Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Prevalence of variants of the retro-malleolar fibular groove, peroneal tubercle, and os peroneum_ N = 63_ P-values indicated as * p <0_05
| Retromalleolar fibular groove shape | Presence of peroneal tubercle | Presence of os peroneum | ||||
| concave | flat | convex | ||||
| US | n | 39 | 14 | 10 | 41 | 3 |
| % | 61.9% | 22.2% | 15.9% | 65.1% | 4.8% | |
| CT | n | 45 | 12 | 6 | 40 | 6 |
| % | 71.4% | 19.0% | 9.5% | 63.5% | 9.5% | |
| Difference | % | 9.5%* | 3.2%* | 6.3% | 1.6%* | 1.6% |
Interconnections between the SPR, ATFL, IER, and PTS revealed on ultrasound and MRI, N = 63_ P-values indicated as * p <0_05 and ** p <0_001
| ATFL – SPR at the level of lateral malleolus | ATFL – SPR inferior to lateral malleolus | ATFL – SPR at the level and inferior to the lateral malleolus | SPR - IER | SPR - PTS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | 37 | 25 | 17 | 18 | 16 |
| 58.7% | 39.7% | 27.0% | 28.6% | 25.4% | |
| MRI | 28 | 31 | 23 | 30 | 14 |
| 44.4% | 49.2% | 36.5% | 47.6% | 22.2% | |
| Difference | 14.3%* | 9.5%* | 9.5%* | 19.0%** | 3.2% |
Differences in the presence of interconnections between different variants of retromalleolar fibular groove on US and MRI, p-value
| Modality | Variant of retromalleolar fibular groove | ATFL-SPR at the level of lateral malleolus | ATFL-SPR inferior to lateral malleolus | ATFL-SPR at the level and inferior to lateral malleolus | SPR-IER | SPR-PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | convex | 0.80 | 0.42 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 0.59 |
| concave | 0.26 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.82 | 0.79 | |
| flat | 0.69 | 0.95 | 0.70 | 0.43 | 0.81 | |
| CT | convex | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.45 | 0.66 |
| concave | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.53 | 0.26 | |
| flat | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.54 | 0.31 |