Musculoskeletal Ultrasound of the Ankle and Foot

Use of a comprehensive systemic ultrasound evaluation in the diagnosis and analysis of acute lateral region ankle sprain

BACKGROUND

For the diagnosis of acute lateral ankle sprain, many clinicians use ultrasound; they typically focus on the lateral ligament complex, which is the most common site of lesions in ankle sprain. However, this approach risks missing other foot and ankle lesions. The present study aimed to provide and analyze the results of a new ultrasound method of diagnosis for acute lateral ankle sprain which can thoroughly investigate overall lesions of the foot and ankle.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional cohort study of 123 patients who underwent diagnostic ultrasound within 1 week of acute lateral ankle injury was performed. Causes of ankle sprain, incidence and severity of each ligament injury, location of anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) injury, accompanying ligament injury, and occult fracture were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 102 cases of ATFL injuries, 60 (58.5%) had islolated ATFL injury, 28 (27.5%) had accompanying calcaneofibular ligament injury (CFL), and 14 (13.7%) had accompanying midtarsal or syndesmosis injury. ATFL injuries occurred on the fibula attachment in 48 (47.1%) cases, ligament mid-substance in 24 (23.5%) cases, and talus attachment in 30 (29.4%) cases. Among the 165 lesions from 123 cases, injuries of the fourth or fifth dorsal tarsometatarsal (12 cases, 7.3%), bifurcate (11 cases, 6.7%), and anterior tibiofibular (11 cases, 6.7%) ligaments were not rare.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that an ultrasound examination involving investigation of the midtarsal joint and syndesmotic ligament, as well as the ATFL and CFL, is useful for comprehensive, systemic diagnosis of acute lateral ankle sprain.

The 2017 EULAR standardised procedures for ultrasound imaging in rheumatology

BACKGROUND

In 2001, the European League Against Rheumatism developed and disseminated the first guidelines for musculoskeletal (MS) ultrasound (US) in rheumatology. Fifteen years later, the dramatic expansion of new data on MSUS in the literature coupled with technological developments in US imaging has necessitated an update of these guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To update the existing MSUS guidelines in rheumatology as well as to extend their scope to other anatomic structures relevant for rheumatology.

METHODS

The project consisted of the following steps: (1) a systematic literature review of MSUS evaluable structures; (2) a Delphi survey among rheumatologist and radiologist experts in MSUS to select MS and non-MS anatomic structures evaluable by US that are relevant to rheumatology, to select abnormalities evaluable by US and to prioritise these pathologies for rheumatology and (3) a nominal group technique to achieve consensus on the US scanning procedures and to produce an electronic illustrated manual (ie, App of these procedures).

RESULTS

Structures from nine MS and non-MS areas (ie, shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand, hip, knee, ankle and foot, peripheral nerves, salivary glands and vessels) were selected for MSUS in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) and their detailed scanning procedures (ie, patient position, probe placement, scanning method and bony/other landmarks) were used to produce the App. In addition, US evaluable abnormalities present in RMD for each anatomic structure and their relevance for rheumatology were agreed on by the MSUS experts.

CONCLUSIONS

This task force has produced a consensus-based comprehensive and practical framework on standardised procedures for MSUS imaging in rheumatology.