足第2~5跖板的影像测量研究

郁耀平; 陈大伟; 俞光荣; 李兵; 杨云峰; 张鹏; 戴工华; 宋烨

doi:10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2014.05.016

中国临床解剖学杂志 ›› 2014, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (5) : 576-579. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2014.05.016

断层影像解剖

足第2~5跖板的影像测量研究

郁耀平¹，　陈大伟²，　俞光荣²，　李兵²，　杨云峰²，　张鹏²，　戴工华³，　宋烨⁴

作者信息 +

An image study on the plantar plates of the lesser metatarsophalangeal joints

YU Yao-ping¹, CHEN Da-wei ², YU Guang-rong², LI Bing ², YANG Yun-feng ², ZHANG Peng ², DAI Gong-hua³, SONG Ye ⁴

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

目的　研究跖板在MRI和超声中形态学特征，以提高对跖板临床诊断价值的认识与水平。方法采用新鲜足标本19足（76例跖板)以MRI及超声扫描，观察跖板的形态并测量跖板长、宽、中间及旁侧厚度。结果 MRI显示中，跖板在质子密度（PD）像显示最为清晰，表现为光滑圆弧结构。超声在动态及灵活性更具优势，呈现等回声带。足第2~5跖板影像学各项数值中，MRI测量长度依次为（18.36±1.30）、（17.88±0.89）、（16.67±1.22）、（14.26±1.11）mm；宽度为（10.98±0.71）、（10.10±2.21）、（10.07±0.52）、（9.07±0.65）mm；旁侧厚度为（2.07±0.13）、（2.05±0.12）、（1.87±0.22）、（1.79±0.24）mm；中间厚度为（1.34±0.16）、（1.32±0.14）、（1.13±0.14）、（1.05±0.13）mm。超声测量长度依次为（17.24±1.25）、（16.98±1.12）、（15.77±1.80）、（12.18±1.38）mm；宽度为（12.19±0.74）、（11.63±0.79）、（11.08±0.77）、（10.44±0.86）mm；旁侧厚度为（1.83±0.17）、（1.76±0.21）、（1.61±0.27）、（1.48±0.21）mm；中间厚度为（1.14±0.14）、（1.06±0.15）、（1.04±0.15）、（0.94±0.12）mm。MRI的各项测量指标结果与超声扫描对比显示两者存在差异, 参数差异比较有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 MRI与超声都可清晰地显示跖板，对跖板损伤的诊断有重要意义。

Abstract

Objective　To study and measure morphological feature of less plantar plates by MRI and ultrasound, and improve the understanding of its value on clinical diagnosis. Methods Nineteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric foot specimens (seventy-six less plantar plates) were scaned by MRI and ultrasound. The imaging morphology of less plantar plates was observed；the length, width, central thickness and lateral thickness of less plantar plate were measured.　Results　The planter plate was showed distinctly with Proton density and was smooth and curvilinear in MRI images. In addition, the planter plate was scanned dynamically and flexibly in ultrasound, showing slightly echoic band. The length of the less plantar plates in MRI was (18.36±1.30) mm，(17.88±0.89) mm, (16.67±1.22) mm，and (14.26±1.11) mm; The width in MRI was (10.98±0.71) mm，(10.10±2.21) mm，(10.07±0.52) mm，and (9.07±0.65) mm; The lateral thickness in MRI was (2.07±0.13) mm，(2.05±0.12) mm，(1.87±0.22) mm，and (1.79±0.24) mm; The central thickness in MRI was (1.34±0.16) mm，(1.32±0.14) mm，(1.13±0.14) mm, and (1.05±0.13) mm. The less plantar plates of length in ultrasound was (17.05±1.31) mm, (16.98±1.12) mm, (15.77±1.80) mm，and (12.18±1.38) mm; The width in ultrasound was (12.19±0.74) mm，(11.63±0.79) mm, (11.08±0.77) mm，and (10.44±0.86) mm; The lateral thickness in MRI was (1.83±0.17) mm, (1.76±0.21) mm, (1.61±0.27) mm, and (1.48±0.21) mm; The central thickness in MRI was (1.14±0.14) mm，(1.06±0.15) mm, (1.04±0.15) mm, and (0.94±0.12) mm. The measuring results of less plantar plates in MRI and ultrasound were different and the parameter differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).　Conclusions　Both MRI and ultrasound can show the planter plates distinctly and they play an important role for examination of plantar plates.

导出引用

郁耀平, 陈大伟, 俞光荣, 李兵, 杨云峰, 张鹏, 戴工华, 宋烨. 足第2~5跖板的影像测量研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志. 2014, 32(5): 576-579 https://doi.org/10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2014.05.016

YU Yao-Beng, CHEN Da-Wei, SHU Guang-Rong, LI Bing, YANG Yun-Feng, ZHANG Feng, DAI Gong-Hua, SONG Ye. An image study on the plantar plates of the lesser metatarsophalangeal joints[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy. 2014, 32(5): 576-579 https://doi.org/10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2014.05.016

中图分类号： R322.121

参考文献

[1] Sanhudo JA, Ellera GJL. Pull-out technique for plantar plate repair of the metatarsophalangeal joint
[J]. Foot Ankle Clin, 2012,17(3):417-424.

[2] Sung W, Weil L Jr, Sr WLS, et al. Diagnosis of plantar plate injury by magnetic resonance imaging with reference to intraoperative findings
[J]. J Foot Ankle Surg, 2012,51(5):570-574.

[3] 郁耀平, 陈大伟, 张鹏, 等. 成人足第2～5跖板的解剖测量研究
[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2013,31(6):646-649.

[4] Kier R, Abrahamian H, Caminear D, et al. MR arthrography of the second and third metatarsophalangeal joints for the detection of tears of the plantar plate and joint capsule
[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2010,194(4):1079-1081.

[5] McCormick JJ, Anderson RB. Rehabilitation following turf toe injury and plantar plate repair
[J]. Clin Sports Med, 2010,29(2):313-323.

[6] Sonnery-Cottet B, Archbold P, Thaunat M, et al. Fifth toe plantar plate repair in a professional soccer player: case report
[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2012,33(7):598-601.

[7] Lui TH, Chan LK, Chan KB. Modified plantar plate tenodesis for correction of claw toe deformity
[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2010,31(7):584-591.

[8] Nery C, Coughlin MJ, Baumfeld D, et al. Lesser metatarsophalangeal joint instability: prospective evaluation and repair of plantar plate and capsular insufficiency
[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2012,33(4):301-311.

[9] Yao L, Do HM, Cracchiolo A, et al. Plantar plate of the foot: findings on conventional arthrography and MR imaging
[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1994,163(3):641-644.

[10]Gregg J, Silberstein M, Schneider T, et al. Sonographic and MRI evaluation of the plantar plate: A prospective study
[J]. Eur Radiol, 2006,16(12):2661-2669.

[11]Gregg JM, Silberstein M, Schneider T, et al. Sonography of plantar plates in cadavers: correlation with MRI and histology
[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2006,186(4):948-955.

[12]Mazzuca JW, Yonke B, Downes JM, et al. Flouroscopic arthrography versus MR arthrography of the lesser metatarsophalangeal joints for the detection of tears of the plantar plate and joint capsule: a prospective comparative study
[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2013,34(2):200-209.

[13]Klein EE, Weil L Jr, Sr WLS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus musculoskeletal ultrasound for identification and localization of plantar plate tears
[J]. Foot Ankle Spec, 2012,5(6):359-365.