PURPOSE: To assess the effect of prone, supine, and upright weight-bearing body positions on visibility, position, shape, and size of Morton neuroma during magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients with 20 Morton neuromas underwent MR imaging of the forefoot in prone (plantar flexion of the foot), supine (dorsiflexion of the foot), and upright weight-bearing positions. Visibility (3 = good, 2 = moderate, 1 = poor), position relative to the metatarsal bone, shape, and transverse diameter of Morton neuroma were assessed on transverse T1-weighted MR images. Associations between different body positions and variables of interest were calculated with Wilcoxon signed rank test, chi2 test, and paired Student t test. RESULTS: In the prone position, visibility of all 20 Morton neuromas was rated with a score of 3; visibility in the supine and weight-bearing positions was inferior (mean score, 2.4). All 20 (100%) Morton neuromas changed their position relative to the metatarsal bone between prone and supine and between prone and weight-bearing positions. When compared with the prone position, there was a difference in the shape of all 20 Morton neuromas in the weight-bearing position (P <.001). Between prone (mean transverse diameter of Morton neuroma, 8 mm) and supine (mean transverse diameter of Morton neuroma, 6 mm) positions, the transverse diameter of Morton neuroma significantly decreased by 2 mm (P =.03); between prone and weight-bearing positions, the decrease of the mean transverse diameter was also significant (difference, 2 mm; P =.03). CONCLUSION: Morton neuroma appears significantly different during MR imaging in prone, supine, or weight-bearing positions. The transverse diameter of Morton neuroma is significantly larger on images obtained in the prone position than it is on images obtained in the supine and upright weight-bearing positions. Visibility of Morton neuroma is best on MR images obtained in the prone position.
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of prone, supine, and upright weight-bearing body positions on visibility, position, shape, and size of Morton neuroma during magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients with 20 Morton neuromas underwent MR imaging of the forefoot in prone (plantar flexion of the foot), supine (dorsiflexion of the foot), and upright weight-bearing positions. Visibility (3 = good, 2 = moderate, 1 = poor), position relative to the metatarsal bone, shape, and transverse diameter of Morton neuroma were assessed on transverse T1-weighted MR images. Associations between different body positions and variables of interest were calculated with Wilcoxon signed rank test, chi2 test, and paired Student t test. RESULTS: In the prone position, visibility of all 20 Morton neuromas was rated with a score of 3; visibility in the supine and weight-bearing positions was inferior (mean score, 2.4). All 20 (100%) Morton neuromas changed their position relative to the metatarsal bone between prone and supine and between prone and weight-bearing positions. When compared with the prone position, there was a difference in the shape of all 20 Morton neuromas in the weight-bearing position (P <.001). Between prone (mean transverse diameter of Morton neuroma, 8 mm) and supine (mean transverse diameter of Morton neuroma, 6 mm) positions, the transverse diameter of Morton neuroma significantly decreased by 2 mm (P =.03); between prone and weight-bearing positions, the decrease of the mean transverse diameter was also significant (difference, 2 mm; P =.03). CONCLUSION:Morton neuroma appears significantly different during MR imaging in prone, supine, or weight-bearing positions. The transverse diameter of Morton neuroma is significantly larger on images obtained in the prone position than it is on images obtained in the supine and upright weight-bearing positions. Visibility of Morton neuroma is best on MR images obtained in the prone position.
Authors: Ty K Subhawong; Kenneth C Wang; Shrey K Thawait; Eric H Williams; Shahreyar Shar Hashemi; Antonio J Machado; John A Carrino; Avneesh Chhabra Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2011-04-10 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Bianca Bignotti; Alessio Signori; Maria Pia Sormani; Luigi Molfetta; Carlo Martinoli; Alberto Tagliafico Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 5.315