Skip to main content
Log in

Overuse of concomitant foot radiographic series in patients sustaining minor ankle injuries

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Radiographic series of the foot are often obtained in conjunction with ankle X-rays when the clinical presentation is limited to trauma to the ankle. The Ottawa Ankle and Foot Rules were established in 1992 and serve as reliable guidelines to determine when an ankle or foot series is warranted in patients who have sustained minor ankle and/or foot injury. We retrospectively reviewed radiographic studies of all patients over a period of 18 months who simultaneously had ankle and foot plain radiographs performed for acute complaints limited to the ankle alone. Of the 243 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 55 patients had fractures, 46 in or near the ankle joint, and nine which were located at the base of the fifth metatarsal bone. No fractures or dislocations were noted elsewhere in the foot. All of the fifth metatarsal fractures were evident on adequately performed ankle series. Our findings suggest that films of the foot are not necessary when trauma is limited to the ankle and when an appropriately performed ankle series has been completed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wedmore IS, Charette J (2000) Emergency department evaluation and treatment of ankle and foot injuries. Emerg Med Clin North Am 18:85–113 vi

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Packer GJ, Goring CC, Gayner AD, Craxford AD (1991) Audit of ankle injuries in an accident and emergency department. Br Med J 32:885–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yu JS, Cody ME (2009) A template approach for detecting fractures in adults sustaining low-energy ankle trauma. Emerg Radiol 16:309–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stiell IG, McDowell I, Nair RC, Aeta H, Greenberg G, McKnight RD et al (1992) Use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: physicians’ attitudes and practice. Can Med Assoc J 147:1671–1678

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Vargish T, Clarke WR, Young RA, Jensen A (1983) The ankle injury—indication for the selective use of X-rays. Injury 14:507–512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sujitkumar P, Hadfield JM, Yates DW (2001) Sprain or fracture? An analysis of 2000 ankle injuries. Arch Emerg Med 3:101–106

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kaplan P, Helms CA, Dussault R, Anderson MW, Major NM (2001) Musculoskeletal MRI, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  8. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Worthington JR (1992) A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann Emerg Med 21:384–390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pigman EC, Klug RK, Sanford S, Jolly BT (1994) Evaluation of the Ottawa clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle and mid-foot injuries in the emergency department: an independent site assessment. Ann Emerg Med 24:41–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Myer A, Canty K, Nelson T (2004) Are the Ottawa Ankle Rules helpful in ruling out the need for x-ray examination in children? Arch Dis Child 90:1309–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gravel J, Hedrei P, Grimard G, Gouin S (2009) Prospective validation and head-to-head comparison of 3 Ankle Rules in a pediatric population. Ann Emerg Med 54(4):534–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cameron C, Naylor CD, Phil D (1999) No impact from active dissemination of the Ottawa Ankle Rules: further evidence of the need for local implementation of practice guidelines. CMAJ 160(8):1165–1168

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Graham I, Stiell I, Laupacis A et al (2001) Awareness and use of the Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules in 5 countries: can publication alone be enough to change practice? Ann Emerg Med 37(3):259–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bessen T, Clark R, Shakib S, Hughes G (2009) A multifaceted strategy for implementation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules in two emergency departments. BMJ 339:b3056. doi:10.1136/bmj.b3056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bachmann LM, Kolb E, Koller MT, Steurer J, Riet G (2003) Accuracy of Ottawa Ankle Rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: systemic review. BMJ 326:417–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Anis AH, Stiell IG, Stewart DG, Laupacis A (1995) Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Ottawa Ankle Rules. Ann Emerg Med 26:422–427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Braun B (1999) Effects of ankle sprain in a general clinic population 6 to 18 months after medical evaluation. Arch Fam Med 8:143–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Clarkin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Petscavage, J., Baker, S.R., Clarkin, K. et al. Overuse of concomitant foot radiographic series in patients sustaining minor ankle injuries. Emerg Radiol 17, 261–265 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-009-0846-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-009-0846-2

Keywords

Navigation