Which test is the best? An updated literature review of imaging modalities for acute ankle diastasis injuries

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Keywords

• Ankle arthroscopy
• ankle diastasis injury
• computed tomography
• CT
• imaging modality
• magnetic resonance imaging