Posterior Ankle Arthroscopy and Endoscopy

  • Peter A. J. de Leeuw
  • Maayke N. van Sterkenburg
  • Christiaan J. A. van Bergen
  • C. Niek van Dijk


Posterior ankle pathology can be treated by means of hindfoot endoscopy. The posteromedial and lateral hindfoot portals provide excellent access to the posterior aspect of the ankle and subtalar joint, including extra-articular structures in the hindfoot. An increasing amount of pathological conditions can nowadays be treated with this relatively new technique. Recently a three-portal minimal invasive groove-deepening technique, based on the posteromedial and lateral portal, was introduced to treat recurrent peroneal tendon dislocation. Other indications include subtalar arthrodesis, posterior ankle impingement, and flexor hallucis longus release. The endoscopic hindfoot portals are safe and reliable, both anatomically and clinically. It compares favorably to open surgery with regard to an overall lesser morbidity and quicker recovery.


Achilles Tendon Subtalar Joint Peroneal Tendon Posterior Tibial Tendon Flexor Hallucis Longus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Burman MS. Arthroscopy of direct visualisation of joints. An experimental cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg. 1931;13:669-695.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Watanabe M. Selfoc-Arthroscope (Watanabe no 24 arthroscope) Monograph. Tokyo: Teishin Hospital; 1972.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Dijk CN, Kort N, Scholten PE. Tendoscopy of the posterior tibial tendon. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(6):692-698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scholten PE, van Dijk CN. Tendoscopy of the peroneal tendons. Foot Ankle Clin. 2006;11(2):415-420, vii.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Dijk CN, Kort N. Tendoscopy of the peroneal tendons. Arthroscopy. 1998;14(5):471-478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steenstra F, van Dijk CN. Achilles tendoscopy. Foot Ankle Clin. 2006;11(2):429-438, viii.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scholten PE, van Dijk CN. Endoscopic calcaneoplasty. Foot Ankle Clin. 2006;11(2):439-446, viii.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Dijk CN, van Dyk GE, Scholten PE, Kort NP. Endoscopic calcaneoplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(2):185-189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Dijk CN, Scholten PE, Krips R. A 2-portal endoscopic approach for diagnosis and treatment of posterior ankle pathology. Arthroscopy. 2000;16(8):871-876.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scholten PE, Sierevelt IN, van Dijk CN. Hindfoot endoscopy for posterior ankle impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2665-2672.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Leeuw PAJ, Golano P, van Dijk CN. A 3-portal endoscopic groove deepening technique for recurrent peroneal tendon dislocation. Tech Foot Ankle Surg. 2008;7(4):250-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zengerink M, Szerb I, Hangody L, Dopirak RM, Ferkel RD, van Dijk CN. Current concepts: treatment of osteochondral ankle defects. Foot Ankle Clin. 2006;11(2):331-359, vi.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amendola A, Lee KB, Saltzman CL, Suh JS. Technique and early experience with posterior arthroscopic subtalar arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28(3):298-302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carro LP, Golano P, Vega J. Arthroscopic subtalar arthrodesis: the posterior approach in the prone position. Arthros­copy. 2007;23(4):445.e1-445.e4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glanzmann MC, Sanhueza-Hernandez R. Arthroscopic ­subtalar arthrodesis for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the hindfoot: a prospective study of 41 cases. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28(1):2-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tasto JP. Arthroscopic subtalar arthrodesis. Tech Foot Ankle Surg. 2003;2(2):122-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scholten PE, Altena MC, Krips R, van Dijk CN. Treatment of a large intraosseous talar ganglion by means of hindfoot endoscopy. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(1):96-100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamilton WG, Geppert MJ, Thompson FM. Pain in the posterior aspect of the ankle in dancers. Differential diagnosis and operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(10):1491-1500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hedrick MR, McBryde AM. Posterior ankle impingement. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15(1):2-8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Dijk CN, Lim LS, Poortman A, Strubbe EH, Marti RK. Degenerative joint disease in female ballet dancers. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(3):295-300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maquirriain J. Posterior ankle impingement syndrome. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13(6):365-371.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stibbe AB, van Dijk CN, Marti RK. The os trigonum syndrome. Acta Orthop Scand. 1994;suppl 262:59-60.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weinstein SL, Bonfiglio M. Unusual accessory (bipartite) talus simulating fracture. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57(8):1161-1163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bizarro AH. On sesamoid and supernumerary bones of the limbs. J Anat. 1921;55(pt 4):256-268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lapidus PW. A note on the fracture of os trigonum. Report of a case. Bull Hosp Joint Dis. 1972;33(2):150-154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarrafian SK. Anatomy of the Foot and Ankle: Descriptive, Topographic, Functional. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1983.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brodsky AE, Khalil MA. Talar compression syndrome. Am J Sports Med. 1986;14(6):472-476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hamilton WG. Stenosing tenosynovitis of the flexor hallucis longus tendon and posterior impingement upon the os trigonum in ballet dancers. Foot Ankle. 1982;3(2):74-80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Howse AJ. Posterior block of the ankle joint in dancers. Foot Ankle. 1982;3(2):81-84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cedell CA. Rupture of the posterior talotibial ligament with the avulsion of a bone fragment from the talus. Acta Orthop Scand. 1974;45(3):454-461.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haglund P. Beitrag zur Klinik der Achillessehne. Zeitschr Orthop Chir. 1928;49:49-58.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coughlin MJ, Mann RA. Surgery of the Foot & Ankle. Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome. Surgery of the Foot and Ankle. St. Louis: Mosby; 1993.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Molloy R, Tisdel C. Failed treatment of peroneal tendon injuries. Foot Ankle Clin. 2003;8(1):115-129, ix.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Monteggi GB. Instituzini Chirurgiche. Italy: Milan; 1803:336-341.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brage ME, Hansen ST Jr. Traumatic subluxation/­dislocation of the peroneal tendons. Foot Ankle. 1992;13(7):423-431.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eckert WR, Davis EA Jr. Acute rupture of the peroneal ­retinaculum. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976;58(5):670-672.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zoellner G, Clancy W Jr. Recurrent dislocation of the ­peroneal tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(2):292-294.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edwards ME. The relations of the peroneal tendons to the fibula, calcaneus and cuboideum. Am J Anat. 1928;42:213-253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Poll RG, Duijfjes F. The treatment of recurrent dislocation of the peroneal tendons. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1984;66(1):98-100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Dijk CN, de Leeuw PA. Imaging from an orthopaedic point of view. What the orthopaedic surgeon expects from the radiologist? Eur J Radiol. 2007;62(1):2-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Verhagen RA, Maas M, Dijkgraaf MG, Tol JL, Krips R, van Dijk CN. Prospective study on diagnostic strategies in osteochondral lesions of the talus. Is MRI superior to helical CT? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(1):41-46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rockett MS, Waitches G, Sudakoff G, Brage M. Use of ultrasonography versus magnetic resonance imaging for tendon abnormalities around the ankle. Foot Ankle Int. 1998;19(9):604-612.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Waitches GM, Rockett M, Brage M, Sudakoff G. Ultrasonographic-surgical correlation of ankle tendon tears. J Ultrasound Med. 1998;17(4):249-256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    van Dijk CN, Verhagen RA, Tol HJ. Technical note: resterilizable noninvasive ankle distraction device. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(3):E12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rouviere H, Canela Lazaro M. Le ligament peroneo-pstragalo-calcaneen. Annales d’anatomie Pathologique. 1932;7(IX):745-750.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    van Bergen CJ, de Leeuw PA, van Dijk CN. Potential pitfall in the microfracturing technique during the arthroscopic treatment of an osteochondral lesion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(2):184-187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lijoi F, Lughi M, Baccarani G. Posterior arthroscopic approach to the ankle: an anatomic study. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(1):62-67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sitler DF, Amendola A, Bailey CS, Thain LM, Spouge A. Posterior ankle arthroscopy: an anatomic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(5):763-769.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Willits K, Sonneveld H, Amendola A, Giffin JR, Griffin S, Fowler PJ. Outcome of posterior ankle arthroscopy for hindfoot impingement. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(2):196-202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. J. de Leeuw
    • 1
  • Maayke N. van Sterkenburg
    • 2
  • Christiaan J. A. van Bergen
    • 2
  • C. Niek van Dijk
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations