Tomás X, Anzaldo S, Tomasello A, Pomés J, Maculé F, Zúñiga R, García-Díez AI

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 125-132
PDF size: 195.87 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Perform a retrospective study of MRI findings that may lead to the survey of astragalus osteochondrial lesions (AOL).
Material and methods: Nine patients suffering from AOL were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical data, XR, MR with contrast and gammagraphs were obtained from six of them. Data obtained by MRI were analyzed in order to get objective information on the stability or instability of the osteochondral lesion and the appearance of associated lesions.
Results: Out of the six patients selected, pre-surgical MRI with contrast targeted two stable AOL cases (stages I and IIa) and four instable cases (in stage III and three cases in stage IV). Four patients underwent surgery. The MRI and surgical findings were retrospectively compared for those patients, getting instable AOL cases (two cases in stage IV and one in stage III with associated lesion of the Achilles’- tendon) and one case of stable AOL (stage IIa). Surgery confirmed in the four cases the findings described in the pre-surgical MRI.
Conclusion: Today, MRI is considered the method of choice for surveying AOL, allowing the monitoring of the post-surgical evolution control. Administering a contrast means in fat suppression sequences is useful to assess the vascularization of the fragment and, thus, its stability.

REFERENCES

1. Berndt AL, Harty M. Transchondral fractures of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1959; 41: 988-1020.

2. Yulish BS, Mulopulos GP, Goodfellow DB, et al. MR imaging of osteochondral lesions of talus. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1987; 99(2): 296-01.

3. Nelson DW, DiPaola J, Colville M, Schmidgall J. Osteochondritis dissecans of the talus and knee: Prospective comparison of MR and arthroscopic classifications. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990; 14(5): 804-8.

4. De Smet AA, Ilahi OA, Graf BK. Reassessment of the MR criteria for stability of osteochondritis dissecans in the knee and ankle. Skeletal Radiol 1996; 25(2): 159-63.

5. Kramer J, Stiglbauer R, Engle A, Prayer L, Imhof H. MR contrast arthrography (MRA) in osteochondrosis dissecans. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992; 16: 254-60.

6. Steinbach LS, Palmer WE, Schweitzer ME. MR Arthrography. Radiographics 2002; 22: 1223-46.

7. Trnka HJ, Ivanic G, Trattnig S. Arthrography of the foot and ankle. Ankle and subtalar joint. Foot Ankle Clin 2000; 5(1): 49-62.

8. Vahlensieck M, Lang P, Sommer T, Genant HK, Schild HH. Indirect MR arthrography: techniques and applications. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1997; 18(4): 302-6.

9. García AI, Tomás X, Pomés J, Peidró L, De Juan C, Fabregat M. Indirect MR-Arthrography of the Shoulder: Is it useful in evaluating the Tendons? 2000 RSNA Meeting. Education Exhibit 0913MK-e.

10. Rosenberg ZS, Mellado J. Central pseudodefect of the talus: A potential ankle MR interpretation pitfall. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23(5): 718-20.

11. Bencardino J, Rosenberg ZS, Beltran J, Sheskier S. Os sustentaculi: depiction on MR images. Skeletal Radiology 1997; 26: 505-6.

12. Kier R, McCarthy S, Dietz MJ, Rudicel S. MR appearance of painful conditions of the ankle. Radiographics 1991; 11(3): 401-14.

13. Farooki S, Yao L, Seeger LL. Anterolateral impingement of the ankle: Effectiveness of MR imaging. Radiology 1998: 207(2): 357-60.

14. Stroud CC, Marks RM. Imaging of osteochondral lesions of the talus. Foot Ankle Clin 2000; 5(1): 119-33.

15. Mesgarzadeh M, Sapega AA, Bonakdapur A, Revesz G, Moyer RA, Maurer AH, Alburger PD. Osteochondritis dissecans: analysis of mechanical stability with radiography, scintigraphy and MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 165: 775-80.

16. Stoller DW, Ferkel RD. Pie y tobillo. En: Stoller DW (ed.). RM en Ortopedia y en lesiones deportivas. 2a. Ed. Madrid: Ed. Marbán; 1999, p. 509-18.