• Jan De Bruijn, Noortje C Hagemeijer, Quinten G H Rikken, Jad S Husseini, Jirawat Saengsin, KerkhoffsGino M M JGMMJFoot and Ankle Research and Innovation Lab, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Academic Center for Evidence based Sports medicine (ACES), Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Collaboration for , Gregory Waryasz, Daniel Guss, and Christopher W DiGiovanni.
• Foot and Ankle Research and Innovation Lab, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
• Injury. 2022 Jun 1; 53 (6): 2318-2325.

BackgroundTo compare diagnostic parameters for Lisfranc instability on WB and NWB radiographs and to assess the inter-observer reliability of a standardized diagnostic protocol.Patients And MethodsPatients who had undergone surgical treatment for subtle, purely ligamentous Lisfranc injury with both WB and NWB post-injury, pre-surgery films (n = 26) were included in this multicentre, retrospective comparative study. Also included was a control group (n = 26) of patients with isolated fifth metatarsal avulsion fractures who similarly had both WB and NWB films. Multiple midfoot distance and alignment measurements were used to evaluate the Lisfranc joint on both WB and NWB views. To evaluate interobserver reliability, measurements were made by two independent observers across a cohort subset.ResultsWhen comparing the NWB views between groups, only C1M2 (medial cuneiform- second metatarsal) distance was found to be significantly larger (∆ = 1.35 mm, p <0.001) for Lisfranc injuries. Most notably, C2M2 (Intermediate cuneiform - second metatarsal) step off-caused by lateral translation of the second metatarsal base-was not significantly different (∆ = 0.39 mm, p = 0.101) between Lisfranc patients and controls. On WB views, Lisfranc patients had significantly larger changes to C1M2 distance and C2M2 step-off as compared to controls (∆ = 2.97 mm, p <0.001 and ∆ =  1.98 mm, p <0.001 respectively). M1M2 (first to second intermetatarsal) distance was not significantly different between patients and controls in WB films. Within the cohort of ligamentous Lisfranc patients, C1M2 distance and C2M2 step-off were significantly larger in WB when compared to NWB films (∆ =  1.77 mm, p <0.001 and ∆ =  1.58 mm, p <0.001 respectively). For these parameters, inter-observer reliability scores (ICC) of >0. 90 were found when interpreting WB radiographs and ICC's ranging between 0.61 and 0.80 were found when interpreting NWB radiographs.ConclusionUsing WB imaging for diagnosing subtle Lisfranc instability reveals larger diastasis in the tarsometatarsal joint and has a higher interobserver reliability compared to NWB imaging. Clinical concern for subtle or occult Lisfranc instability in any patient should therefore trigger WB radiographic assessment since such injuries may be missed on NWB views.Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

18 keywords...

hide…