Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 12, pp 1703–1709 | Cite as

Peroneal tendon abnormalities in subjects with an enlarged peroneal tubercle

  • Atul K. Taneja
  • F. Joseph Simeone
  • Connie Y. Chang
  • Vidhya Kumar
  • Scott Daley
  • Miriam A. Bredella
  • Martin TorrianiEmail author
Scientific Article

Abstract

Objective

To examine the association between inframalleolar peroneal tendon abnormalities and an enlarged peroneal tubercle.

Materials and methods

Two independent readers evaluated consecutive ankle MR imaging studies to classify inframalleolar peroneal tendon findings as normal, tenosynovitis, partial tear or complete tear. The size and morphology of the peroneal tubercle was also recorded. We performed statistical analyses for inter-observer agreement and to assess differences in peroneal tubercle size between groups with and without peroneal tendon abnormalities.

Results

The study group comprised 121 subjects (mean age, 45.5 years) of whom 28 % (34 out of 121) had lateral ankle symptoms. The peroneal tubercle was absent in 56 % of subjects (68 out of 121). In subjects with a peroneal tubercle (>0 mm), the mean size was 3.5 mm (37 % triangular and 7 % plateau-shaped). Male subjects had significantly larger mean peroneal tubercle size than female subjects (2.1 ± 2.5 vs 1.2 ± 1.9 mm, P = 0.04). Overall, 26 % (32 out of 121) of subjects had some peroneal tendon abnormality: 17 % (20 out of 121) had tenosynovitis and 17 % (20 out of 121) had partial thickness tears. The peroneal tubercle size was significantly larger in subjects with peroneal tendon partial tears (P = 0.036), tenosynovitis (P < 0.001), and when both abnormalities were present (P = 0.007). ROC statistic showed 73 % sensitivity and 74 % specificity for detection of partial tears for peroneal tubercle size ≥4.3 mm.

Conclusion

Our study shows a significantly larger peroneal tubercle in subjects with inframalleolar peroneal tendon abnormalities. A cut-off of 4.3 mm showed good sensitivity and specificity for the presence of partial tears of the peroneal tendon.

Keywords

Peroneal tubercle Retrotrochlear eminence Calcaneus Peroneal tendons MRI 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Boles MA, Lomasney LM, Demos TC, Sage RA. Enlarged peroneal process with peroneus longus tendon entrapment. Skeletal Radiol. 1997;26(5):313–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hyer CF, Dawson JM, Philbin TM, Berlet GC, Lee TH. The peroneal tubercle: description, classification, and relevance to peroneus longus tendon pathology. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(11):947–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saupe N, Mengiardi B, Pfirrmann CWA, Vienne P, Seifert B, Zanetti M. Anatomic variants associated with peroneal tendon disorders: MR imaging findings in volunteers with asymptomatic ankles. Radiology. 2007;242(2):509–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choudhary S, McNally E. Review of common and unusual causes of lateral ankle pain. Skeletal Radiol. 2010;40(11):1399–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lui TH. Endoscopic resection of the peroneal tubercle. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2012;51(6):813–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pierson JL, Inglis AE. Stenosing tenosynovitis of the peroneus longus tendon associated with hypertrophy of the peroneal tubercle and an os peroneum. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(3):440–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruce WD, Christofersen MR, Phillips DL. Stenosing tenosynovitis and impingement of the peroneal tendons associated with hypertrophy of the peroneal tubercle. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20(7):464–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boya H, Pinar H. Stenosing tenosynovitis of the peroneus brevis tendon associated with hypertrophy of the peroneal tubercle. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010;49(2):188–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang X-T, Rosenberg ZS, Mechlin MB, Schweitzer ME. Normal variants and diseases of the peroneal tendons and superior peroneal retinaculum: MR imaging features. Radiographics. 2005;25(3):587–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sugimoto K, Takakura Y, Okahashi K, Tanaka Y, Ohshima M, Kasanami R. Enlarged peroneal tubercle with peroneus longus tenosynovitis. J Orthop Sci. 2009;14(3):330–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rademaker J, Rosenberg ZS, Delfaut EM, Cheung YY, Schweitzer ME. Tear of the peroneus longus tendon: MR imaging features in nine patients. Radiology. 2000;214(3):700–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dutton P, Edmonds EW, Lark RK, Mubarak SJ. Prevalence of painful peroneal tubercles in the pediatric population. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2012;51(5):599–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ochoa LM, Banerjee R. Recurrent hypertrophic peroneal tubercle associated with peroneus brevis tendon tear. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2007;46(5):403–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith JT, Johnson AH, Heckman JD. Nonoperative treatment of an os peroneum fracture in a high-level athlete: a case report. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(5):1498–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bashir WA, Lewis S, Cullen N, Connell DA. Os peroneum friction syndrome complicated by sesamoid fatigue fracture: a new radiological diagnosis? Skeletal Radiol. 2008;38(2):181–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atul K. Taneja
    • 1
  • F. Joseph Simeone
    • 1
  • Connie Y. Chang
    • 1
  • Vidhya Kumar
    • 1
  • Scott Daley
    • 1
  • Miriam A. Bredella
    • 1
  • Martin Torriani
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations