HOW TO USE ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS IN POSITIONING OF THE SONOGRAPHY SENSOR IN ANKLE JOINT EXAMINATION

Authors

  • Yu. O. Hrubar I. Horbachevsky Ternopil State Medical University Ternopil University Hospital
  • M. Yu. Hrubar I. Horbachevsky Ternopil State Medical University Ternopil University Hospital
  • V. V. Gnatko I. Horbachevsky Ternopil State Medical University Ternopil University Hospital
  • I. V. Gnatko I. Horbachevsky Ternopil State Medical University Ternopil University Hospital

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11603/2415-8798.2017.3.8098

Keywords:

trauma, injury, ligaments, ankle joint, anatomy, sonography.

Abstract

In the structure of ankle joint trauma the damage of ligaments prevailed and could take up to 70–75 % of all damages of this region. Today, the "gold standard" in the examination of the ligaments damage is considered to be MR I which has the sensitivity of 90 % and specificity of 83 %. However, the limited availability of MR I and the high cost of the research do not allow this method to be included in the diagnostic measures algorithm in case of ankle joint ligaments damage. The available imaging techniques of the ankle joint ligament traumas are sonography. However, anatomical peculiarity of the ankle joint ligaments makes the sonography procedure complicated and still is remains the subject of discussion in foreign scientific literature up to date.

The aim of the study – to establish of the optimum position of the sonographic sensor using anatomical landmarks for clear visualization and have ultrasound evaluation of the relationships in the ankle joint in the young patients.

Materials and Methods. The study involved 36 young people, among them – 19 men and 17 women with average age of (21.3±1.26) years. A simultaneous sonographic examination of both joints was performed. 72 joint were examined in total. The examination was conducted using apparatus Aloka SSD 2000 with the usage of high-frequency wideband sensor and operating frequency of 7–12 MH z. Ankle joint was investigated in four sensor positions: coronal, sagittal, posterior and axial. As anatomical landmarks were used articular cavity of the ankle joint, the front and the back edge of a lateral malleolus, greater and lesser tubercle of a medial malleolus.

Results and Discussion. On the echograms, the connections of the ankle joint were identified as hypoechoic, fibrillar structures with properties of anisotropic effect. The severity of the anisotropic effect depended on the angle of the sensor position relative to the ligament. The results obtained during the sonography show the expediency of introducing into the daily practice of ultrasound diagnostic method in order to identify the damage of the connective structures of the ankle joint.

Conclusions. Data that was received in the study indicates the feasibility of implementing the sonographic techniques in the examination of ankle joint ligaments damage in the daily practice. Knowledge of normal anatomy and positioning of sonography sensor using anatomical landmarks has a significant meaning for optimal evaluation of examined joint structures.

Author Biography

Yu. O. Hrubar, I. Horbachevsky Ternopil State Medical University Ternopil University Hospital

 

References

Zubarev, A.R. & Nemenova, N.A. (2006). Ultrazvukovoye issledovaniye oporno-dvigatelnogo apparata u vzroslykh i detey: Posobiye dlya vrachey [Ultrasound examination of the musculoskeletal system in adults and children: A Manual for Physicians]. Moskva. Izdatelskiy dom : Vidar-M, 136.

Bianchi, S., Martinoli, C., Gaignot, C., De Gautard, R. & Meyer, J.M. (2005). Ultrasound of the ankle: anatomy of the tendons, bursae, and ligaments. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol, 9, 243–259.

Henari, S., Banks, L.N., Radovanovic, I., Queally J. & Morris, S. (2011). Ultrasonography as a diagnostic tool in assessing deltoid ligament injury in supination external rotation fractures of the ankle. Orthopedics, (34), 10, e639–43.16.

Kanz, G. & Polzer, H. (2012). Diagnosis and treatment of acute ankle injuries: development of an evidence-based algorithm. Orthopedic Reviews, 4 (e5), 22–32.

Sconfienza, L.M., Orlandi, D., Lacelli, F., Serafini, G., & Silvestri, E. (2015). Dynamic High-Resolution US of Ankle and Midfoot Ligaments: Normal Anatomic Structure and Imaging Technique. Musculoskeletal Imaging January-February, (35), 1.

Maffulli, N. & Ferran, N. (2008). Management of acute and chronic ankle instability. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 16, 608–615.

Morvan, G., Busson J., Wybier M. & Mathieu. P. (2001). Ultrasound of the ankle. Eur J Ultrasound, 14, 73–82.

Van, Dijk C., Mol, B., Lim, L., Marti, R. & Bossuyt, P. (1996). Diagnosis of ligament rupture of the ankle joint: physical examination, arthrography, stress radiography and sonography compared in 160 patients after inversion trauma. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 67, 566–570.

Published

2017-11-01

How to Cite

Hrubar, Y. O., Hrubar, M. Y., Gnatko, V. V., & Gnatko, I. V. (2017). HOW TO USE ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS IN POSITIONING OF THE SONOGRAPHY SENSOR IN ANKLE JOINT EXAMINATION. Bulletin of Scientific Research, (3). https://doi.org/10.11603/2415-8798.2017.3.8098

Issue

Section

EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCE