Bipartite medial cuneiform: magnetic resonance imaging findings and prevalence of this rare anatomical variant.
Bipartite medial cuneiform
E-sign
Magnetic resonance imaging
Medial cuneiform fracture
Journal
Skeletal radiology
ISSN: 1432-2161
Titre abrégé: Skeletal Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7701953
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
04
06
2019
accepted:
15
11
2019
revised:
04
11
2019
pubmed:
30
11
2019
medline:
26
1
2021
entrez:
30
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To describe the imaging features of bipartite medial cuneiform and to determine the prevalence of this rare anatomical variant in a large group of patients that were evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the foot. Seven hundred and fifty-one patients that underwent MRI of the foot from May 2016 to December 2018 were included in the study (mean age 49 years; 540 females; 211 males). All MRIs were retrospectively analyzed to identify bipartite medial cuneiform. For patients with bipartite medial cuneiform, we analyzed partial and complete bipartition, the type of articulation (synchondrosis, syndesmosis, or a combination of these two), and stress changes related to abnormal motion (i.e., subchondral cysts and sclerosis). Bone marrow edema-like signal, diastasis in the cleavage plane, concomitant fractures, and the presence of the E-sign were also evaluated. Nine feet from six patients presented bipartite medial cuneiform on the MRI. Six and three feet exhibited complete and partial bipartition. All patients were referred for MRI because of midfoot pain, of which two had history of trauma prior to imaging. Stress changes related to abnormal motion were observed in three feet (34%), all with complete bipartition. Bone marrow edema-like signal was recorded in five feet (55%) and diastasis in one foot (11%). No fractures were present in the bipartite medial cuneiform. All patients had E-signs. Bipartite medial cuneiform is a rare anatomical variant occurring in 0.79% of patients who underwent foot MRI in this study. It is important to be aware of this variant as it is a cause of midfoot pain. Being familiar with the E-sign helps identify and differentiate it from a fracture.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31781787
doi: 10.1007/s00256-019-03353-3
pii: 10.1007/s00256-019-03353-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
691-698Références
Foot Ankle Int. 2001 Jun;22(6):499-501
pubmed: 11475458
Homo. 2011 Apr;62(2):109-25
pubmed: 21377674
J Med Case Rep. 2008 Aug 13;2:272
pubmed: 18700977
Case Rep Med. 2014;2014:130979
pubmed: 24587806
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Dec;195(6):W447-55
pubmed: 21098178
Clin Anat. 2002 Jun;15(4):297-312
pubmed: 12112359
HSS J. 2014 Feb;10(1):92-7
pubmed: 24482629
J Rheumatol. 2017 Aug;44(8):1257-1264
pubmed: 28572462
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014 Mar-Apr;53(2):232-4
pubmed: 23628192
Foot Ankle Spec. 2016 Feb;9(1):69-78
pubmed: 25784458
J Surg Case Rep. 2015 Jul 29;2015(7):
pubmed: 26224890
Foot Ankle Spec. 2011 Oct;4(5):306-9
pubmed: 21926363
Foot Ankle Int. 1995 Jan;16(1):37-40
pubmed: 7697152
Foot Ankle Int. 2002 Apr;23(4):348-51
pubmed: 11991483
J Anat. 2010 Jun;216(6):705-16
pubmed: 20579174
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1992 Sep;82(9):475-8
pubmed: 1403738