BackgroundVarious imaging techniques have been utilized for the diagnosis of chronic lateral ankle ligament injury. This systemic review will explore the effectiveness of different imaging techniques in diagnosing chronic lateral ankle ligament injury.MethodsRelative studies were retrieved after searching 3 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails). Eligible studies were summarized. Data were extracted to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography (US), stress radiography, and arthrography.ResultsFifteen studies met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 695 participants were included. The pooled sensitivities in diagnosing chronic ATFL injury were 0.83 [0.78, 0.87] for MRI, 0.99 [0.96, 1.00] for US, and 0.81 [0.68, 0.90] for stress radiography. The pooled specificities in diagnosing chronic ATFL injury were 0.79 [0.69, 0.87] for MRI, 0.91 [0.82, 0.97] for US, and 0.92 [0.79, 0.98] for stress radiography. The pooled sensitivities in diagnosing chronic CFL injury were 0.56 [0.46, 0.66] for MRI, 0.94 [0.85, 0.98] for US, and 0.90 [0.73, 0.98] for arthrography. The pooled specificities in diagnosing chronic CFL injury were 0.88 [0.82, 0.93] for MRI, 0.91 [0.80, 0.97] for US, and 0.90 [0.77, 0.97] for arthrography.ConclusionThis systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the accuracy of imaging for the diagnosis of chronic lateral ankle ligament injury. Ultrasound manifested high diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing chronic lateral ankle ligament injury. Clinicians should be aware of the limitations of MRI in detecting chronic CFL injuries.

No abstract

Background Arthrometry has been introduced to evaluate the laxity of ankle joint in recent years. However, its role in the diagnosis of chronic ankle instability is still debatable. Therefore, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of a digital arthrometer in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Methods According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria proposed by the International Ankle Consortium, we recruited 160 uninjured ankles (control group) and 153 ankles with chronic ankle instability (CAI group). Ankle laxity was quantitively measured by a validated digital arthrometer. Data of loading force and joint displacement were recorded in a continuous manner. Differences between the control and CAI groups were compared using 2-tailed independent t test. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to calculate area under a curve, sensitivity and specificity. Results Load–displacement curves of the two groups were depicted. Differences of joint displacement between the control and CAI groups were compared at 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105 and 120 N, which were all of statistical significance (all p < 0.001) with the largest effect size at 90 N. Statistical significance was found in the differences between the two groups in load–displacement ratio at 10–120 N, 10–40 N, 40–80 N and 80–120 N (all p < 0.001), with the largest effect size at 10–40 N. Load–displacement ratio at the interval of 10–40 N had the highest area under a curve (0.9226), with sensitivity and specificity of 0.804 and 0.863, respectively, when the cutoff point was 0.1582 mm/N. Conclusion The digital arthrometer measurement could quantitively analyze the ankle laxity with high diagnostic accuracy. The load–displacement ratio would be a reliable and promising approach for chronic ankle instability diagnosis. Level of evidence level II.