Advertisement

A standardised computed tomography measurement method for distal fibular rotation

  • Sven Yves Vetter
  • Martin Gassauer
  • Lorenz Uhlmann
  • Benedict Swartman
  • Marc Schnetzke
  • Holger Keil
  • Jochen Franke
  • Paul Alfred Grützner
  • Nils BeisemannEmail author
Original Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study is to identify an ideal location to measure fibular rotation in the ankle joint using axial computed tomography (CT) scans. Another objective was to detect the average fibular rotation in the uninjured ankle joint in a large cohort.

Methods

Standardised axial CT with coronal/sagittal reconstructions was performed in healthy ankle joints. Three investigators performed the measurements. In the axial view, each investigator appointed the ideal location to measure the angle of fibular rotation with the use of reference lines either 4, 6, 8 or 10 mm distal from the talar joint line. Inter- and intraobserver reliability, as well as the intraclass correlation coefficient, were determined.

Results

CT scans of one hundred individuals—78 males and 22 females—were analysed. The most common locations for measuring the fibular rotation were in 31% of cases 4 mm and in 51% of cases 6 mm distal the talar joint line. The external rotation of the fibula averaged 8.42° ± 4.86° (range 0°–26°). The intraclass coefficient correlations (ICC) for interrater and intrarater reliability were 0.75.

Conclusions

The results of the study demonstrate a reproducible location to measure the fibular rotation in the ankle joint. The most convenient location to measure fibular rotation with a high reliability was 6 mm distal to the talar joint line.

Keywords

Fibular rotation Syndesmotic injury Syndesmosis Cone beam CT Fibular notch 

Notes

Funding

The research group had grants/grants pending and technical support from Siemens (Erlangen, Germany). Siemens had no involvement in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

PG and JF are paid members of an advisory board for Siemens. SV, KS, BS, MS, NB and HK declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Approval from the local ethics committee was obtained for anonymous analysis of the data. Approval Number: 837.366.14 (9605).

Informed consent

Formal consent is not required for this type of study.

References:s

  1. 1.
    Hermans JJ, Beumer A, de Jong TA, Kleinrensink GJ. Anatomy of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis in adults: a pictorial essay with a multimodality approach. J Anat. 2010;217(6):633–45.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01302.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thordarson DB, Motamed S, Hedman T, Ebramzadeh E, Bakshian S. The effect of fibular malreduction on contact pressures in an ankle fracture malunion model. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1997;79(12):1809–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vetter SY, Grützner PA, Franke J. Die Therapie der OSG-Fraktur. Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie up2date. 2012;7(06):467–84.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1324884.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parlamas G, Hannon CP, Murawski CD, Smyth NA, Ma Y, Kerkhoffs GM, et al. Treatment of chronic syndesmotic injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(8):1931–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2515-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pakarinen H, Flinkkila T, Ohtonen P, Hyvonen P, Lakovaara M, Leppilahti J, et al. Intraoperative assessment of the stability of the distal tibiofibular joint in supination-external rotation injuries of the ankle: sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of two clinical tests. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2011;93(22):2057–61.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuo C-C, Lu H-L, Leardini A, Lu T-W, Kuo M-Y, Hsu H-C. Three-dimensional computer graphics-based ankle morphometry with computerized tomography for total ankle replacement design and positioning. Clin Anat. 2013;27:659–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tochigi Y, Suh JS, Amendola A, Pedersen DR, Saltzman CL. Ankle alignment on lateral radiographs. Part 1: sensitivity of measures to perturbations of ankle positioning. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(2):82–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harper MC, Keller TS. A radiographic evaluation of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle. 1989;10(3):156–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franke J, von Recum J, Suda AJ, Grutzner PA, Wendl K. Intraoperative three-dimensional imaging in the treatment of acute unstable syndesmotic injuries. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2012;94(15):1386–90.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.01122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vetter SY, Euler F, von Recum J, Wendl K, Grutzner PA, Franke J. Impact of intraoperative cone beam computed tomography on reduction quality and implant position in treatment of tibial plafond fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(9):977–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716650532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Summers HD, Sinclair MK, Stover MD. A reliable method for intraoperative evaluation of syndesmotic reduction. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27(4):196–200.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182694766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Nault ML, Hebert-Davies J, Laflamme GY, Leduc S. CT scan assessment of the syndesmosis: a new reproducible method. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27(11):638–41.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e318284785a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–60.  https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramsey PL, Hamilton W. Changes in tibiotalar area of contact caused by lateral talar shift. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1976;58(3):356–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sagi HC, Shah AR, Sanders RW. The functional consequence of syndesmotic joint malreduction at a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(7):439–43.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e31822a526a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mukhopadhyay S, Metcalfe A, Guha AR, Mohanty K, Hemmadi S, Lyons K, et al. Malreduction of syndesmosis—are we considering the anatomical variation? Injury. 2011;42(10):1073–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.03.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elgafy H, Semaan HB, Blessinger B, Wassef A, Ebraheim NA. Computed tomography of normal distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Skeletal Radiol. 2010;39(6):559–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-009-0809-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lepojarvi S, Niinimaki J, Pakarinen H, Leskela HV. Rotational dynamics of the normal distal tibiofibular joint with weight-bearing computed tomography. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(6):627–35.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716634757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dikos GD, Heisler J, Choplin RH, Weber TG. Normal tibiofibular relationships at the syndesmosis on axial CT imaging. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(7):433–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182535f30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nielson JH, Gardner MJ, Peterson MG, Sallis JG, Potter HG, Helfet DL, et al. Radiographic measurements do not predict syndesmotic injury in ankle fractures: an MRI study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:216–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vasarhelyi A, Lubitz J, Gierer P, Gradl G, Rosler K, Hopfenmuller W, et al. Detection of fibular torsional deformities after surgery for ankle fractures with a novel CT method. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(12):1115–21.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602701219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Yves Vetter
    • 1
  • Martin Gassauer
    • 1
  • Lorenz Uhlmann
    • 2
  • Benedict Swartman
    • 1
  • Marc Schnetzke
    • 1
  • Holger Keil
    • 1
  • Jochen Franke
    • 1
  • Paul Alfred Grützner
    • 1
  • Nils Beisemann
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.MINTOS-Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopaedic SurgeryBG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen at Heidelberg University HospitalLudwigshafen am RehinGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Medical Biometry and InformaticsUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations