

Inconsistent radiographic diagnostic criteria for lisfranc injuries: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the radiographic diagnostic criteria and propose standardised radiographic criteria for Lisfranc injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The various radiographic criteria for the diagnosis of Lisfranc injuries were extracted. Descriptive statistics were presented for all continuous (as mean ± standard deviation) and categorical variables (as frequencies by percentages).

RESULTS

The literature search included 29 studies that totalled 1115 Lisfranc injuries. The risk of bias ranged from "Low" to "Moderate" risk according to the ROBINS-I tool. The overall recommendations according to the GRADE assessment ranged from "Very Low" to "High". 1st metatarsal to 2nd metatarsal diastasis was the most common of the 12 various radiographic diagnostic criteria observed, as was employed in 18 studies. This was followed by 2nd cuneiform to 2nd metatarsal subluxation, as was employed in 11 studies.

CONCLUSION

The radiographic diagnostic criteria of Lisfranc injuries were heterogeneous. The proposition for homogenous radiographic diagnostic criteria is that the following features must be observed for the diagnosis of Lisfranc injuries: 1st metatarsal to 2nd metatarsal diastasis of ≥ 2 mm on anteroposterior view or 2nd cuneiform to 2nd metatarsal subluxation on anteroposterior or oblique views. Further advanced imaging by CT or MRI may be required in patients with normal radiographs but with continued suspicion for Lisfranc injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4, systematic review.

Deep Learning Algorithms Improve the Detection of Subtle Lisfranc Malalignments on Weightbearing Radiographs

BACKGROUND

Detection of Lisfranc malalignment leading to the instability of the joint, particularly in subtle cases, has been a concern for foot and ankle care providers. X-ray radiographs are the mainstay in the diagnosis of these injuries; thus, improving the performance of clinicians in interpreting radiographs can noticeably affect the quality of health care in these patients. Here we assessed the performance of deep learning algorithms on weightbearing radiographs for detection of Lisfranc joint malalignment in patients with Lisfranc instability.

METHODS

In a retrospective study, 640 patients with Lisfranc malalignment leading to instability were recruited plus 640 individuals with uninjured feet and healthy Lisfranc joint as the control group. All radiographs were screened by orthopaedic surgeons. Two deep learning models were trained, validated, and tested (in a ratio 80:10:10) using a single-view (anteroposterior) and 3-view (anteroposterior, lateral, oblique) radiographs. The performances of the models were reported as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, F score, and area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the patients and the controls regarding age, gender, race, and body mass index. The best deep learning algorithm outperformed our human interpreters (<1% vs ~10% misdiagnosis), 94.8% sensitivity, 96.9% specificity, 98.6% accuracy, 95.8% F score, and 99.4% AUC.

CONCLUSION

Deep learning methods have shown promising potential in acting as an assistant interpreter of radiographic images in patients with Lisfranc malalignment. Developing these algorithms can hasten and improve the accuracy of diagnosis and reduce further costs and burdens on the patients and health care system.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control Machine Learning study.

Reliability of various diastasis measurement methods on weightbearing radiographs in patients with subtle Lisfranc injuries

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of the diastasis measurements between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal on weightbearing radiography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined 18 patients who underwent open surgery for subtle Lisfranc injuries. Preoperative weightbearing radiography of the affected and unaffected feet was evaluated in all patients. The diastasis between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal was measured in both feet using the following four methods: diastasis between parallel lines, distal point diastasis, middle point diastasis, and proximal point diastasis. Intraclass correlation coefficients with consistency of agreement were calculated to evaluate inter- and intraobserver reliability.

RESULTS

The intra- and interobserver reliabilities of all four methods were good. Intraclass correlation coefficients for intraobserver reliability ranged from 0.87 to 0.93. Those for interobserver reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.91.

CONCLUSIONS

The reliabilities of the diastasis measurement methods between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal on weightbearing radiography were good. Measuring the diastasis between the medial cuneiform and the second metatarsal on weightbearing radiography is useful in evaluating subtle injuries when uniform measurement methods are used.