Radiographic Value of the Lisfranc Diastasis in a Standardized Population

Introduction. Injury to the Lisfranc’s joint, in particular to the second metatarsal–medial cuneiform (second MMC) joint, can be difficult to evaluate, especially in subtle Lisfranc injuries. The purpose of this study was to determine the value of the Lisfranc joint width (diastasis) of the adult fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Foot and ankle specialist 2020-12, Vol.13 (6), p.494-501
Hauptverfasser: Thomas, James L., Kopiec, Adam, Mark, Kunkel, Chandler, L. Mae
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 501
container_issue 6
container_start_page 494
container_title Foot and ankle specialist
container_volume 13
creator Thomas, James L.
Kopiec, Adam
Mark, Kunkel
Chandler, L. Mae
description Introduction. Injury to the Lisfranc’s joint, in particular to the second metatarsal–medial cuneiform (second MMC) joint, can be difficult to evaluate, especially in subtle Lisfranc injuries. The purpose of this study was to determine the value of the Lisfranc joint width (diastasis) of the adult foot in a standardized population thereby establishing a potential reference range when investigating this area for potential injury. Methods. The 2nd MMC joint in 50 men and 50 women was evaluated. Individuals with a history of foot/ankle pain, previous foot/ankle operation or fracture, or a history of systemic disease were excluded from the study. Bilateral weightbearing digital anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs were taken using a standardized method. Results. The mean 2nd MMC diastasis in 200 feet was 5.6 mm (95% CI 5.39-5.81). In the female population, the mean 2nd MMC diastasis was 5.8 mm (95% CI 5.51-6.09) as compared with 5.6 mm (95% CI 5.31-5.89) in males. The mean distance between the fifth metatarsal base and first cuneiform in the entire study population was 16.3 mm (95% CI 15.57-17.03). Conclusion. This study helps define baseline measurements of the Lisfranc joint for the general population, which can provide a standard measurement against which suspected foot injuries can be compared. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/1938640019890738
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2320873886</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1938640019890738</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2320873886</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-623897d5d48752013dde3a20f2ead5e354d756be3b8fb1ddb5c7b3b1471d70ed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kLtPwzAQhy0EoqWwMyGPLAE7jh8ZUXlKlUC81ugSX1pXaVzsZIC_nlQtDEhMd7r77ifdR8gpZxeca33Jc2FUxhjPTc60MHtkvBklWgm1v-s3-xE5inHJmGIqU4dkJLjOOZdyTB6ewTo_D7BeuIq-Q9Mj9TXtFkhnLtYB2opeO4gdRBepaynQlw5aC8G6L7T0ya_7Bjrn22NyUEMT8WRXJ-Tt9uZ1ep_MHu8eplezpBJCd4lKhcm1lTYzWqaMC2tRQMrqFMFKFDKzWqoSRWnqkltbykqXouSZ5lYztGJCzre56-A_eoxdsXKxwqaBFn0fi1SkzAwujBpQtkWr4GMMWBfr4FYQPgvOio3A4q_A4eRsl96XK7S_Bz_GBiDZAhHmWCx9H9rh2_8DvwHppned</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2320873886</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Radiographic Value of the Lisfranc Diastasis in a Standardized Population</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Thomas, James L. ; Kopiec, Adam ; Mark, Kunkel ; Chandler, L. Mae</creator><creatorcontrib>Thomas, James L. ; Kopiec, Adam ; Mark, Kunkel ; Chandler, L. Mae</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction. Injury to the Lisfranc’s joint, in particular to the second metatarsal–medial cuneiform (second MMC) joint, can be difficult to evaluate, especially in subtle Lisfranc injuries. The purpose of this study was to determine the value of the Lisfranc joint width (diastasis) of the adult foot in a standardized population thereby establishing a potential reference range when investigating this area for potential injury. Methods. The 2nd MMC joint in 50 men and 50 women was evaluated. Individuals with a history of foot/ankle pain, previous foot/ankle operation or fracture, or a history of systemic disease were excluded from the study. Bilateral weightbearing digital anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs were taken using a standardized method. Results. The mean 2nd MMC diastasis in 200 feet was 5.6 mm (95% CI 5.39-5.81). In the female population, the mean 2nd MMC diastasis was 5.8 mm (95% CI 5.51-6.09) as compared with 5.6 mm (95% CI 5.31-5.89) in males. The mean distance between the fifth metatarsal base and first cuneiform in the entire study population was 16.3 mm (95% CI 15.57-17.03). Conclusion. This study helps define baseline measurements of the Lisfranc joint for the general population, which can provide a standard measurement against which suspected foot injuries can be compared. Level of Evidence: Level IV.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1938-6400</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-7636</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1938640019890738</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31791155</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Diastasis, Bone - diagnostic imaging ; Diastasis, Bone - etiology ; Female ; Foot Injuries - complications ; Foot Injuries - diagnostic imaging ; Forefoot, Human - diagnostic imaging ; Forefoot, Human - injuries ; Humans ; Male ; Metatarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging ; Metatarsal Bones - injuries ; Middle Aged ; Radiography - standards ; Tarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging ; Tarsal Bones - injuries ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Foot and ankle specialist, 2020-12, Vol.13 (6), p.494-501</ispartof><rights>2019 The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-623897d5d48752013dde3a20f2ead5e354d756be3b8fb1ddb5c7b3b1471d70ed3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-623897d5d48752013dde3a20f2ead5e354d756be3b8fb1ddb5c7b3b1471d70ed3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4346-4924</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1938640019890738$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1938640019890738$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,21802,27907,27908,43604,43605</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31791155$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thomas, James L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kopiec, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mark, Kunkel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandler, L. Mae</creatorcontrib><title>Radiographic Value of the Lisfranc Diastasis in a Standardized Population</title><title>Foot and ankle specialist</title><addtitle>Foot Ankle Spec</addtitle><description>Introduction. Injury to the Lisfranc’s joint, in particular to the second metatarsal–medial cuneiform (second MMC) joint, can be difficult to evaluate, especially in subtle Lisfranc injuries. The purpose of this study was to determine the value of the Lisfranc joint width (diastasis) of the adult foot in a standardized population thereby establishing a potential reference range when investigating this area for potential injury. Methods. The 2nd MMC joint in 50 men and 50 women was evaluated. Individuals with a history of foot/ankle pain, previous foot/ankle operation or fracture, or a history of systemic disease were excluded from the study. Bilateral weightbearing digital anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs were taken using a standardized method. Results. The mean 2nd MMC diastasis in 200 feet was 5.6 mm (95% CI 5.39-5.81). In the female population, the mean 2nd MMC diastasis was 5.8 mm (95% CI 5.51-6.09) as compared with 5.6 mm (95% CI 5.31-5.89) in males. The mean distance between the fifth metatarsal base and first cuneiform in the entire study population was 16.3 mm (95% CI 15.57-17.03). Conclusion. This study helps define baseline measurements of the Lisfranc joint for the general population, which can provide a standard measurement against which suspected foot injuries can be compared. Level of Evidence: Level IV.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Diastasis, Bone - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Diastasis, Bone - etiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Foot Injuries - complications</subject><subject>Foot Injuries - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Forefoot, Human - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Forefoot, Human - injuries</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Metatarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Metatarsal Bones - injuries</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Radiography - standards</subject><subject>Tarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Tarsal Bones - injuries</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1938-6400</issn><issn>1938-7636</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kLtPwzAQhy0EoqWwMyGPLAE7jh8ZUXlKlUC81ugSX1pXaVzsZIC_nlQtDEhMd7r77ifdR8gpZxeca33Jc2FUxhjPTc60MHtkvBklWgm1v-s3-xE5inHJmGIqU4dkJLjOOZdyTB6ewTo_D7BeuIq-Q9Mj9TXtFkhnLtYB2opeO4gdRBepaynQlw5aC8G6L7T0ya_7Bjrn22NyUEMT8WRXJ-Tt9uZ1ep_MHu8eplezpBJCd4lKhcm1lTYzWqaMC2tRQMrqFMFKFDKzWqoSRWnqkltbykqXouSZ5lYztGJCzre56-A_eoxdsXKxwqaBFn0fi1SkzAwujBpQtkWr4GMMWBfr4FYQPgvOio3A4q_A4eRsl96XK7S_Bz_GBiDZAhHmWCx9H9rh2_8DvwHppned</recordid><startdate>202012</startdate><enddate>202012</enddate><creator>Thomas, James L.</creator><creator>Kopiec, Adam</creator><creator>Mark, Kunkel</creator><creator>Chandler, L. Mae</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4346-4924</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202012</creationdate><title>Radiographic Value of the Lisfranc Diastasis in a Standardized Population</title><author>Thomas, James L. ; Kopiec, Adam ; Mark, Kunkel ; Chandler, L. Mae</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-623897d5d48752013dde3a20f2ead5e354d756be3b8fb1ddb5c7b3b1471d70ed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Diastasis, Bone - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Diastasis, Bone - etiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Foot Injuries - complications</topic><topic>Foot Injuries - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Forefoot, Human - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Forefoot, Human - injuries</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Metatarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Metatarsal Bones - injuries</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Radiography - standards</topic><topic>Tarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Tarsal Bones - injuries</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thomas, James L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kopiec, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mark, Kunkel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandler, L. Mae</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Foot and ankle specialist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thomas, James L.</au><au>Kopiec, Adam</au><au>Mark, Kunkel</au><au>Chandler, L. Mae</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Radiographic Value of the Lisfranc Diastasis in a Standardized Population</atitle><jtitle>Foot and ankle specialist</jtitle><addtitle>Foot Ankle Spec</addtitle><date>2020-12</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>494</spage><epage>501</epage><pages>494-501</pages><issn>1938-6400</issn><eissn>1938-7636</eissn><abstract>Introduction. Injury to the Lisfranc’s joint, in particular to the second metatarsal–medial cuneiform (second MMC) joint, can be difficult to evaluate, especially in subtle Lisfranc injuries. The purpose of this study was to determine the value of the Lisfranc joint width (diastasis) of the adult foot in a standardized population thereby establishing a potential reference range when investigating this area for potential injury. Methods. The 2nd MMC joint in 50 men and 50 women was evaluated. Individuals with a history of foot/ankle pain, previous foot/ankle operation or fracture, or a history of systemic disease were excluded from the study. Bilateral weightbearing digital anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs were taken using a standardized method. Results. The mean 2nd MMC diastasis in 200 feet was 5.6 mm (95% CI 5.39-5.81). In the female population, the mean 2nd MMC diastasis was 5.8 mm (95% CI 5.51-6.09) as compared with 5.6 mm (95% CI 5.31-5.89) in males. The mean distance between the fifth metatarsal base and first cuneiform in the entire study population was 16.3 mm (95% CI 15.57-17.03). Conclusion. This study helps define baseline measurements of the Lisfranc joint for the general population, which can provide a standard measurement against which suspected foot injuries can be compared. Level of Evidence: Level IV.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>31791155</pmid><doi>10.1177/1938640019890738</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4346-4924</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1938-6400
ispartof Foot and ankle specialist, 2020-12, Vol.13 (6), p.494-501
issn 1938-6400
1938-7636
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2320873886
source MEDLINE; SAGE Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Diastasis, Bone - diagnostic imaging
Diastasis, Bone - etiology
Female
Foot Injuries - complications
Foot Injuries - diagnostic imaging
Forefoot, Human - diagnostic imaging
Forefoot, Human - injuries
Humans
Male
Metatarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging
Metatarsal Bones - injuries
Middle Aged
Radiography - standards
Tarsal Bones - diagnostic imaging
Tarsal Bones - injuries
Young Adult
title Radiographic Value of the Lisfranc Diastasis in a Standardized Population
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T13%3A16%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Radiographic%20Value%20of%20the%20Lisfranc%20Diastasis%20in%20a%20Standardized%20Population&rft.jtitle=Foot%20and%20ankle%20specialist&rft.au=Thomas,%20James%20L.&rft.date=2020-12&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=494&rft.epage=501&rft.pages=494-501&rft.issn=1938-6400&rft.eissn=1938-7636&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1938640019890738&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2320873886%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2320873886&rft_id=info:pmid/31791155&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1938640019890738&rfr_iscdi=true