Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Isolated syndesmotic injuries in acute ankle sprains: diagnostic significance of clinical examination and MRI

  • Ankle
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Acute ankle sprains are frequently accompanied by syndesmotic injuries. These injuries are often overlooked in clinical examinations. The aim of this study was (1) to evaluate the incidence of syndesmotic injuries in acute ankle sprains using MRI, (2) to determine the accuracy of common clinical diagnostic tests, (3) to analyse their inter-rater reliability, and (4) to evaluate the role of clinical symptoms in the diagnosis of syndesmotic injuries.

Methods

A total of 100 patients with acute ankle sprain injury without associated fractures in plane radiographs were enrolled. The clinical assessment was performed by two independent examiners. Local findings, ankle ligament palpation, squeeze test, external rotation test, Drawer test, Cotton test, and the crossed-leg test (two examiners) were compared with MRI results (read by two blinded radiologists) as a reference standard.

Results

Ninety-six participants (57 % male) met the inclusion criteria. MRI detected a ruptured anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (AITFL) in 14 patients (15 %); 9 partial tears and 5 complete tears were evident. Evidence of pain at rest was found to predict syndesmotic injuries most accurately (p = 0.039). The palpation test over the proximal fibula produced the highest inter-rater correlation (κ = 0.65), but the lowest sensitivity for syndesmotic injuries of 8 %. All other clinical tests demonstrated moderate to fair inter-rater reliabilities (κ = 0.37–0.52). Low sensitivity values were found with all clinical tests (13.9–55.6 %).

Conclusion

In this study, clinical examination was insufficient to detect syndesmotic injuries in acute ankle sprains. MRI scanning revealed a syndesmotic lesion in 15 % of patients. MRI scanning should be recommended in patients with ongoing pain at rest following ankle sprains.

Level of evidence

I.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alonso A, Khoury L, Adams R (1998) Clinical tests for ankle syndesmosis injury: reliability and prediction of return to function. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 27(4):276–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beumer A, Swierstra BA, Mulder PG (2002) Clinical diagnosis of syndesmotic ankle instability: evaluation of stress tests behind the curtains. Acta Orthop Scand 73(6):667–669

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boytim MJ, Fischer DA, Neumann L (1991) Syndesmotic ankle sprains. Am J Sports Med 19(3):294–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown KW, Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME et al (2004) MRI findings associated with distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:131–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Clanton TO, Ho CP, Williams BT et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging characterization of individual ankle syndesmosis structures in asymptomatic and surgically treated cohorts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3399-1

    Google Scholar 

  6. Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM et al (1978) Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 37(4):378–381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Edwards GS Jr, DeLee JC (1984) Ankle diastasis without fracture. Foot Ankle 4:305–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fallat L, Grimm DJ, Saracco JA (1998) Sprained ankle syndrome: prevalence and analysis of 639 acute injuries. J Foot Ankle Surg 37:280–285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerber JP, Williams GN, Scoville CR et al (1998) Persistent disability associated with ankle sprains: a prospective examination of an athletic population. Foot Ankle Int 19(10):653–660

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Han SH, Lee JW, Kim S et al (2007) Chronic tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: the diagnostic efficiency of magnetic resonance imaging and comparative analysis of operative treatment. Foot Ankle Int 28:336–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148(3):839–843

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hopkinson WJ, St Pierre P, Ryan JB et al (1990) Syndesmosis sprains of the ankle. Foot Ankle 10(6):325–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hunt KJ, George E, Harris AH et al (2013) Epidemiology of syndesmosis injuries in intercollegiate football: incidence and risk factors from National Collegiate Athletic Association injury surveillance system data from 2004–2005 to 2008–2009. Clin J Sport Med 23(4):278–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones MH, Amendola A (2007) Syndesmosis sprains of the ankle: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 455:173–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kiter E, Bozkurt M (2005) The crossed-leg test for examination of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Foot Ankle Int 26(2):187–188

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lamb SE, Marsh JL, Hutton JL et al (2009) Mechanical supports for acute, severe ankle sprain: a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 373(9663):575–581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Langner I, Frank M, Kuehn JP et al (2011) Acute inversion injury of the ankle without radiological abnormalities: assessment with high-field MR imaging and correlation of findings with clinical outcome. Skeletal Radiol 40:423–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lui TH, Ip K, Chow HT (2005) Comparison of radiologic and arthroscopic diagnoses of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption in acute ankle fracture. Arthroscopy 21(11):1370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McCollum GA, van den Bekerom MP, Kerkhoffs GM et al (2013) Syndesmosis and deltoid ligament injuries in the athlete. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(6):1328–1337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Miller CD, Shelton WR, Barrett GR et al (1995) Deltoid and syndesmosis ligament injury of the ankle without fracture. Am J Sports Med 23:746–750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mulligan EP (2011) Evaluation and management of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Phys Ther Sport 12:57–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nicholl JP, Coleman P, Williams BT (1991) Pilot study of the epidemiology of sports injuries and exercise-related morbidity. Br J Sports Med 25(1):61–66

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Nielson JH, Gardner MJ, Peterson MGE et al (2005) Radiographic measurements do not predict syndesmotic injury in ankle fractures: an MRI study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:216–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nussbaum ED, Hosea TM, Sieler SD et al (2001) Prospective evaluation of syndesmotic ankle sprains without diastasis. Am J Sports Med 29(1):31–35

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oae K, Takao M, Naito K et al (2003) Injury of the tibiofibular syndesmosis: value of MR imaging for diagnosis. Radiology 227(1):1551–1561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Obuchowski N, McClish D (1997) Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Stat Med 16:1529–1542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pneumaticos SG, Noble PC, Chatziioannou SN, Trevino SG (2002) The effects of rotation on radiographic evaluation of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int 23(2):107–111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rammelt S, Zwipp H, Grass R (2008) Injuries to the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: an evidence-based approach to acute and chronic lesions. Foot Ankle Clin 13(4):611–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Roemer FW, Jomaah N, Niu J et al (2014) Ligamentous injuries and the risk of associated tissue damage in acute ankle sprains in athletes: a cross-sectional MRI study. Am J Sports Med 42(7):1549–1557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sman AD, Hiller CE, Refshauge KM (2013) Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for diagnosis of ankle syndesmosis injury: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 47(10):620–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Takao M, Ochi M, Oae K, Naito K, Uchio Y (2003) Diagnosis of a tear of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. The role of arthroscopy of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(3):324–329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Valkering KP, Vergroesen DA, Nolte PA (2012) Isolated syndesmosis ankle injury. Orthopedics 35(12):1705–1710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Vogl TJ, Hochmuth K, Diebold T et al (1997) Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of acute injured distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Invest Radiol 32:401–409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wataru Miyamoto MT (2011) Management of chronic disruption of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. World J Orthop 2:1–6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Waterman BR, Owens BD, Davey S et al (2010) The epidemiology of ankle sprains in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(13):2279–2284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Williams GN, Jones MH, Amendola A (2007) Syndesmotic ankle sprains in athletes. Am J Sports Med 35(7):1197–1207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Lars Gerhard Großterlinden, Maximilian Hartel, Nils Bürger, Alexander Spiro, Michael Hoffmann, Wolfgang Lehmann, Johannes Maria Rueger & Martin Rupprecht

  2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Jin Yamamura & Bjoern Schoennagel

  3. Department of Osteology and Biomechanics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Mathias Krause

Authors
  1. Lars Gerhard Großterlinden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maximilian Hartel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jin Yamamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bjoern Schoennagel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nils Bürger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mathias Krause
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alexander Spiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wolfgang Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Johannes Maria Rueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Martin Rupprecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Gerhard Großterlinden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Großterlinden, L.G., Hartel, M., Yamamura, J. et al. Isolated syndesmotic injuries in acute ankle sprains: diagnostic significance of clinical examination and MRI. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 1180–1186 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3604-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3604-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation