Evaluation of posterior tibial pathology: comparison of sonography and MR imaging
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
To compare the results of sonographic (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in detecting pathology of the posterior tibial tendon (PTT) in patients with PTT dysfunction.
Twenty-two ankles that were clinically suspected by the orthopedic surgeon to have PTT dysfunction were evaluated with US (10 MHz linear-array transducer) and 1.5 T MR examinations within the same day. The US and MR studies were conducted and interpreted by two sonologists and two musculoskeletal radiologists who were masked to the results of the other study. Four patients had bilateral studies. Classic clinical findings were utilized as a standard reference in staging PTT dysfunction.
Eighteen women (mean age 61 years, age range 39―86 years).
Based on a commonly accepted staging system for PTT dysfunction, 6 ankles were classified as stage I, 11 ankles as stage II, and 5 ankles as stage III. All stage I ankles were interpreted as having an intact PTT by both MR imaging and US. In the stage II and III tendons, MR imaging demonstrated PTT tears in 12 of 22 examinations, including 11 partial tears and 1 complete tear. US demonstrated PTT tears in 8 of 22 examinations, including 8 partial tears and no complete tears. The findings of US and MR imaging were consistent in 17 of 22 cases (77%). The five inconsistencies were as follows: in 4 cases, US reported tendinosis when MR imaging interpreted partial tears (no change in management); in one case, US diagnosed a partial tear when MR reported a complete tear of the PTT (no change in management because the clinical findings were more consistent with a partial tear).
In this study, US and MR imaging of the PTT were concordant in the majority of cases. US was slightly less sensitive than MR imaging for PTT pathology, but these discrepancies did not affect clinical management.
- Alexander IJ, Johnson KA, Berquist TH. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of disruption of the posterior tibial tendon. Foot Ankle 1987; 8:144–147.
- Conti SF, Michelson J, Jahss M. Clinical significance of magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative planning for reconstruction of posterior tibial tendon ruptures. Foot Ankle 1992; 13:208–214.
- Waitches GM, Rockett M, Brage M, Sudakoff G. Ultrasonographic-surgical correlation of ankle tendon tears. J Ultrasound Med 1998; 17:249–256.
- Conti SF. Posterior tibial tendon problems in athletes. Orthop Clin North Am 1994; 25:109–121.
- Kerr R, Forrester DM, Kingston S. Magnetic resonance imaging of foot and ankle trauma. Orthop Clin North Am 1990; 21:591–601.
- Khoury NJ, El-Khoury GY, Saltzman CL, Brandser EA. MR imaging of posterior tibial tendon dysfunction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:675–682.
- Schweitzer ME, Caccese R, Karasick D, Wapner KL, Mitchell DG. Posterior tibial tendon tears: utility of secondary signs for MR imaging diagnosis. Radiology 1993; 188:655–659.
- Beltran J, Noto AM, Mosure JC, Shamam OM, Weiss KL, Zuelzer WA. Ankle: surface coil MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 1986; 161:203–209.
- Khoury NJ, El-Khoury GY, Saltzman CL, Kathol MH. Peroneus longus and brevis tendon tears: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 1996; 200:833–841.
- Rosenberg ZS, Cheung Y, Jahss MH, Noto AM, Norman A, Leeds NE. Rupture of posterior tibial tendon: CT and MR imaging with surgical correlation. Radiology 1988; 169:229–235.
- Miller SD, Van Holsbeeck M, Boruta PM, Wu KK, Katcherian DA. Ultrasound in the diagnosis of posterior tibial tendon pathology. Foot Ankle Int 1996; 17:555–558.
- Hsu TC, Wang CL, Wang TG, Chiang IP, Hsieh FJ. Ultrasonographic examination of the posterior tibial tendon. Foot Ankle Int 1997; 18:34–38.
- Rockett MS, Waitches G, Sudakoff G, Brage M. Use of ultrasonography versus magnetic resonance imaging for tendon abnormalities around the ankle. Foot Ankle Int 1998; 19:604–612.
- Shetty M, Fessell DP, Femino JE, Jacobson JA, Lin J, Jamadar D. Sonography of ankle tendon impingement with surgical correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:949–953.
- Chen YJ, Liang SC. Diagnostic efficacy of ultrasonography in stage I posterior tibial tendon dysfunction: sonographic-surgical correlation. J Ultrasound Med 1997; 16:417–423.
- Therman H, Hoffmann R, Zwipp H, Tscherne H. The use of ultrasonography in the foot and ankle. Foot Ankle 1992; 13:386–390.
- Kainberger F, Mittermaier F, Seidl G, Parth E, Weinstabl R. Imaging of tendons: adaptation, degeneration, rupture. Eur J Radiol 1997; 25:209–222. CrossRef
- Bureau NJ, Roederer G. Sonography of Achilles tendon xanthomas in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:745–749.
- Johnson KA, Strom DE. Tibialis posterior tendon dysfunction. Clin Orthop 1989; 239:196–206.
- Mann RA, Thompson FM. Rupture of the posterior tibial tendon causing flat foot. Surgical treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67:556–561.
- Funk DA, Cass JR, Johnson KA. Acquired adult flat foot secondary to posterior tendon pathology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986; 68:95–102.
- Holmes GB, Mann RA. Possible epidemiological factors associated with rupture of the posterior tibial tendon. Foot Ankle 1992; 13:70–79.
- Hogan JF. Posterior tibial tendon dysfunction and MRI. J Foot Ankle Surg 1993; 32:467–472.
- Mink JH, Deutsch AL, Kerr R. Tendon injuries of the lower extremity: magnetic resonance assessment. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1991; 3:23–28.
- Pomeroy GC, Pike RH, Beals TC, Manoli A. Acquired flatfoot in adults due to dysfunction of the posterior tibial tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81:1173–1182.
- Henceroth WD, Deyerle WM. The acquired unilateral flatfoot in the adult: some causative factors. Foot Ankle 1982; 2:304–308.
- Schweitzer ME, Karasick D. MR imaging of disorders of the posterior tibial tendon. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:627–635.
- Schweitzer ME, Eid ME, Deely DM, Wapner KL, Hecht PJ. Using MR imaging to differentiate peroneal splits from other peroneal disorders. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:129–133.
- Lim PS, Schweitzer ME, Deely DM, et al. Posterior tibial tendon dysfunction: secondary MR signs. Foot Ankle Int 1997; 18:658–663.
- Fornage BD, Rifkin MD. Ultrasound examination of tendons. Radiol Clin North Am 1988; 26:87–107.
- Stephenson CA, Seibert JJ, McAndrew MP, Glasier CM, Leithiser RE, Iqbal V. Sonographic diagnosis of tenosynovitis of the posterior tibial tendon. J Clin Ultrasound 1990; 18:114–116.
- Coakley FV, Samanta AK, Finlay DB. Ultrasonography of the tibialis posterior tendon in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1994; 33:273–277.
- Martinoli C, Derchi LE, Pastorino C, Bertolotto M, Silvestri E. Analysis of echotexture of tendons with US. Radiology 1993; 186:839–843.
- Gerling MC, Pfirrmann CW, Farooki S, et al. Posterior tibialis tendon tears: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography for the detection of surgically created longitudinal tears in cadavers. Invest Radiol 2003; 38:51–56. CrossRef
- Premkumar A, Perry MB, Dwyer AJ, et al. Sonography and MR imaging of posterior tibial tendinopathy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:223–232.
- Evaluation of posterior tibial pathology: comparison of sonography and MR imaging
Volume 34, Issue 7 , pp 375-380
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Posterior tibial tendon
- Tibialis posterior tendon
- Musculoskeletal sonography
- Ankle MRI
- Ankle ultrasound
- PTT dysfunction
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
- 2. 2024 Capri Lane, Mount Dora, FL 32757, USA
- 4. Department of Radiology, NYU Medical Center, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY 10003, USA
- 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA