4.0 Article

Reliability, Surgeon Preferences, and Eye-Tracking Assessment of the Stress Examination of the Tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) Joint Complex

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOT & ANKLE SURGERY
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages 93-96

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2018.08.015

Keywords

diagnostic testing; dynamic stress testing; ligament rupture; Lisfranc ligament; tarsal-metatarsal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The primary objective of this investigation was to determine the level of agreement and reliability of the stress examination of the Lisfranc tarsometatarsal joint complex. Secondary objectives were to determine surgeon preferences with respect to this testing and to use gaze recognition software to perform an eye-tracking assessment during the performance of the test. Twelve foot and ankle surgeons, 12 residents, and 12 students were shown 2 intraoperative fluoroscopic still images and 1 video of the stress examination of the tarsometatarsal joint complex using stress abduction of the forefoot on the rearfoot. Participants were asked to evaluate the result as being positive or negative for tarsometatarsal joint stability. The overall reliability of the interpretation of the stress examination was a kappa of 0.281 (surgeons 0.182; residents 0.423; students 0.256) indicating fair agreement. Survey results indicated wide variability in the perioperative preferences and protocols of surgeons dealing with the evaluation and treatment of the tarsometatarsal joint. Eye-tracking results also demonstrated variability in the anatomic structures of interest focused on during performance of this testing. The results of this investigation provide evidence of reliability well below what would be expected of a gold standard test during stress examination of the Lisfranc tarsometatarsal joint complex. These results indicate that future scientific endeavors are required to standardize the performance and interpretation of this testing. (C) 2018 by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available