Advertisement

Ankle ultrasound for detecting anterior talofibular ligament tear using operative finding as reference standard: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Sun Hwa Lee
  • Seong Jong YunEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ankle ultrasound for detection of anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) tear with a reference standard of operative finding.

Methods

A computerized search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed to identify relevant original articles on ankle ultrasound for ATFL tear. The pooled proportions of the diagnostic accuracy estimates were assessed using random-effects modeling. We also assessed pooled proportions of the diagnostic accuracy according to injury stage (acute or chronic) and severity of injury (complete or partial). Heterogeneity among studies was determined using the inconsistency index (I2). Meta-regression analyses were performed to evaluate the potential sources of heterogeneity.

Results

Ten studies were included. The pooled proportion of the diagnostic accuracy of ankle ultrasound for ATFL was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–0.98). In subgroup analysis, the pooled proportion of the diagnostic accuracy of ankle ultrasound for acute ATFL tear was 0.92 (95% CI 0.85–0.95). The pooled proportion of the diagnostic accuracy of ankle ultrasound for chronic ATFL tear was 0.96 (95% CI 0.84–0.99). The pooled proportions of the diagnostic accuracy for complete and partial ATFL tear were 0.82 (95% CI 0.72–0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.70–0.96), respectively. In the meta-regression analyses, the inclusion of pediatric patients was only significantly different (p = 0.007).

Conclusions

Ankle ultrasound may be a useful diagnostic modality in the detection of ATFL tear in adults and children, regardless of injury stage and severity. For correct diagnosis of ATFL tear, a high-frequency ultrasound probe and sufficient experience of the examiner are mandatory.

Keywords

Anterior talofibular ligament Ligament tear Ankle injury Ankle ultrasound Data accuracy 

Notes

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights statement

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Langner I, Frank M, Kuehn JP, Hinz P, Ekkernkamp A, Hosten N, et al. Acute inversion injury of the ankle without radiological abnormalities: assessment with high-field MR imaging and correlation of findings with clinical outcome. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(4):423–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-010-1017-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Czajka CM, Tran E, Cai AN, DiPreta JA. Ankle sprains and instability. Med Clin North Am. 2014;98(2):313–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2013.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salat P, Le V, Veljkovic A, Cresswell ME. Imaging in foot and ankle instability. Foot Ankle Clin. 2018;23(4):499–522 e28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcl.2018.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scillia AJ, Pierce TP, Issa K, Wright C, Callaghan JJ, Festa A, et al. Low ankle sprains: a current review of diagnosis and treatment. Surg Technol Int. 2017;30:411–4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolfe MW, Uhl TL, Mattacola CG, McCluskey LC. Management of ankle sprains. Am Fam Phys. 2001;63(1):93–104.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee SH, Yun SJ. The feasibility of point-of-care ankle ultrasound examination in patients with recurrent ankle sprain and chronic ankle instability: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Injury. 2017;48(10):2323–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.07.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alves T, Dong Q, Jacobson J, Yablon C, Gandikota G. Normal and injured ankle ligaments on ultrasonography with magnetic resonance imaging correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 2018;5:6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14716.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinto A, Pinto F, Faggian A, Rubini G, Caranci F, Macarini L, et al. Sources of error in emergency ultrasonography. Crit Ultrasound J. 2013;5(Suppl 1):S1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2036-7902-5-S1-S1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, the P-DTAG, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA. 2018;319(4):388–96.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97–111.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(2):105–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Margetic P, Pavic R. Comparative assessment of the acute ankle injury by ultrasound and magnetic resonance. Coll Antropol. 2012;36(2):605–10.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Croy T, Saliba S, Saliba E, Anderson MW, Hertel J. Differences in lateral ankle laxity measured via stress ultrasonography in individuals with chronic ankle instability, ankle sprain copers, and healthy individuals. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(7):593–600.  https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2012.3923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Croy T, Saliba S, Saliba E, Anderson MW, Hertel J. Talofibular interval changes after acute ankle sprain: a stress ultrasonography study of ankle laxity. J Sport Rehabil. 2013;22(4):257–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hsu CC, Tsai WC, Chen CPC, Chen MJL, Tang SFT, Shih L. Ultrasonographic examination for inversion ankle sprains associated with osseous injuries. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;85(10):785–92.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000237875.90254.4e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu K, Gustavsen G, Royer T, Wikstrom EA, Glutting J, Kaminski TW. Increased ligament thickness in previously sprained ankles as measured by musculoskeletal ultrasound. J Athl Train. 2015;50(2):193–8.  https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maeda M, Maeda N, Takaoka T, Tanaka Y. Sonographic findings of chondral avulsion fractures of the lateral ankle ligaments in children. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(2):421–32.  https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.15.09008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mizrahi DJ, Nazarian LN, Parker L. Evaluation of the anterior talofibular ligament via stress sonography in asymptomatic and symptomatic populations. J Ultrasound Med. 2018;37(8):1957–63.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yildizgoren MT, Velioglu O, Demetgul O, Turhanoglu AD. Assessment of the anterior talofibular ligament thickness in patients with chronic stroke: an ultrasonographic study. J Med Ultrasound. 2017;25(3):145–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmu.2017.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guillodo Y, Riban P, Guennoc X, Dubrana F, Saraux A. Usefulness of ultrasonographic detection of talocrural effusion in ankle sprains. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(6):831–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Farley FA, Kuhns L, Jacobson JA, DiPietro M. Ultrasound examination of ankle injuries in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21(5):604–7.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gremeaux V, Coudreuse JM, Collado H, Cohen M, Bensoussan L, Fondarai J, et al. Comparative study of clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation of lateral collateral ligament sprains of the ankle. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2009;49(3):285–91.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gün C, Ünlüer EE, Vandenberk N, Karagöz A, Sentürk GO, Oyar O. Bedside ultrasonography by emergency physicians for anterior talofibular ligament injury. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2013;6(3):195–8.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2700.115340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jones S, Colaco K, Fischer J, Stimec J, Kwan C, Boutis K. Accuracy of point-of-care ultrasonography for pediatric ankle sprain injuries. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2018;34(12):842–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/pec.0000000000001130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee KT, Park YU, Jegal H, Park JW, Choi JP, Kim JS. New method of diagnosis for chronic ankle instability: comparison of manual anterior drawer test, stress radiography and stress ultrasound. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(7):1701–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2690-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Milz P, Milz S, Steinborn M, Mittlmeier T, Putz R, Reiser M. Lateral ankle ligaments and tibiofibular syndesmosis. 13-MHz high-frequency sonography and MRI compared in 20 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69(1):51–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wiebking U, Pacha TO, Jagodzinski M. An accuracy evaluation of clinical, arthrometric, and stress-sonographic acute ankle instability examinations. Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;21(1):42–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2014.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Campbell DG, Menz A, Isaacs J. Dynamic ankle ultrasonography. A new imaging technique for acute ankle ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med. 1994;22(6):855–8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/036354659402200620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheng Y, Cai Y, Wang Y. Value of ultrasonography for detecting chronic injury of the lateral ligaments of the ankle joint compared with ultrasonography findings. Br J Radiol. 2014;87(1033):20130406.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cho JH, Lee DH, Song HK, Bang JY, Lee KT, Park YU. Value of stress ultrasound for the diagnosis of chronic ankle instability compared to manual anterior drawer test, stress radiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(4):1022–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3828-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Elkaïm M, Thès A, Lopes R, Andrieu M, Cordier G, Molinier F, et al. Agreement between arthroscopic and imaging study findings in chronic anterior talo-fibular ligament injuries. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(8):S213–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Friedrich JM, Schnarkowski P, Rubenacker S, Wallner B. Ultrasonography of capsular morphology in normal and traumatic ankle joints. J Clin Ultrasound. 1993;21(3):179–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hua Y, Yang Y, Chen S, Cai Y. Ultrasound examination for the diagnosis of chronic anterior talofibular ligament injury. Acta Radiol. 2012;53(10):1142–5.  https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2012.120171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McCarthy CL, Wilson DJ, Coltman TP. Anterolateral ankle impingement: findings and diagnostic accuracy with ultrasound imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;37(3):209–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-007-0411-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oae K, Takao M, Uchio Y, Ochi M. Evaluation of anterior talofibular ligament injury with stress radiography, ultrasonography and MR imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 2010;39(1):41–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-009-0767-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Szczepaniak J, Ciszkowska-Łysoń B, Śmigielski R, Zdanowicz U. Wartość badania ultrasonograficznego w ocenie świeżych uszkodzeń więzadła skokowo-strzałkowego przedniego u dzieci. J Ultrasonography. 2015;15(62):259–66.  https://doi.org/10.15557/jou.2015.0022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van Dijk CN, Mol BW, Lim LS, Marti RK, Bossuyt PM. Diagnosis of ligament rupture of the ankle joint. Physical examination, arthrography, stress radiography and sonography compared in 160 patients after inversion trauma. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67(6):566–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Raatikainen T, Putkonen M, Puranen J. Arthrography, clinical examination, and stress radiograph in the diagnosis of acute injury to the lateral ligaments of the ankle. Am J Sports Med. 1992;20(1):2–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/036354659202000102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    van Dijk CN, Lim LS, Bossuyt PM, Marti RK. Physical examination is sufficient for the diagnosis of sprained ankles. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1996;78(6):958–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    De Maeseneer M, Marcelis S, Jager T, Shahabpour M, Van Roy P, Weaver J, et al. Sonography of the normal ankle: a target approach using skeletal reference points. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):487–95.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Glaser F, Friedl W, Welk E. The value of ultrasound in the diagnosis of capsule ligament injuries of the upper ankle joint. Unfallchirurg. 1989;92(11):540–6.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Guo C, Zhu Y, Hu M, Deng L, Xu X. Reliability of measurements on lateral ankle radiographs. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:297.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1150-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Howard ZD, Noble VE, Marill KA, Sajed D, Rodrigues M, Bertuzzi B, et al. Bedside ultrasound maximizes patient satisfaction. J Emerg Med. 2014;46(1):46–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.05.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Melniker LA, Leibner E, McKenney MG, Lopez P, Briggs WM, Mancuso CA. Randomized controlled clinical trial of point-of-care, limited ultrasonography for trauma in the emergency department: the first sonography outcomes assessment program trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;48(3):227–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(8):749–57.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0909487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Guidelines U. Emergency, point-of-care and clinical ultrasound guidelines in medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):e27–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.08.457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Emergency MedicineEwha Womans University Mokdong HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at GangdongKyung Hee University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations