Erect Position as the Alternative Technique in Achilles Tendon US: Comparison with Prone Position
Abstract
Background: Ultrasonography (US) is the cheaper and non-invasive modality to determine Achilles tendon. Prone position is the standard position of Achilles tendon US. However, it is a discomfort for an uncooperative patient and a difficult technique too. The erect position is an alternative technique of Achilles tendon US. The goal of this study is to compare the erection as an alternative position with prone as a standard position. Material and Method: The patient who had an injury or any inflammation process of Achilles tendon were excluded. The patient underwent two positions of Achilles tendon US, 90∘ and dorsiflexion. Longitudinal axis measured tendon thickness and transversal axis covered the cross-sectional area of tendon. Result: From all the 21 patients coming, 13 patients were males (61.9%) and 8 were females (38.1%). The mean of tendon thickness and cross-sectional area in 90∘ prone position were 4.24 ± 0.24 mm, 30.08 ± 2.86 mm, respectively. The mean of tendon thickness and cross-sectional area in 90∘ erect position were 4.27 ± 0.23 mm, 31.36 ± 2.19 mm, respectively. There was no anisotropy effect during longitudinal axis examination. Conclusion: We found that there was no significant differences between prone and erect position (p < 0.05). The erect position could be an alternative position, uncooperative patient in particular, without reducing the diagnostic value.
Keywords: Achilles tendon US, erect position, prone position, tendon thickness, cross-sectional area
References
[1] Beatrice S. F. Pang, Michael Ying. 2006. Sonographic Measurement of Achilles Tendons in Asymptomatic Subject: Variation With Age, Body Height, and Dominance of Ankle. Journal Ultrasound Medicine. 25, 1291–1296.
[2] Frank, H. Netter, MD. 2014. Atlas of Human Anatomy, Sixth Edition. Saunders Elsevier. Philadelphia. 503- 506.
[3] Bleakney, R.R., Lawrence M.W., et al., 2007. Imaging of the Achilles Tendon. Springer. 14, 25-38.
[4] Keneeth, S.Lee., 2012. Musculoskeletal Sonography of The Tendon. Journal Ultrasound Medicine. 31, 1879-1884.
[5] Hatzenbuehler, John. 2013. Basic of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound. Springer. New York. 70.
[6] Intziegianni. Konstantina, M. Cassel, K. Fro¨hlich, T. Engel, F. Mayer. 2015.Measuring Achilles Tendon Length: A Simple and Reliable Method. Sports Orthopedics and Traumatology. 31, 260-266.
[7] Bradley, Mike., Paul O’Donnel. 2002. Atlas of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Anatomy. Cambridge University Press. UK. 224-228.
[8] Syha, R., S.Grau, A.M. Nies, et al., 2014. Computer-based quantification of the Achilles tendon thickness in sequential B-mode ultrasound images: a study of feasibility and reliability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 134, 1443–1449.
[9] Olszewski. Katarzyna, T.J.M. Dick, J.M.Wakeling. 2015. Achilles tendon moment arms: The importance of measuring at constant tendon load when using the tendon excursion method. Journal of Biomechanics. 48,1206-1209.
[10] Oliveira. L. Fernandesde, C.C. Peixinho, G.A.Silva, L.L. Menegaldo. 2016. In vivo passive mechanical properties estimation of Achilles tendon using ultrasound. Journal of Biomechanics. 49, 507-513.
[11] Chimenti, R.L., A. Samuel F., et al., 2015. Ultrasound Strain Mapping of Achilles Tendon Compressive Strain Patterns During Dorsiflexion. Journal of biomechanics. 49, 39-44.
[12] Department of Musculoskeletal Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. 2012. American Institute of Ultrasound In Medicine. 0278-429.
[13] Palmer, P.E.S. 1995. Manual of Diagnostic Ultrasound. World Health Organization. Geneva. 3-15.
[14] Morrison, S.M., Taylor J.M., et al., 2015. Structural and Mechanical Properties of The Human Achilles Tendon: Sex and Strength Effects. Journal of Biomechanics. 48, 3530- 3533.
[15] Bushong, Stewart C. 1999. Diagnostic Ultrasound. McGraw-Hill Companies. USA. 57- 67.
[16] Tweedell, Andrew J., Eric D.R., et al., 2016. The Influence of Ultrasound Measurement Techniques On The Age- Related Differences In Achilles Tendon Size. Journal Experimental Gerontology. 76, 68-71.