Pathoanatomy of Maisonneuve fracture based on radiologic and CT examination
- 112 Downloads
Although Maisonneuve fracture (MF) is a well-known type of ankle fracture–dislocation, there is still a lack of information about the epidemiology and the extent of all associated injuries. The aim of study is to describe MF pathoanatomy on the basis of radiographs, CT scans and intraoperative findings.
Materials and methods
The study comprised 54 adult patients. MF was defined as an ankle fracture–dislocation with a fracture of the fibula in its proximal quarter. Ankle radiographs and lower leg radiographs were obtained in all patients. Computed tomography (CT) examination was performed in 43 patients, of these in 34 patients in combination with 3D CT reconstructions. A total of 51 patients were treated operatively, and in 38 of these an open procedure was performed.
The fibular fracture—fibular head was involved in four cases, and the subcapital region of the proximal quarter of the fibula was affected in 50 cases. Fractures of the posterior malleolus were identified in 43 of 54 patients (80%). Injury to the deltoid ligament was recorded in 27 cases (50%), a fracture of the medial malleolus in 20 cases (37%) and medial structures were intact in 7 cases (13%). Position fibula in fibular notch—in 9 cases the position changed only minimally, in 11 cases the space between the tibia and the fibula was larger than 2 mm, in 20 cases widening of the tibiofibular space was associated with external rotation of the fibula, in 2 cases fibula was trapped behind the posterior tibial tubercle and in 1 case it was associated with a complete tibiofibular diastasis.
MF is a variable injury, always associated with rupture of the anterior and interosseous tibiofibular ligaments. CT examination should be employed widely in MF, and MRI should be considered under special circumstances.
KeywordsAnkle fracture Maisonneuve fracture Posterior malleolar fracture Deltoid ligament injury
This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. The authors wish to thank Prof. Chris Colton, MD, FRCS and Ludmila Bébarová for their assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.
This study was funded by grant of AZV-CR (Czech Agency for the Medical Research) Agentura pro zdravotnický výzkum České republiky 16-28458A: Trimalleolar ankle fractures - CT diagnostics of fractures of posterior tibial rim, their CT classification and operative treatment.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Maisonneuve JG (1840) Recherches sur la fracture du peroné. Arch Gen Med 7:165–187, 433–473Google Scholar
- 2.Quenu E (1906) Fracture de Maisonneuve (fracture dite par diastase). Bull Soc Chir (Paris) 32:943–945Google Scholar
- 3.Chaput VAH (1907) Les fractures malléolaires du cou-de-pied et les accidents du travail. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
- 4.Destot E (1911) Traumatisme du Pied et Rayons X. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
- 5.Tanton J (1916) Fractures en Général: Fractures des Membres Inferiéurs. JB Bailliere, ParisGoogle Scholar
- 7.Bonnin JG (1950) Injuries to the ankle. Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 8.Weber BG (1966) Die Verletzungen des oberen Sprunggelenkes. Huber, BernGoogle Scholar
- 10.Amman E (1981) Die Maisonneuve-Fraktur Resultate von 37 behandelten Fällen in der Jahren 1971–1981. Inauguraldissertation. Universität BaselGoogle Scholar
- 11.Heim U (1983) Malleolarfrakturen Unfallheilkunde 86:248–258Google Scholar
- 13.Merrill KD (1993) The Maisonneuve fracture of the fibula. Clin Orthop Rel Res 287:218–223Google Scholar
- 14.Slawski DP, West C (1995) Maisonneuve fracture with an associated distal fibular fracture. Clin Orthop Rel Res 317:193–198Google Scholar
- 20.Kolman J (1999) Maisonneuve fracture. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 66:41–45Google Scholar
- 21.Babis GC, Papagelopoulos PJ, Tsarouchas J, Zoubos AB, Korres DS, Nikiforidis P (2000) Operative treatment for Maisonneuve fracture of the proximal fibula. Orthopedics 23:687–690Google Scholar
- 40.Hings R, Tran WH, Lorich DG (2014) Maisonneuve-Hyperplantarflexion variant ankle fracture. Orthopedics 37:E140–E144Google Scholar
- 41.Downey MW, Fleming JJ, Elgamil B, Quinn C (2015) Syndesmosis injury with concomitant deltoid disruption in trimalleolar equivalent ankle fracture: a case. Ann Sports Med Res 2:1049 (1–7)Google Scholar
- 42.van Wessem KJP, Leenen LPH (2016) A rare type of ankle fracture: syndesmotic rupture combined with a high fibular fracture without medical Injury. Injury 47:755–766Google Scholar
- 44.Bartoníček J, Rammelt S, Kostlivý K, Vaněček V, Klika D, Trešl I (2015) Anatomy and classification of the posterior tibial fragment in ankle fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:506–516Google Scholar
- 45.Bartoníček J, Džupa V, Frič V, Pacovský V, Skála-Rosenbaum J, Svatoš F (2008) Epidemiology and economic implications of fractures of proximal femur, proximal humerus, distal radius and fracture-dislocation of ankle. Rozhl Chir 87:213–219Google Scholar
- 46.Jehlička D, Bartoníček J, Svatoš F, Dobiáš J (2002) Fracture-dislocations of the ankle in adults. Part I: Epidemiological evaluation of one-year group of patients. Acta Chir Orthop Tramatol Čech 69:243–247Google Scholar
- 49.Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P et al (1987) The comprehensive classification of long bones. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 54.Rammelt S, Boszczyk A (2018) Computed tomography in the diagnosis and treatment of ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Rev 6(12):e1Google Scholar