PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2018 | 18 | 75 | 316–324
Article title

Porównanie ultrasonografii wysokiej rozdzielczości z wynikiem badania klinicznego u chorych z bólem stawu skokowego

Content
Title variants
EN
Comparison of high resolution ultrasonography with clinical findings in patients with ankle pain
Languages of publication
PL EN
Abstracts
EN
Cel: Celem pracy była analiza dokładności diagnostycznej ultrasonografii wysokiej rozdzielczości w ocenie bolesnego stawu skokowego w porównaniu z wynikami badania klinicznego. Materiał i metody: Prospektywnym badaniem objęto 136 chorych z bólem stawu skokowego w wywiadzie, skierowanych do Zakładu Radiodiagnostyki i Diagnostyki Obrazowej w celu wykonania badania ultrasonograficznego. Analiza statystyczna: Wyniki badania ultrasonograficznego i klinicznego porównano za pomocą testu McNemara. Wyniki: Oceniono 136 chorych z łącznie 218 patologiami stawu skokowego. W tej grupie 178 patologii podejrzewano klinicznie, a 206 rozpoznano w badaniu ultrasonograficznym. Różnica była istotna statystycznie (wartość p = 0,000). Wnioski: Ultrasonografia to znakomite narzędzie do oceny chorych zgłaszających się z bólem stawu skokowego, szczególnie w przypadkach nieprawidłowości dotyczących więzadeł bocznych, patologii ścięgien, wysięku oraz innych zmian. Może stanowić badanie pierwszego rzutu ze względu na możliwość szybkiej, dynamicznej i niedrogiej oceny stawu. Jednak metoda ta ma ograniczenia w obrazowaniu uszkodzeń więzadła skokowo-strzałkowego tylnego, nieprawidłowości szpiku kostnego oraz głęboko umiejscowionych patologii, w których przypadku należy wykonać badanie rezonansem magnetycznym.
PL
Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of high resolution ultrasonography for the assessment of painful ankle joint as compared with the clinical findings. Material and Methods: A prospective study was conducted on 136 patients having history of ankle pain and referred to the Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging for ultrasonography. Statistical analysis: Comparison of ultrasonography findings and clinical findings was done using McNemar Test. Results: 136 patients with 218 pathologies of the ankle joint were analyzed. Of these, 178 pathologies were clinically suspected, but 206 were diagnosed with ultrasonography. This difference was statistically significant (p value = 0.000). Conclusion: Ultrasonography is an excellent tool for evaluating patients with ankle pain, especially in cases of lateral ligament pathologies, tendinous pathologies, joint effusion, and miscellaneous pathologies. It can be used as the primary imaging investigation because it allows a rapid, dynamic, and cost-effective examination of the ankle joint. However, ultrasonography has limitations when using it to evaluate a suspected posterior talofibular ligament injury, marrow abnormalities, and deep seated pathologies, for which MRI should be incorporated for a diagnosis.
Discipline
Publisher

Year
Volume
18
Issue
75
Pages
316–324
Physical description
Contributors
  • Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Sri Guru Ram Das University of Health Sciences, Vallah, Sri Amritsar, Pendżab, Indie
  • Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Sri Guru Ram Das University of Health Sciences, Vallah, Sri Amritsar, Pendżab, Indie
author
  • Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Sri Guru Ram Das University of Health Sciences, Vallah, Sri Amritsar, Pendżab, Indie
author
  • Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Sri Guru Ram Das University of Health Sciences, Vallah, Sri Amritsar, Pendżab, Indie
References
  • 1. Haaga J: Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the whole body. Mosby, Philadelphia 2009.
  • 2. Kumar S, Verma V, Singh H, Rawat A: Spectrum of high-resolution sonographic findings in painful ankle and foot. Astrocyte 2017; 3: 213– 220.
  • 3. Alazzawi S, Sukeik M, King D, Vemulapalli K: Foot and ankle history and clinical examination: A guide to everyday practice. World J Orthop 2017; 8: 21–29.
  • 4. Szczepaniak J, Ciszkowska-Łysoń B, Śmigielski R, Zdanowicz U: Value of ultrasonography in assessment of recent injury of anterior talofibular ligament in children. J Ultrason 2015; 15: 259–266.
  • 5. Thompson TC, Doherty JH: Spontaneous rupture of tendon of Achilles: A new clinical diagnostic test. J Trauma 1962; 2: 126–129.
  • 6. Saenz R, Ries S, Giese J, Knapp D: MRI of ankle and hindfoot pain. J Am Osteopath Coll Radiol 2015; 4: 5–15.
  • 7. Blankstein A: Ultrasound in the diagnosis of clinical orthopedics: The orthopedic stethoscope. World J Orthop 2011; 2: 13–24.
  • 8. Precerutti M, Bonardi M, Ferrozzi G, Draghi F: Sonographic anatomy of the ankle. J Ultrasound 2013; 17: 79–87.
  • 9. Hua Y, Yang Y, Chen S, Cai Y: Ultrasound examination for the diagnosis of chronic anterior talofibular ligament injury. Acta Radiol 2012; 53: 1142–1145.
  • 10. Rubin DA, Tishkoff NW, Britton CA, Conti SF, Towers JD: Anterolateral soft-tissue impingement in the ankle: Diagnosis using MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169: 829–835.
  • 11. Pugia M, Middel C, Seward S, Pollock J, Hall R, Lowe L et al.: Comparison of acute swelling and function in subjects with lateral ankle injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2001; 31: 384–388.
  • 12. Carretta G, De Nicola T, Gongolo R, Villabruna M: [Magnetic resonance imaging in tendon and ligament injuries of ankle. Our personal experience]. Radiol Med 1996; 91: 563–569.
  • 13. Artul S, Habib G: Ultrasound findings of the painful ankle and foot. J Clin Imaging Sci 2014; 4: 25–29.
  • 14. Ibrahim NM, Elsaeed HH: Lesions of the Achilles tendon: Evaluation with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Imaging Sci 2013; 44: 581–587.
  • 15. Kauwe M: Acute Achilles tendon rupture: Clinical evaluation, conservative management, and early active rehabilitation. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2017; 34: 229–243.
  • 16. Kayser R, Mahlfeld K, Heyde CE: Partial rupture of the proximal Achilles tendon: A differential diagnostic problem in ultrasound imaging. Br J Sports Med 2005; 39: 838–842.
  • 17. Amlang M, Zwipp H, Friedrich A, Peaden A, Bunk A, Rammelt S: Ultrasonographic classification of Achilles tendon ruptures as a rationale for individual treatment selection. ISRN Orthop 2011; 2011: 869703.
  • 18. Taki H, Sakamoto T, Yamakawa M, Shiina T, Nagae K, Sato T: Small calcification depiction in ultrasound B-mode images using decorrelation of echoes caused by forward scattered waves. J Med Ultrason 2011; 38: 73–80.
  • 19. El-Liethy N, Kamal H: High resolution ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of tendino-ligamentous injuries around ankle joint. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 2016; 47: 543–555.
  • 20. Pereira ALN, dos Santos Pastori M, dos Santos Vianna de Matos Leite N, Rombaldi Pereira T, Thais Kawamoto T, Kefler Ferreira K et al.: Ankle tenosynovitis in rheumatoid arthritis: Clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. Revista da Faculdade de Ciências Médicas de Sorocaba 2016; 18: 161–164.
  • 21. Park JW, Lee SJ, Choo HJ, Kim SK, Gwak HC, Lee SM: Ultrasonography of the ankle joint. Ultrasonography 2017; 36: 321–335.
  • 22. Grassi W, Lamanna G, Farina A, Cervini C: Synovitis of small joints: sonographic guided diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Ann Rheum Dis 1999; 58: 595–597.
  • 23. Rosenberg Z, Beltran J, Bencardino J: From the RSNA Refresher Courses. Radiological Society of North America. MR imaging of the ankle and foot. Radiographics 2000; 20 (Spec No): S153–S179.
  • 24. Croy T, Koppenhaver S, Saliba S, Hertel J: Anterior talocrural joint laxity: Diagnostic accuracy of the anterior drawer test of the ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013; 43: 911–919.
  • 25. 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: 20130406.
  • 26. Radwan A, Bakowski J, Dew S, Greenwald B, Hyde E, Webber N: Effectiveness of ultrasonography in diagnosing chronic lateral ankle instability: A systematic review. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2016; 11: 164– 174.
  • 27. Sconfienza L, Orlandi D, Lacelli F, Serafini G, Silvestri E: Dynamic high-resolution US of ankle and midfoot ligaments: normal anatomic structure and imaging technique. Radiographics 2015; 35: 164–178.
  • 28. 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: 51–55.
  • 29. Chiang Y, Wang T, Hsieh S: Application of ultrasound in sports injury. J Med Ultrasound 2013; 21: 1–8.
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-163f9f26-2c43-401c-be3e-a1d038ecc3c2
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.