TY - JOUR
T1 - Which test is the best? An updated literature review of imaging modalities for acute ankle diastasis injuries
AU - Ng, Nico
AU - Onggo, James Randolph
AU - Nambiar, Mithun
AU - Maingard, Julian Tam
AU - Ng, David
AU - Gupta, Gaurav
AU - Nandurkar, Dee
AU - Babazadeh, Sina
AU - Bedi, Harvinder
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology.
PY - 2022/9
Y1 - 2022/9
N2 - Ankle diastasis injuries, or ankle syndesmotic injuries, are common among athletes who usually experience a traumatic injury to the ankle. Long-term complications are avoidable when these injuries are diagnosed promptly and accurately treated. Whilst ankle arthroscopy remains the gold standard diagnostic modality for ankle diastasis injuries, imaging modalities are still widely utilised due to the treatment having greater accessibility, being less invasive and the most cost effective. There are various imaging modalities used to diagnose diastasis injuries, varying in levels of specificity and sensitivity. These observation methods include; X-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ankle arthroscopy. This article uncovers common criteria and parameters to diagnose diastasis injuries through the implementation of different imaging modalities. The conclusions addressed within this article are deduced from a total of 338 articles being screened with only 43 articles being selected for the purposes of this examination. Across most articles, it was concluded that that plain X-ray should be used in the first instance due to its wide availability, quick processing time, and low cost. CT is the next recommended investigation due to its increased sensitivity and specificity, ability to show the positional relationship of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis, and reliability in detecting minor diastasis injuries. MRI is recommended when ankle diastasis injuries are suspected, but not diagnosed on previous imaging modalities. It has the highest sensitivity and specificity compared to X-ray and CT.
AB - Ankle diastasis injuries, or ankle syndesmotic injuries, are common among athletes who usually experience a traumatic injury to the ankle. Long-term complications are avoidable when these injuries are diagnosed promptly and accurately treated. Whilst ankle arthroscopy remains the gold standard diagnostic modality for ankle diastasis injuries, imaging modalities are still widely utilised due to the treatment having greater accessibility, being less invasive and the most cost effective. There are various imaging modalities used to diagnose diastasis injuries, varying in levels of specificity and sensitivity. These observation methods include; X-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ankle arthroscopy. This article uncovers common criteria and parameters to diagnose diastasis injuries through the implementation of different imaging modalities. The conclusions addressed within this article are deduced from a total of 338 articles being screened with only 43 articles being selected for the purposes of this examination. Across most articles, it was concluded that that plain X-ray should be used in the first instance due to its wide availability, quick processing time, and low cost. CT is the next recommended investigation due to its increased sensitivity and specificity, ability to show the positional relationship of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis, and reliability in detecting minor diastasis injuries. MRI is recommended when ankle diastasis injuries are suspected, but not diagnosed on previous imaging modalities. It has the highest sensitivity and specificity compared to X-ray and CT.
KW - Ankle arthroscopy
KW - ankle diastasis injury
KW - computed tomography
KW - CT
KW - imaging modality
KW - magnetic resonance imaging
KW - MRI
KW - X-ray
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129253060&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jmrs.589
DO - 10.1002/jmrs.589
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 35504849
AN - SCOPUS:85129253060
SN - 2051-3895
VL - 69
SP - 382
EP - 393
JO - Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences
JF - Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences
IS - 3
ER -