To give a systematic overview of current diagnostic imaging options for assessment of the distal tibio-fibular syndesmosis.

A systematic literature search across the following sources was performed: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and SpringerLink. Forty-two articles were included and subdivided into three groups: group one consists of studies using conventional radiographs (22 articles), group two includes studies using computed tomography (CT) scans (15 articles), and group three comprises studies using magnet resonance imaging (MRI, 9 articles).The following data were extracted: imaging modality, measurement method, number of participants and ankles included, average age of participants, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the measurement technique. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the methodological quality.

The three most common techniques used for assessment of the syndesmosis in conventional radiographs are the tibio-fibular clear space (TFCS), the tibio-fibular overlap (TFO), and the medial clear space (MCS). Regarding CT scans, the tibio-fibular width (axial images) was most commonly used. Most of the MRI studies used direct assessment of syndesmotic integrity. Overall, the included studies show low probability of bias and are applicable in daily practice.

Conventional radiographs cannot predict syndesmotic injuries reliably. CT scans outperform plain radiographs in detecting syndesmotic mal-reduction. Additionally, the syndesmotic interval can be assessed in greater detail by CT. MRI measurements achieve a sensitivity and specificity of nearly 100%; however, correlating MRI findings with patients' complaints is difficult, and utility with subtle syndesmotic instability needs further investigation. Overall, the methodological quality of these studies was satisfactory.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
0% Article relates to my practice (0/0)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

0% Yes (0/0)
0% No (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/0)
0% No (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/0)
0% Level 2 (0/0)
0% Level 3 (0/0)
0% Level 4 (0/0)
0% Level 5 (0/0)