Posterior malleolus fracture

Case
A 21-year-old female recreational player presented three weeks after a twisting injury to her right ankle. She describes experiencing an immediate onset of severe pain, being unable to continue and developing near immediate swelling. She was seen at a local A+E within hours of her injury and was diagnosed with an ‘ankle sprain’. She had x-rays at the time of injury and again ten days later. These were said to be normal. She has been unable to weight bear since the injury.

Findings
An initial x-ray (as well as a follow-up x-ray 10 days later) showed soft tissue swelling, an effusion but no bony injury. A subsequent MRI scan shows a non-displaced coronally orientated fracture of the posterior malleolus. There is a small volume of bone oedema associated with this. In association with the fracture there is thickening of the AITFL. The PITFL was radiologically normal and there was no evidence of widening of the syndesmosis. The ATFL was also thickened and attenuated.

Discussion
Once the diagnosis of a fracture was made, this woman was managed with two weeks non-weight bearing in a walking boot. By this time, she was able to walk comfortably in her boot. She completed regular ROM exercises in a seated position during this period. She was able to progressively come out of the boot and was walking comfortably after five weeks of the diagnosis having been made. She was able to return to recreational football approximately four months after the injury.

The Ottawa rules were designed to determine when an x-ray was needed after acute ankle and mid-foot injuries. While these rules have almost 100% specificity, they have only modest specificity. The lack of specificity is highlighted in this case (where the x-rays did not clearly show the injury). If an initial x-ray is normal, but you suspect there may be a bony injury, one approach is to treat the patient and repeat the imaging in 7-10 days. By this time there is generally some fracture healing and the periosteal reaction is often evident. As this case illustrates though this is not always reliable. Another option is to arrange high-tech imaging with the aim of documenting a more significant injury. In most cases a CT or MRI would be the modalities of choice.

Important notice
FIFA does not bear any responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of any information provided in the “Radiology Review” features and cannot be held liable with regard to the information provided or any acts or omissions occurring on the basis of this information.

1
Comment

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
Bangoura Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bangoura
Guest

Les lésions de la cheville en général et malleolaire en particulier occupent une place de choix dans la blessure du sport .devant toute lésion qu’ elle soit grave ou pas selon le pied en valgus ou barnum il faut une bonne imagerie d abord la radio NUMÉRISÉE ensuite L IRM pour approfondir les investigations
En cas de fracture sans déplacement de la melleole une immobilisation plâtre de 5 à 6 semaines
En cas de fracture grave avec déplacement la chirurgie s impose et la reprise doit être progressive