Miriam De Dea1, Constantinos L Loizou2, Georgina M Allen1, David J Wilson1, Nick Athanasou3, Yoshinobu Uchihara3, Paul Cooke2, Thomas Cosker4. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, St Lukes Radiology, Oxford, UK. 2. 2 Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. 3. 3 Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. 4. 4 Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of injury of the talonavicular ligament (TNL) in ankle sprains, its anatomy and the stability of the talonavicular joint (TNJ) before and after dividing the TNL in a cadaver. METHODS: During a prospective study of 100 patients to assess the outcome of ankle injuries, we noted high incidence of TNL injuries; we will discuss here the TNL findings. Each patient had undergone ultrasound and cone beam CT examination of the ankle. Six TNLs were dissected off fresh-frozen cadaveric feet for histological analysis. In further six cadaveric feet, the stability of the TNJ was assessed by mechanical stress before and after division of the TNL; movement at the joint was assessed by measuring the distance between the talus and navicular bone [talonavicular distance (TD)] using ultrasound. The TD was measured on ten randomly selected ultrasound images by three independent observers and repeated twice by a single observer to determine the inter- and intraobserver reliability. RESULTS: 21% of the patients had an injury to the TNL. Histological examination demonstrated a dense connective tissue composed of bundles of collagen in parallel arrangement along the ligament length. The interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the TD showed almost perfect agreement. Displacement at the TNJ after stress with the TNL intact measured 0.18 ± 0.08 cm and 0.29 ± 0.07 cm (p < 0.005) when divided. CONCLUSION: The TNL is surprisingly commonly injured in ankle sprains. Its anatomy and histology suggest a role in tensile force transmission during the windlass mechanism in gait. Advances in knowledge: Injury to the TNL is common and has not been described. Its anatomy suggests resistance to tensile forces and its injury allows excessive movement at the TNJ.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of injury of the talonavicular ligament (TNL) in ankle sprains, its anatomy and the stability of the talonavicular joint (TNJ) before and after dividing the TNL in a cadaver. METHODS: During a prospective study of 100 patients to assess the outcome of ankle injuries, we noted high incidence of TNL injuries; we will discuss here the TNL findings. Each patient had undergone ultrasound and cone beam CT examination of the ankle. Six TNLs were dissected off fresh-frozen cadaveric feet for histological analysis. In further six cadaveric feet, the stability of the TNJ was assessed by mechanical stress before and after division of the TNL; movement at the joint was assessed by measuring the distance between the talus and navicular bone [talonavicular distance (TD)] using ultrasound. The TD was measured on ten randomly selected ultrasound images by three independent observers and repeated twice by a single observer to determine the inter- and intraobserver reliability. RESULTS: 21% of the patients had an injury to the TNL. Histological examination demonstrated a dense connective tissue composed of bundles of collagen in parallel arrangement along the ligament length. The interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the TD showed almost perfect agreement. Displacement at the TNJ after stress with the TNL intact measured 0.18 ± 0.08 cm and 0.29 ± 0.07 cm (p < 0.005) when divided. CONCLUSION: The TNL is surprisingly commonly injured in ankle sprains. Its anatomy and histology suggest a role in tensile force transmission during the windlass mechanism in gait. Advances in knowledge: Injury to the TNL is common and has not been described. Its anatomy suggests resistance to tensile forces and its injury allows excessive movement at the TNJ.
Authors: W H Davis; M Sobel; E F DiCarlo; P A Torzilli; X Deng; M J Geppert; M B Patel; J Deland Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: John M van Ochten; Marinka C E Mos; Nienke van Putte-Katier; Edwin H G Oei; Patrick J E Bindels; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Marienke van Middelkoop Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: I G Stiell; G H Greenberg; R D McKnight; R C Nair; I McDowell; M Reardon; J P Stewart; J Maloney Journal: JAMA Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ka-Young Chun; Yun Sun Choi; Seok Hoon Lee; Jin Su Kim; Ki Won Young; Min-Sun Jeong; Dae-Jung Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Tina Passon; Christoph Germann; Benjamin Fritz; Christian Pfirrmann; Reto Sutter Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 2.128