Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2016; 20(02): 167-174
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1581117
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Imaging in Foot and Ankle Arthritis

Victoria H. Wilkinson
1   Department of Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
,
Emma L. Rowbotham
2   Department of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom
,
Andrew J. Grainger
2   Department of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom
3   Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 June 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The foot and ankle are commonly involved in a range of arthritides that affect the joints, bones, and soft tissues. Accurate plain film interpretation can often aid the diagnosis and monitor disease progression and treatment response. Ultrasound and MRI afford superior depiction of the soft tissues, and advances over recent years have centered on early detection of synovitis, enabling earlier diagnosis and treatment. Advantages and disadvantages of the imaging techniques of radiography, multidetector computed tomography, ultrasound, and MRI are discussed, as is optimization of these modalities for the assessment of the anatomically complex joints of the foot and ankle. Diagnostic features enabling differentiation between rheumatoid arthritis, seronegative spondyloarthropathies, osteoarthritis, gout, crystal deposition disease, pigmented villonodular synovitis, Charcot arthropathy, septic arthritis, synovial osteochondromatosis, hemophilia, and reflex sympathetic dystrophy are also reviewed.

Keywords

imaging - arthritis - foot - ankle
 

  • References

  • 1 Watt I. Basic differential diagnosis of arthritis. Eur Radiol 1997; 7 (3) 344-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chen TS, Crues III JV, Ali M, Troum OM. Magnetic resonance imaging is more sensitive than radiographs in detecting change in size of erosions in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2006; 33 (10) 1957-1967
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Perry D, Stewart N, Benton N , et al. Detection of erosions in the rheumatoid hand; a comparative study of multidetector computerized tomography versus magnetic resonance scanning. J Rheumatol 2005; 32 (2) 256-267
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ , et al. Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol 2007; 14 (12) 1441-1447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gerster JC, Landry M, Dufresne L, Meuwly JY. Imaging of tophaceous gout: computed tomography provides specific images compared with magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61 (1) 52-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Girish G, Glazebrook KN, Jacobson JA. Advanced imaging in gout. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201 (3) 515-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nicolaou S, Yong-Hing CJ, Galea-Soler S, Hou DJ, Louis L, Munk P. Dual-energy CT as a potential new diagnostic tool in the management of gout in the acute setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194 (4) 1072-1078
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mallinson PI, Coupal T, Reisinger C , et al. Artifacts in dual-energy CT gout protocol: a review of 50 suspected cases with an artifact identification guide. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203 (1) W103-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rowbotham EL, Grainger AJ. Rheumatoid arthritis: ultrasound versus MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197 (3) 541-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Strunk J, Heinemann E, Neeck G, Schmidt KL, Lange U. A new approach to studying angiogenesis in rheumatoid arthritis by means of power Doppler ultrasonography and measurement of serum vascular endothelial growth factor. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004; 43 (12) 1480-1483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hermann G, Gilbert MS, Abdelwahab IF. Hemophilia: evaluation of musculoskeletal involvement with CT, sonography, and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158 (1) 119-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 McQueen FM. The MRI view of synovitis and tenosynovitis in inflammatory arthritis: implications for diagnosis and management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1154: 21-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ostergaard M, Conaghan PG, O'Connor P , et al. Reducing invasiveness, duration, and cost of magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis by omitting intravenous contrast injection—Does it change the assessment of inflammatory and destructive joint changes by the OMERACT RAMRIS?. J Rheumatol 2009; 36 (8) 1806-1810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tamai K, Yamato M, Yamaguchi T, Ohno W. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1994; 37 (8) 1151-1157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hodgson RJ, O'Connor PJ, Ridgway JP. Optimizing MRI for imaging peripheral arthritis. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2012; 16 (5) 367-376
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McQueen F, Lassere M, Edmonds J , et al. OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Summary of OMERACT 6 MR Imaging Module. J Rheumatol 2003; 30 (6) 1387-1392
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hunter DJ, Guermazi A, Lo GH , et al. Evolution of semi-quantitative whole joint assessment of knee OA: MOAKS (MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19 (8) 990-1002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Østergaard M, Peterfy C, Conaghan P , et al. OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Core set of MRI acquisitions, joint pathology definitions, and the OMERACT RA-MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol 2003; 30 (6) 1385-1386
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Eshed I, Feist E, Althoff CE , et al. Tenosynovitis of the flexor tendons of the hand detected by MRI: an early indicator of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009; 48 (8) 887-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Eshed I, Althoff CE, Feist E , et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of hindfoot involvement in patients with spondyloarthritides: comparison of low-field and high-field strength units. Eur J Radiol 2008; 65 (1) 140-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 McGonagle D, Marzo-Ortega H, O'Connor P , et al. Histological assessment of the early enthesitis lesion in spondyloarthropathy. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61 (6) 534-537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schett G, Gravallese E. Bone erosion in rheumatoid arthritis: mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2012; 8 (11) 656-664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Erdem CZ, Sarikaya S, Erdem LO, Ozdolap S, Gundogdu S. MR imaging features of foot involvement in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur J Radiol 2005; 53 (1) 110-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sharma H, Jane MJ, Reid R. Pigmented villonodular synovitis of the foot and ankle: Forty years of experience from the Scottish bone tumor registry. J Foot Ankle Surg 2006; 45 (5) 329-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rochwerger A, Groulier P, Curvale G, Launay F. Pigmented villonodular synovitis of the foot and ankle: a report of eight cases. Foot Ankle Int 1999; 20 (9) 587-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hughes TH, Sartoris DJ, Schweitzer ME, Resnick DL. Pigmented villonodular synovitis: MRI characteristics. Skeletal Radiol 1995; 24 (1) 7-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Clouse ME, Gramm HF, Legg M, Flood T. Diabetic osteoarthropathy. Clinical and roentgenographic observations in 90 cases. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1974; 121 (1) 22-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Marcus CD, Ladam-Marcus VJ, Leone J, Malgrange D, Bonnet-Gausserand FM, Menanteau BP. MR imaging of osteomyelitis and neuropathic osteoarthropathy in the feet of diabetics. Radiographics 1996; 16 (6) 1337-1348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gold RH, Tong DJ, Crim JR, Seeger LL. Imaging the diabetic foot. Skeletal Radiol 1995; 24 (8) 563-571
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kothari NA, Pelchovitz DJ, Meyer JS. Imaging of musculoskeletal infections. Radiol Clin North Am 2001; 39 (4) 653-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Yuh WT, Corson JD, Baraniewski HM , et al. Osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients: evaluation with plain film, 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989; 152 (4) 795-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME, Batte WG, Radack DP, Russel KM. Osteomyelitis of the foot: relative importance of primary and secondary MR imaging signs. Radiology 1998; 207 (3) 625-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Karchevsky M, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB, Parellada JA. MRI findings of septic arthritis and associated osteomyelitis in adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182 (1) 119-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Davis RI, Hamilton A, Biggart JD. Primary synovial chondromatosis: a clinicopathologic review and assessment of malignant potential. Hum Pathol 1998; 29 (7) 683-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Murphey MD, Vidal JA, Fanburg-Smith JC, Gajewski DA. Imaging of synovial chondromatosis with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2007; 27 (5) 1465-1488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bertoni F, Unni KK, Beabout JW, Sim FH. Chondrosarcomas of the synovium. Cancer 1991; 67 (1) 155-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Cappello ZJ, Kasdan ML, Louis DS. Meta-analysis of imaging techniques for the diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome type I. J Hand Surg Am 2012; 37 (2) 288-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Genant HK, Kozin F, Bekerman C, McCarty DJ, Sims J. The reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome. A comprehensive analysis using fine-detail radiography, photon absorptiometry, and bone and joint scintigraphy. Radiology 1975; 117 (1) 21-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Korompilias AV, Karantanas AH, Lykissas MG, Beris AE. Bone marrow edema syndrome. Skeletal Radiol 2009; 38 (5) 425-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar