Diagnosing syndesmotic instability with dynamic ultrasound – establishing the natural variations in normal motion

• Main Authors: N. C. Hagemeijer, J. Saengsin, S. H. Chang, G. R. Waryasz, G. M.M.J. Kerkhoffs, D. Guss, C. W. DiGiovanni
• Format: Journal
• Published: 2020
• Subjects: Medicine
• Online Access: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85088995898&origin=inward; http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/70972
• Institution: Chiang Mai University

© 2020 Background: Syndesmotic instability, when subtle, is challenging to diagnose and often requires visualization of the syndesmosis during applied stress. The primary aim was to assess normal distal tibiofibular motion in the sagittal plane using dynamic ultrasound under stress conditions. The secondary aim was to evaluate the reliability of dynamic stress ultrasonography. Methods: Twenty-eight participants without history of ankle injury were included. Sagittal fibular translation was generated by applying a manual force to the fibula from anterior to posterior and from posterior to anterior. Distance between the ultrasound probe and the fibula was taken at two predefined points: 1) no force applied and, 2) during maximum force application. Each participant was scanned twice by two independent examiners, and each scan was analysed by two independent examiners. Three participants were scanned a second time by the same examiner who analysed these films twice to assess for intraobserver agreement. Means of exam 1 versus exam 2 were compared using a mixed linear model. Agreement among observers was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) interpreted as 0.4, poor; 0.4 〈 ICC < 0.59, acceptable; 0.6 < ICC < 0.74, good; ICC 〉 0.74, excellent. Results: Fifty-six ankles were included in the study, including 16 (57%) males and 12 (42%) females. Average anterior to posterior fibular sagittal translation was 0.89 ± 0.6 mm and posterior to anterior fibular sagittal translation was 0.49 ± 1.1 mm. Anterior to posterior translation means of exam 1 versus exam 2 showed no significant differences, means of 0.81 mm [0.7–0.9] versus 0.77 mm [0.7–1.0], and posterior to anterior means [95% CI] of 0.42 mm [0.3–0.5] versus 0.44 mm [0.2–0.6] (p-values 0.416 and 0.758, respectively). Excellent Inter- and intraobserver agreement was found for all measurements taken. Conclusion: Dynamic ultrasound allows one to effectively and readily evaluate sagittal translation of the distal tibiofibular joint. It is able to afford bilateral comparisons, which becomes critical as the amount of syndesmotic instability approaches greater degrees of subtlety.