The Value of Ultrasound in Acute Ankle Injury: Comparison With MR

  • Petra MargeticEmail author
  • Martina Salaj
  • Ivan Zvonimir Lubina
Original Article



To assess the value of the ultrasound (US) in different grades of acute trauma by comparing with MR.


We analyzed 30 patients, of average age 33, with acute ankle trauma, without fracture on standard radiograms. One week after injury all patients were sent for US. We used linear probe 8–15 MHz. Ten days later, the patients were examined on MR.


Anterior talofibular ligament was normal in 20.6% by US and in 20.3% by MR. Ligament lesion were found by ultrasound in 40%, proven in only 20.6% by MR. Ultrasound diagnosed 33,3% ruptured ligament, MR found 50% rupture of anterior talofibular ligament. In 80.3% cases the calcaneofibular ligament appeared to be intact with both methods. Ultrasound found stretch ligament in 10.6% cases and MR proved that in 10% cases. In other 6.6% cases, MR found complete rupture. Intraarticular effusion was found in 80.3% patients by US and in 86.6% by MR. Lesion of tendon of long peroneal muscle was found in 40.6% patients by both methods. Lesion of tendon of short peroneal muscle was found in 33.3% lesions and proved by MR in only 20.3% cases. In other patients findings were normal. US found 10% lesions of the tendon of anterior tibial muscle and MR found 10.3% lesions. US found 10.6% lesions of tendon of long halucis flexor and MR found 20%. Our results were statistically analyzed by cross-tabs, the Stuart-Maxwell test, Npar tests and the McNemar test.


US proved to be a good and reliable method for diagnosing Grade I and II of ankle sprain, but for proper evaluation of Grade III, MR is recommended.

Key Words

Lower limb injuries Orthopedic trauma 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Miner Hayood T. Magnetic resonance imaging of the musculoskeletal system, Part 7. The ankle. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;336:318–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morvan G, Busson J, Wybier M, Mathieu P. Ultrasound of the ankle. Eur J Ultrasound 2001;14:73–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Milz P, Milz S, Steinborn M, Mittlemeier T, Putz R, Reiser M. Lateral ankle ligaments and tibiofibular syndesmosis. Acta Orthop Scand 1998;69:51–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beltran J, Munchow AM, Khabiri H, Magee DG, Mc Ghee RB, Grossman SB. Ligaments of the lateral aspect of the ankle and sinus tarsi: an MR imaginig study. Radiology 1990;177:455–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morrison WB. Magnetic resonance imaging of sports injuries of the ankle. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2003;14:179–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rasmussen OS. Sonography of tendons. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2000;10:360–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Striepling E, Behrens P, Doniec JM, Havemann D. Ultrasonic assesment to the ankle joint in supination trauma. Aktuelle Traumatol 1991;21:194–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rawool NK, Nazarian LN. Ultrasound of the ankle and foot. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:275–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morvan G, Busson J, Wybier M, Mathieu P. Ultrasound of the ankle. Eur J Ultrasound 2001;14:73–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peetrons PA, Silvestre A, Cohen M, Creteuer V. Ultrasonography of ankle ligaments. Can Assoc Radiol J 2002;53:6–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simanowski JH. Ultrasound examination of fibular ligament ruptures. Orthopade 2002;31:317–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geusens E, Pans S, van Breuseghem I, Brys P. Ultrasound in acute trauma of the ankle and hindfoot. Emerg Radiol 2002;9:283–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brasseur JL. Ligament pathology of the ankle joint. JBR-BTR 2003;86:96–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams GN, Jones MH, Amendola A. Syndesmotic ankle sprains in athletes. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1197–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin CF, Gross ML, Weinhold P. Ankle syndesmosis injuries: anatomy, biomechanics, mechanism of injury and clinical guidelines for diagnosis and intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36:372–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grass R, Herzmann K, Biewener A, Zwipp H. Injuries of the inferior tibiofibular syndesmosis. Unfallchirurg 2000;103:520–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ericsson E. Treatment of lateral ankle sprains. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2002;10:329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lagalla R, Iovane A, Midiri M, Lo Casto A, De Maria M. Comparison of echography and magnetic resonance in sprains of the external compartment of the ankle. Radiol Med 1994;88:742–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cardone BW, Erickson SJ, Den Hartog BD, Carrera GF. MRI of injury to the lateral collateral ligamentous complex of the ankle. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17:102–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rijke AM, Goitz HT, McCue FC III, Dee PM. Magnetic resonance imaging of injury to the lateral ankle ligaments. Am J Sports Med 1993;21:528–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kerr R. Magnetic resonance imaging of the foor and ankle. Semin Roentgenol 2000;35:306–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aston DJ. Clinical significance of MR imaging of the ankle and foot. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001;9:413–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petra Margetic
    • 2
    Email author
  • Martina Salaj
  • Ivan Zvonimir Lubina
    • 1
  1. 1.RTG DepartmentClinic of TraumatologyZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.RTG DepartmentClinic of TraumatologyZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations