Advertisement

Soft Tissue Impingement: Etiology and Classification, Treatment, Arthroscopic Procedures. Pitfalls, and Tricks

  • Angelo Bertelli
  • Alberto Marangon
  • Elisa Facci
  • Piergiuseppe Perazzini
Chapter
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Soft tissue ankle impingement lesions have become a clinically interesting topic.

In 1943, Morris described this condition as “athletes’ ankle,” and McMurry (1950) referred to the disorder as “soccer ankle.” Many authors became interested in this pathological issue and viewed it as genuine syndrome: “anterior ankle impingement syndrome.”

This painful condition can be determined by the presence of osteophytes or soft tissue disorder resulting from chronic friction between the joint surfaces or after trauma.

Patients are generally young, often professional athletes, and complain of persistent pain affecting the ankle in the anterior or posterior compartments or both, sometimes associated with a reduced range of motion (ROM). Anterior impingement syndrome may be anterior, anterolateral or anteromedial. Plantarflexion and internal rotation are the most common causes of ligament injuries, resulting in the impingement syndrome.

Posterior ankle impingement is mainly present on forced plantarflexion and may be the result of an acute or chronic injury with a compression of the thick joint capsule or scar tissue between the calcaneus and the posterior tibial rim.

Arthroscopic treatment is an excellent solution for the treatment of anterior or posterior impingement syndrome, given the numerous advantages of this surgical technique. It is important for the surgeon to harvest precise anamnestic data to decide the proper therapeutic indications and treatment.

Supplementary material

Video 6.1

Soft tissue impingement (MP4 306,205 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wolin I, et al. Internal derangement of the talofibular component of the ankle. Surg Gynecol Obset. 1950;91:193–200.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Egol KA, Parisien SJ. Impingement syndrome of the ankle caused by a medial meniscoid lesion. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(4):522–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mosier-LaClair SM, Monroe MT, Manoli A II. Medial impingement syndrome of the anterior tibiotalar fascicle of the deltoid ligament on the talus. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(5):385–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van den Bekerom MPJ, Raven EEJ. The distal fascicle of the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament as a cause of tibiotalar impingement syndrome: a current concepts review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15:465–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim SH, Ha KI. Arthroscopic treatment for impingement of the anterolateral soft tissue of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2000;82-B:1019–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Dijk CN, Bossuyt PMM, Marti RK. Medial ankle pain after lateral ligament rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78-B:562–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Utsugi K, Sakai H, Hiraoka H, Yashiki M, Mogi H. Intra-articular fibrous tissue formation following ankle fracture: the significance of arthroscopic debridement of fibrous tissue. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(1):89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tol JL, Verheyen CPPM, Van Dijk CN. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior impingement in the ankle. A prospective study with a five to eight year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83-B:9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Dijk CN. Hindfoot endoscopy. Sports Medd Arthrosc Rev. 2000;8:365–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seipel R, Linklater J, Pitsis G, Sullivan M. The peroneocalcaneus internus muscle: an unusual cause of posterior ankle impingement. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(10):890–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scholten PE, Sierevelt IN, MSc VDCN. Hindfoot endoscopy for posterior ankle impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2065–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tol JL, Verhagen RA, Krips R, Maas M, Wessel R, Dijkgraaf MGW, Van Dijk CN. The anterior ankle impingement syndrome: diagnostic value of oblique radiographs. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25(2):63–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferkel RD, Scranton PE. Current concepts review. Arthroscopy of the ankle and foot. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guhl JF. New concept (distraction) in ankle arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 1988;4:160–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scranton PE Jr, McDermott JE. Anterior tibiotalar spurs: a comparison of open versus arthroscopic debridement. Foot Ankle. 1992;13:125–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Leeuw PAJ, Golanò P, Clavero JA, Van Dijk CN. Anterior ankle arthroscopy, distraction or dorsiflexion? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(5):594–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Dijk CN, Scholte D. Arthroscopy of the ankle joint. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(1):90–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zengerink M, Van Dijk CN. Complications in ankle arthroscopy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(8):1420–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelo Bertelli
    • 1
  • Alberto Marangon
    • 2
  • Elisa Facci
    • 2
  • Piergiuseppe Perazzini
    • 2
  1. 1.The Eporediese ClinicIvreaItaly
  2. 2.The “San Francesco” ClinicVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations