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.

中文翻译：

---

Lisfranc损伤中的影像学：系统的文献综述。

目的系统地评估当前的诊断性影像学方案，以评估Lisfranc关节。材料与方法对PubMed和ScienceDirect进行了系统搜索。30篇文章按成像方式细分：常规放射成像（17篇文章），超声检查（6篇文章），计算机断层扫描（CT）（4篇文章）和磁共振成像（MRI）（11篇文章）。一些文章讨论了多种模式。提取了以下数据：成像方式，测量方法，参与者人数，敏感性，特异性和测量技术准确性。方法质量由QUADAS-2工具评估。结果常规放射线照相通常通过评估第一和第二second骨基部（M1-M2）或内侧楔形和第二meta骨基部（C1-M2）之间的距离以及每个meta骨基部与其连接的骨之间的一致性来评估Lisfranc损伤。对于超声检查，评估C1-M2距离和背Lisfranc韧带（DLL）的长度和厚度。CT可以清楚显示骨（TMT）关节的位置和X线照片上掩盖的隐匿性骨折。大多数MRI研究都评估Lisfranc韧带的完整性。总体而言，纳入的研究显示，除患者选择外，所有领域的偏倚均较低，并且适用于日常实践。结论虽然传统的X线摄影可以显示TMT关节的坦白性转移；施加负重可以改善观看者的 能够通过射线照相检测出轻微的Lisfranc损伤。尽管超声检查可以评估DLL，但其诊断Lisfranc不稳定的准确性仍未得到证实。与检测不移位的骨折和最小的骨半脱位相比，CT比放射线照相更有利。MRI显然是检测韧带异常的最佳方法。但是，其用于检测微小的Lisfranc不稳定的实用程序需要进一步研究。总体而言，现有研究的方法学质量令人满意。它用于检测微妙的Lisfranc不稳定的实用程序需要进一步研究。总体而言，现有研究的方法学质量令人满意。它用于检测微妙的Lisfranc不稳定的实用程序需要进一步研究。总体而言，现有研究的方法学质量令人满意。