John G Kennedy1, Pim A D van Dijk2,3,4, Christopher D Murawski5, Gavin Duke6, Hunter Newman2, Christopher W DiGiovanni7, Youichi Yasui2,8. 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. KennedyJ@hss.edu. 2. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Academic Center for Evidence Based Sports Medicine (ACES), Amsterdam Collaboration for Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. East River Medical Imaging, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes following peroneal tendoscopy for the treatment of peroneal pathology. Correlation between pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and peroneal tendoscopic diagnostic findings was also assessed. METHODS: Twenty-three patients with a mean age of 34 ± 8.8 years undergoing peroneal tendoscopy were pre- and post-operatively assessed with the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS) and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) outcome questionnaires. Follow-up was over 24 months in all patients. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI were calculated in comparison with peroneal tendoscopy, including the positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: Both the FAOS and the SF-12 improved significantly (p < 0.05) at a mean follow-up of 33 ± 7.3 months significantly. MRI showed an overall sensitivity of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.82-0.95) and specificity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.80). The PPV for MRI diagnosis of peroneal tendon pathology was 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The current study found good clinical outcomes in patients with peroneal tendon disorders, treated with peroneal tendoscopy. Although a relatively small number of patients were included, the study suggests good correlation between tendoscopic findings and pre-operative MRI findings of peroneal tendon pathology, supporting the use of MRI as a useful diagnostic modality for suspected peroneal tendon disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes following peroneal tendoscopy for the treatment of peroneal pathology. Correlation between pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and peroneal tendoscopic diagnostic findings was also assessed. METHODS: Twenty-three patients with a mean age of 34 ± 8.8 years undergoing peroneal tendoscopy were pre- and post-operatively assessed with the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS) and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) outcome questionnaires. Follow-up was over 24 months in all patients. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI were calculated in comparison with peroneal tendoscopy, including the positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: Both the FAOS and the SF-12 improved significantly (p < 0.05) at a mean follow-up of 33 ± 7.3 months significantly. MRI showed an overall sensitivity of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.82-0.95) and specificity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.80). The PPV for MRI diagnosis of peroneal tendon pathology was 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The current study found good clinical outcomes in patients with peroneal tendon disorders, treated with peroneal tendoscopy. Although a relatively small number of patients were included, the study suggests good correlation between tendoscopic findings and pre-operative MRI findings of peroneal tendon pathology, supporting the use of MRI as a useful diagnostic modality for suspected peroneal tendon disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.
Authors: Bernard Mengiardi; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Philip B Schöttle; Beata Bode; Juerg Hodler; Patrick Vienne; Marco Zanetti Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-03-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Constantine A Demetracopoulos; Joseph C Vineyard; Carter D Kiesau; James A Nunley Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Ajay Kanakamedala; Jeffrey S Chen; Daniel J Kaplan; Christopher A Colasanti; John F Dankert; Eoghan T Hurley; Nathaniel P Mercer; James W Stone; John G Kennedy Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2022-02-08
Authors: Pim A van Dijk; David Miller; James Calder; Christopher W DiGiovanni; John G Kennedy; Gino M Kerkhoffs; Akos Kynsburtg; Daniel Havercamp; Stephane Guillo; Xavier M Oliva; Chris J Pearce; Helder Pereira; Pietro Spennacchio; Joanna M Stephen; C Niek van Dijk Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Madeleine Willegger; Lena Hirtler; Gilbert M Schwarz; Rein Hard Windhager; Catharina Chiari Journal: Orthopade Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 1.004