AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, D. K.
Right arrow Articles by Totty, W. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, D. K.
Right arrow Articles by Totty, W. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 154, 559-562, Copyright © 1990 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Subtalar arthrosis: evaluation with CT

DK Smith, LA Gilula and WG Totty
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110.

The surgical implantation of a Silastic wedge into the lateral subtalar joint (subtalar arthrosis) is designed to restrict the osseous malalignment associated with a flexible or neurogenic flatfoot deformity. We used CT to examine patients who had persistent pain after a subtalar arthrosis and retrospectively reviewed our experience with CT scans of 13 subtalar implants (seven patients) during a 3.5-year period. The CT scans of four asymptomatic subtalar implants showed each implant in the expected position and orientation, and the findings were considered normal. Conversely, the findings on CT scans of all nine painful implants (seven patients) were interpreted as abnormal. The scans showed oblique orientation of four implants (44%), loosening of three implants (33%), extruded methyl methacrylate in the subtalar joint in two implants (22%), and abnormal calcaneal recession in two implants (22%). Five of the nine painful implants were revised with improvement or resolution of symptoms. Our experience suggests that CT scanning of the subtalar joint can show the position and orientation of a subtalar implant and identify causes of persistent pain after a subtalar arthrosis.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.