AB1333 ULTRASOUND FINDINGS IN NORMAL ANKLES – ULTRASOUND-MRI COMPARISON

Background Although in recent years efforts have been made to standardize the protocols of ultrasound acquisition for each anatomical region, as well definitions and quantification pathological findings, there is still an unanswered question: what should ankle joint look like a healthy subject? Objectives The study aims describe changes ankles subjects compare method with MRI. Methods included volunteering adults, without any symptoms or local medical history. right was examined clinically, by (by same expert, using Esaote MyLabTwice 12-18 MHz linear probe, standard definition imaging findings [1-4]) MRI contrast 1.5 T GE Optima 450 WGEM machine, standardized finding [5-7]). Results 25 subjects, median age 54.6 ± 11.8 years, mostly women (84%). Ultrasound identified minimal synovial effusion (SE) tibiotalar (TTJ) 20% (24% on MRI, overall agreement - OA=88%, k=0.65, sensitivity=66.7%, specificity=94.7%), equal proportions between anterior posterior recess (12% 16% MRI). One subject had SE both TTJ’s recesses. also found subtalar 36% (44% OA=92%, k=0.83, sensitivity=81.8%, specificity=100%), only (8% 2 having recesses). A amount tendon sheets, medial compartment (flexor tendons, retro infra-malleolar segments), quantified mode B grade 1 tenosynovitis: tibialis (48% OA=72%, k=0.43, sensitivity=41.7%, specificity=100%, mean thickness 1.28±0.26mm – 1), flexor digitorum longus (32% OA=76%, k=0.36, sensitivity=37.5%, specificity=94.1%, 2.70±2.39mm, which 24% 8% 3) hallucis tendons k=0.69, sensitivity=62.5%, 1.38±0.69mm, 28% 4% 3). There were no cases articular sheath hypertrophy intra- peri-articular power Doppler signals. Conclusion has proven be accurate examination. Healthy may exhibit SE, especially recess, respectively ankle, imply that these not clinical relevance diagnostic evaluation monitoring rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. References [1]Wakefield RJ et al. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(12):2485-7. [2]D’Agostino MA RMD Open. 2017;3(1):e000428. [3]Szkudlarek M Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48(4):955-62. [4]Naredo E Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(8):1328-34. [5]Ostergaard 2003;30(6):1385-6. [6]Ostergaard 2005;64 Suppl 1:i3-7. [7]Haugen IK 2011;70(6):1033-8. Disclosure Interests None declared