Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Ultrasound versus MRI in syndesmotic injury evaluation(12,13,14)
| Feature | Ultrasound | MRI |
|---|---|---|
| Spatial resolution | High for superficial ligaments, e.g. AiTFL | Excellent for both superficial and deep structures |
| Dynamic assessment | Possible – real-time stress testing and motion evaluation | Static – no real-time dynamic capability |
| Detection of partial tears | Good, especially with high-frequency probes | Poor, but excellent tissue contrast and edema depiction |
| Detection of small bone fragments and calcification | Excellent | Poor |
| Visualization of PiTFL/interosseous membrane | Limited – deep and less accessible | Excellent – full visualization |
| Timely availability and cost | Widely available, inexpensive, bedside use | Limited availability, costly, longer examination time |
| Operator dependence | High – requires expertise | Low – standardized imaging protocols |
| Correlation with clinical findings | Immediate – can be performed at point of care | High – delayed but comprehensive evaluation |