Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research logoLink to Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research
. 2025 Jul 6;31:e948836. doi: 10.12659/MSM.948836

Immobilization with a Short Leg Cast in Acute Peroneus Brevis Tendon Tears

Muhammed Taha Demir 1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Yigit Kultur 2,A,B,C,D,E,F,✉, Cumhur Deniz Deniz Davulcu 3,A,C,D,E,F, Sema Ertan Birsel 4,A,C,D,E,F
PMCID: PMC12243672  PMID: 40618189

Abstract

Background

Acute ankle inversion sprain (AAIS) is a musculoskeletal condition commonly seen in emergency departments, often leading to peroneus brevis tendon (PBT) injuries. These injuries are usually treated with conservative management. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of immobilization with a short leg cast in treatment of incomplete split PBT tears compared to when immobilization is not used.

Material/Methods

A group of 49 patients with PBT split injury occured by AAIS, as verified by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), were evaluated from 2013 to 2021. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 (n=27) received no immobilization, and Group 2 (n=22) received immobilization by a short leg cast. AOFAS (American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society) scores at baseline and the last follow-up were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

Of the 49 patients, 55.1% were female, with a mean age of 43.76±14.23 and an average follow-up of 14.9±4.9 months. The AOFAS score of Group 1 improved from 38 (range 35–43) to 74 (range 68–82) (P<0.001), and Group 2 improved from 36 (range 31.5–38.5) to 86 (range 78.75–92) (P<0.001). The final AOFAS scores were significantly higher in Group 2 (P=0.007). Seven patients (25.9%) in Group 1 and 3 patients (13.6%) in Group 2 required surgical intervention (P=0.288).

Conclusions

For partial split PBT tears after AAIS, 4 weeks of cast immobilization led to better clinical outcomes at 14.9±4.9 months follow-up compared to no immobilization, but did not affect surgical intervention rates.

Keywords: Tendon Injuries, Ankle Injuries, Tendons

Introduction

The peroneus brevis tendon (PBT) inserts at the level of the fifth metatarsal base and plays a critical role in foot eversion and dorsiflexion movements [1]. It passes through the retro-malleolar groove accompanied by the peroneus longus tendon (PLT) [2]. PBT tears can occur due to various etiologies, including direct trauma, foot abnormalities, repeated subluxations, and tenosynovitis due to systemic diseases. A concave or flat shape of the retro-malleolar groove, peroneal tubercle hypertrophy, the presence of an os peroneum, or an accessory peroneus quartus muscle can predispose the ankle to PBT tears [3]. Moreover, administration of fluoroquinolone antibiotics and corticosteroids has been implicated in tendon lesions [4]. Histopathological studies demonstrate that PBT tears are predominantly of a mechanical etiology [5]. Although the PBT has a flat and elliptical shape, the PLT is more rounded. The PLT travels parallel to the PBT, applying compression forces on the latter posterior to the fibula. This close anatomy leads to a mechanical tension on the PBT that causes the formation of tears [3]. The tears are usually in a longitudinal split type, and transverse tears are rare [3,4].

Injuries to the ankle are among the most frequently encountered musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department, with acute ankle sprains (AAS) accounting for about one-quarter of these [6]. Bone, cartilage, tendon, or ligament structure injuries can occur due to AAS. Failure to correctly diagnose AAS or delay in management can lead to substantial morbidity [7]. Most non-surgical treatments have good outcomes, but neglected cases may require surgical intervention [8]. It is believed that about 80–90% of all AAS are due to an inversion mechanism [9]. In acute ankle inversion sprain (AAIS), peroneal tendon (PT) injuries are seen at a rate of 13% [10]. Of these, 70–80% are peroneal brevis tendon (PBT) injuries [11]. PBT injuries occur mainly longitudinally due to forceful dorsiflexion movements [12–14]. Approximately 40% of PT injuries are missed in the primary examination after trauma [8,15]. If a PT injury is suspected, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the imaging method of choice [3,15]. Moreover, MRI also helps to identify associated soft tissue, cartilage, or bone injuries that can occur with PT injuries [3,15].

In partial split PBT tears, conservative treatment methods are commonly used [1,4,13–17]. Casting can be used to decrease tension on the tendon. A short leg cast applied for 4–8 weeks can facilitate tendon healing [15]. In addition, the use of orthotics, cryotherapy, NSAIDs, activity modification, and physical therapy that strengthens the muscular-tendinous junction can be used [4,8,14,15]. There is little evidence on the effectiveness of conservative treatment of partial split PBT injury [12,13,16], and the specific effect of immobilization therapy on outcomes is unclear. The AOFAS (American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society) scoring system is used to measure improvement of pain, functional capacity, range of movement, and ankle stability after conservative treatment [18]. The scoring system awards points for pain (40 points), function (50 points), and alignment (10 points), with a combined highest score of 100. In the present study, it was also used to objectively evaluate the effect of conservative treatment on functional outcomes.

Other non-surgical modalities used in the treatment of partial split PBT tears might include steroid or platelet-rich plasma injection therapy [8,17,19,20]. Surgical treatment is generally used for full-thickness tears and partial tears that respond negatively to conservative treatment [1,14,15,21–24].

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of immobilization therapy with a short leg cast versus no immobilization in treatment of partial split PBT tears due to AAIS.

Material and Methods

Patient Selection

The study was approved by our university ethics committee (E-22686390-050.99-58779). Informed consent was obtained from all patients meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the 907 patients with presumed soft tissue injury of the AAIS presenting during 2013–2021, and admitted for an MRI scan at an injury care center, 98 patients with a partial split tear of the PBT were identified by 2 specialist orthopedic physicians. The contact details of these patients were obtained from the institutional collection of data, following which a telephone contact was attempted with them and they were requested to undergo a follow-up examination. The AOFAS scores of Group 1 (no immobilization) and Group 2 (immobilization with a short leg cast) were reassessed in follow-up consultations by the same 2 surgeons who had provided the initial AOFAS scoring and the treatment strategy following the injury. Comparative statistical analysis was performed to compare the 2 groups.

Inclusion Criteria

We included patients 18 years and older with MRI-confirmed grade 2 partial split PBT tears resulting from AAIS and showing no fracture on the initial plain radiographic evaluations at the time of injury.

Exclusion Criteria

We excluded patients with full-thickness PBT tears, full-thickness lateral ligament tears, occurrence of fractures on the injury day, PT dislocation, instability, prior history of surgical treatment of the foot or ankle, foot structure abnormalities, chronic ankle pain, lack of AOFAS scoring from initial evaluations, or failure to attend the last follow-up appointment. The study enrolled a total of 49 patients.

Treatment Groups

In this study, 2 conservative treatment methods for PBT tears were performed by 2 orthopedic surgeons in the same clinical setting. One of the surgeons used a short leg cast consistently as part of the treatment protocol, while the other used a non-immobilization approach. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the treatment modality used: Group 1 (n=27) received conservative treatment with rest in combination with an ankle support orthosis with no cast immobilization; Group 2 (n=22) received treatment with immobilization using a 3M Scotch Cast (St. Paul, MN, USA) short leg cast.

Diagnosis and Imaging

At the final follow-up examination, patients were inspected for tenderness localized at the PT, PT dislocation, and signs of joint instability. All participants had radiographic imaging at the time of initial trauma to rule out fractures, followed by MRI evaluation due to suspected soft tissue injury. The severity of the tendon injuries was graded according to the findings of the MRI [14]:

  • Grade 1: Non-full-thickness, diffuse injury;

  • Grade 2: Partial-thickness tear;

  • Grade 3: Complete tear less than 2 centimeters;

  • Grade 4: Complete tear greater than 2 centimeters.

The study only examined partial-thickness tears graded as grade 2, as shown in Figure 1. All patients had 2 reviews of their MRI scans, and patients with only confirmed grade 2 tears were included in the analysis. All the diagnostic MRI scans were performed using a 3.0 Tesla Signa Pioneer magnet (97 channels, GE, USA) and a 17-channel in vivo coil.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

An axial magnetic resonance image that shows a partial tear of the peroneus brevis tendon (PBT), which is marked with the black arrow. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data was obtained from a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) and then exported to the RadiAnt DICOM Viewer (version 2021.2; Medixant) for analysis.

Treatment Protocol

Group 2 received a 4-week immobilization, followed by a further period of rest of 2 weeks with the assistance of an ankle support orthosis. The Group 1 received treatment using a static ankle support orthosis with a rest period that added up to 6 weeks. Patients in both groups were advised not to perform high-impact sports and activities for the first 6 months after the injury.

Statistical Analysis

Data Processing and Distribution Assessment

The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0 (released in 2016, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Categorical variables are presented as absolute frequencies (n) and corresponding percentages (%), providing a clear depiction of the distribution of categories within the dataset. The Shapiro-Wilk test, a statistical procedure designed to assess whether a dataset is normally distributed, was employed to evaluate the normality of the data. This test is especially appropriate when the sample size is less than 50, as it provides a more reliable assessment of normality under these conditions. Since the continuous data did not meet the assumptions of normality, variables are summarized using the median and interquartile range (IQR), with the median representing the central tendency and the IQR (25th–75th percentile) indicating the variability. This approach is particularly appropriate for data that are not normally distributed, as the median and IQR are robust measures less influenced by extreme values.

Statistical Testing and Significance

The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the distributions of numerical variables between study groups. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a non-parametric statistical method which assesses whether there is a statistically significant difference in the median values of paired observations, was used to compare pre- and post-intervention scores within each group. Fisher’s exact test, a non-parametric statistical method that is particularly appropriate when sample sizes are small or when the assumptions required for the chi-square test are not met, was used to assess the association between categorical variables across groups. The test calculates the exact probability of observing the data under the null hypothesis of no association between the variables. In the analysis, a p-value threshold of less than 0.05 was established to determine statistical significance. This conventional cutoff implies that if the p-value obtained from a statistical test is below 0.05, there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, suggesting that the observed effect is unlikely to have occurred by random chance alone.

Additionally, a post hoc power analysis based on the observed AOFAS score difference and estimated effect size (Cohen’s d≈1.2) was performed using G*Power software, demonstrating a statistical power of approximately 90–95%.

Results

General Patient Data

Of the 49 patients included in the study, 55.1% were female, with a mean±SD age of 43.76±14.23 years and a mean follow-up duration of 14.9±4.9 months. Group 1 consisted of 27 patients, and Group 2 consisted of 22 patients.

Findings of Group 1

In Group 1, which consisted of 27 patients, 59% were females. The median age was 51 years, ranging from 33 to 59, and the median follow-up period was 15 months, ranging from 11 to 18. The mean pre-treatment AOFAS score (AOFAS 1) was 38, with scores ranging between 35 and 43. The mean at final follow-up (AOFAS 2) was 74, ranging from 68 to 82. The difference between the AOFAS 1 and AOFAS 2 scores was statistically significant (p<0.001), as shown in Figure 2A.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The comparison of the median and the interquartile range of AOFAS 1 and 2 in patients divided into A) Group 1 and B) Group 2. The increases observed in both groups were statistically significant (p<0.001).

Findings of Group 2

In Group 2 (n=22), 50% of patients were female, with a median age of 38.5 years (range: 29.75–53.25), and a median follow-up duration of 14 months (range: 11–16.5). The mean AOFAS 1 score was 36 (range: 31.5–38.5), and the mean AOFAS 2 score was 86 (range: 78.75–92). The increase between AOFAS 1 and AOFAS 2 scores was also found to be statistically significant (p<0.001) (Figure 2B).

Comparison Between Groups

In comparing Group 1 and Group 2 outcomes, median age, follow-up time, and baseline AOFAS 1 scores were similar in both groups (p>0.05 for all). However, the mean AOFAS 2 score was significantly higher in Group 2 compared to Group 1, at 86 (78.75–92) versus 74 (68–82), with a p-value of 0.007 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Comparison of median (interquartile range) AOFAS 1 and AOFAS 2 between Group 1 and Group 2. AOFAS 2 median score was significantly higher in Group 2 compared with Group 1 (86 [78.75–92] vs 74 [68–82], respectivelt, p=0.007).

Surgical intervention was recommended in 7 patients (25.9%) in Group 1 and in 3 patients (13.6%) in Group 2, due to clinical and radiological progression. The difference between these rates was not statistically significant (p=0.288). Post hoc power analysis of the 49 patients was performed. It used the observed difference of around 12 points (86 vs 74), and the statistical power obtained was 90% to 95%. This result confirmed that the sample size used was suitable for the observed difference.

Discussion

Conservative treatment is preferred for partial split PBT grade 1–2 tears, and surgical repair is recommended for grade 3–4 full-thickness tears [15,14]. In our patients, the AOFAS scores of 27 patients treated conservatively with rest and an orthosis but no cast immobilization improved from 38 (35–43) to 74 (68–82) (p<0.001). In Group 2 patients in whom cast immobilization was used, AOFAS scores improved from 36 (31.5–38.5) to 86 (78.75–92) (p<0.001). A comparison of Group 1 and Group 2 revealed that the improvement in the mean AOFAS score in Group 2 patients was significantly more than in Group 1 patients (p=0.007). These findings indicate that immobilization treatment in the initial phase of partial split PBT tears produces better long-term clinical outcomes.

The success of conservative treatment options, including cryotherapy, NSAIDs, orthoses, and casting, in managing partial split PBT tears has been debated throughout many publications [4,14,17,19,20,22,25]. Various studies suggest that early and effective conservative treatment can reduce the need for surgery [14,15,21–24]. Although some studies show that conservative treatment might be inadequate [8,14], none of these publications included clinical studies specifically investigating the conservative management of PBT tears [12,13,16].

In 1 individual case report, a patient with a PBT split tear after an AAIS received a conservative treatment that left the ankle remarkably symptom-free by the 34-month follow-up [26]. Being the first clinical study of its type, our study makes a significant contribution to the current evidence base. A direct comparison with the existing literature therefore is not possible.

The healing period of the tendon after conservative treatment is estimated be 4–6 months [4]. Individuals in the immobilization group were provided with a 4-week casting treatment, followed by 2 weeks of limited mobility with an orthosis, resulting in an overall conservative treatment period of 6 weeks. High-level sports and physical activities were suspended for a period of approximately 6 months to allow for tendon healing and to reduce the re-injury risk. Given the potential negative consequences of long-term casting, including joint stiffness and muscular atrophy, the immobilization period was limited to 4 weeks. No adverse effects were reported in the cast treatment group.

Physical therapy is intended to enhance tendon functioning by augmenting joint movement, muscle power, proprioception, and lymphatic flow, but the literature shows inconclusive outcomes regarding its effectiveness [27]. The present study used a rest-based approach to promote tissue recovery, and no patients underwent physical therapy during the study. Further studies should determine the influence of post-immobilization physical therapy on clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Past studies have mainly focused on surgical treatment of full-thickness tears [28]. In the present study follow-up MRIs were performed in patients with lateral ankle pain persisting after the ankle injury to evaluate any progression to full-thickness tears, and surgical treatment was recommended in cases with detected progression. Surgical treatment was offered to 7 patients (25.9%) in Group 1 and 3 patients (13.6%) in Group 2 because of unfavorable clinical and radiological developments. Although the rate of surgical treatment was lower in Group 2, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.288), and the small sample size may have influenced this result. Further research with larger groups is needed to obtain more conclusive results.

According to the literature, up to 36% of patients with lateral ankle pain related to AAS have underlying PBT pathology [15,29]. Peroneal tendon tears are commonly underdiagnosed on the initial clinical examination, and misdiagnosis rates ofup to 40% have been reported [3,15,30]. PBT Further, tears tend to be undetected on standard protocols for ankle MRI [12,21]. Therefore, when patients have lateral ankle pain, it is necessary to maintain a high index of suspicion for tears of the PBT even if the tests are not revealing. Bone marrow edema under the lateral malleolus on an MRI is an important sign of split-type tears of PBT [12].

Plain radiographs in the initial evaluation of ankle trauma are used to rule out any osseous pathology. MRI is the most sensitive and specific modality of injury in PBT [12,31]. It gives a complete evaluation of tendons, bones, cartilage, ligaments, and soft tissues with no risk of radiation [22]. However, the reality of workload demands, costs, and time makes it impossible to conduct MRI in all patients. Ultrasonography is an alternative diagnostic choice with excellent sensitivity and specificity [4,15]. It provides dynamic imaging with high sensitivity in tendon dislocations [32]. Compared with MRI, ultrasonography has several advantages: low costs, practicality, real-time usage, and the ability to image peritendinous soft tissues. CT is the modality of choice when dealing with the anatomy of the retro-malleolar groove and fractures, osseous hypertrophies, and other osseous pathologies [33]. Although peroneal tendoscopy offers the advantage of direct visualization of the tendon, its invasiveness makes it impractical [34].

In the present study, the patients underwent X-ray examination as a first step in excluding osseous pathology and then underwent MRI to evaluation tendon injury, ligament injury, and cartilage injury.

The small sample size is a study limitation. However, the AOFAS difference that was found between the groups was around 12 points and corresponded to an estimated effect of 1.2. With such an effect size, 13 patients per group is all that is required to achieve adequate statistical power. Group 1 contained 27 patients and Group 2 contained 22 patients, so both exceeded the calculated requirement. Therefore, the statistically significant differences found can be accepted with confidence. Larger, prospective, multicenter trials are needed to corroborate these findings.

Limitations

This study has a number of acknowledged limitations. First, longer follow-up would have allowed more thorough assessment of tendon healing and functional recovery. Secondly, the retrospective nature of the study reduces the validity of the statistical analysis. A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial might provide stronger and more reliable outcomes, counteract selection bias, and allow more thorough delineation of the functional consequences of immobilization. Serial follow-up MRIs ideally would have provided an objective method of tendon healing monitoring; however, practicality and financial restrictions made this impossible in all patients.

Conclusions

In the case of partial split PBT tears after AAIS, immobilization with a short leg cast for 4 weeks produced better clinical results compared with no immobilization, within a follow-up period of 14.9±4.9 months, but the surgical rates were similat between groups. It is important that physicians are aware of the potential for PBT tears in patients who have lateral ankle pain after AAIS, and when they detect partial split PBT tears, they should consider the possibility of using a short leg cast.

Abbrevations

AAIS

accute ankle ınversion sprain

PBT

peroneus brevis tendon

MRI

magnetic resonance ımaging

AAS

accute ankle sprain

PLT

peroneus longus tendon

PT

peroneal tendons

AOFAS

American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society

NSAID

non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: None declared

Declaration of Figures’ Authenticity: All figures submitted have been created by the authors who confirm that the images are original with no duplication and have not been previously published in whole or in part.

Financial support: None declared

References

  • 1.Basit H, Shah J, Siccardi MA. Anatomy, bony pelvis and lower limb, foot peroneus brevis muscle. National Library of Medicine; Apr 4, 2023. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535427/ [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mabit C, Salanne P, Boncoeur-Martel MP, et al. [The lateral retromalleolar groove: A radio-anatomic study]. Bull Assoc Anat (Nancy) 1996;80(249):17–21. [in French] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Taljanovic MS, Alcala JN, Gimber LH, et al. High-resolution US and MR ımaging of peroneal tendon ınjuries. Radiographics. 2015;35(1):179–99. doi: 10.1148/rg.351130062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Walt J, Massey P. Peroneal tendon syndromes. National Institutes of Health; 2023. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK544354/ [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sobel M, DiCarlo EF, Bohne WH, Collins L. Longitudinal splitting of the peroneus brevis tendon: An anatomic and histologic study of cadaveric material. Foot Ankle. 1991;12(3):165–70. doi: 10.1177/107110079101200306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Meehan TM, Martinez-Salazar EL, Torriani M. Aftermath of ankle ınversion ınjuries: Spectrum of MR ımaging findings. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25(1):45–61. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2016.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Scoty WM, Victoria LS. Acute ankle sprain. StatPearls Publishing; 2025. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Civan O, Ürgüden M. Peroneal tendon problems in sports. Totbid Dergisi. 2018;17:12–22. [in Turkish] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mackenzie MH, Zachary YK, Stephen WM, Erik AW. Epidemiology of ankle sprains and chronic ankle ınstability. J Athl Train. 2019;54(6):603–10. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-447-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fallat L, Grimm DJ, Saracco JA. Sprained ankle syndrome: prevalence and analysis of 639 acute injuries. J Foot Ankle Surg. 1998;37(4):280–85. doi: 10.1016/s1067-2516(98)80063-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sobel M, Bohne WH, Markisz JA. Peroneal tendon injuries. Foot and Ankle Clinics. 1996;1(2):369–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Huuskonen M, Borkmann S, Bengtsson A, et al. Radiological features accompanying peroneus brevis split rupture revealed on magnetic resonance imaging: A cohort study. J Foot Ankle Res. 2023;16(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s13047-023-00604-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rademaker J, Rosenberg ZS, Delfaut EM, et al. Tear of the peroneus longus tendon: MR imaging features in nine patients. Radiology. 2000;214(3):700–4. doi: 10.1148/radiology.214.3.r00mr35700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chauhan B, Panchal P, Szabo E, Wilkins T. Split peroneus brevis tendon: An unusual cause of ankle pain and ınstability. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27(2):297–302. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.02.130009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Danna NR, Brodsky JW. Diagnosis and operative treatment of peroneal tendon tears. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2020;5(2):1–11. doi: 10.1177/2473011420910407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ersoz E, Tokgoz N, Kaptan AY, et al. Anatomical variations related to pathological conditions of the peroneal tendon: Evaluation of ankle MRI with a 3D Space sequence in symptomatic patients. Skeletal Radiol. 2019;48(8):1221–31. doi: 10.1007/s00256-019-3151-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Roster B, Michelier P, Giza E. Peroneal tendon disorders. Clin Sports Med. 2015;34(4):625–41. doi: 10.1016/j.csm.2015.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, et al. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15(7):349–53. doi: 10.1177/107110079401500701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dallaudière B, Meyer P, Hummel V, et al. Efficacy of second intra-tendinous platelet-rich-plasma injection in case of incomplete response of the first injection: three-year follow up experience. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94(9):871–77. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2013.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dallaudière B, Pesquer L, Meyer P, et al. Intratendinous injection of platelet-rich plasma under US guidance to treat tendinopathy: A long-term pilot study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(5):717–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2014.01.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bokwa-Dąbrowska K, Mocanu D, Alexiev A, et al. Peroneus brevis split rupture is underreported on magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle in patients with chronic lateral ankle pain. Eur J Radiol Open. 2024;11:100591. doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kumar Y, Alian A, Ahlawat S, et al. Peroneal tendon pathology: Pre- and post-operative high resolution US and MR imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2017;92:132–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pitarini A, Anastasia M, Kennedy D, et al. The surgical procedure in managing peroneal tendon ınjury: A case series. Orthop Res Rev. 2022;14:255–62. doi: 10.2147/ORR.S351356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Götz J, Schenkel A, Grifka J, et al. Springorum HR. Postural stability and pedobarography after reconstruction of peroneus brevis tendon split lesion. Int Orthop. 2024;48(9):2311–18. doi: 10.1007/s00264-024-06239-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Squires N, Myerson MS, Gamba C. Surgical treatment of peroneal tendon tears. Foot Ankle Clin. 2007;12:4. doi: 10.1016/j.fcl.2007.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Georgias T, Nikolas M, Nikolas T, Paylos K. Non-operative treatment of peroneal split syndrome: A case report. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;78(6):804–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jeng C. Peroneal tendon disorders. In: Altchek DW, DiGiovanni CW, Dines JS, Positano RG, editors. Foot and Ankle Sports Medicine. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013. pp. 141–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mercer NP, Gianakos AL, Mercurio AM, Kennedy JG. Clinical outcomes of peroneal tendon tears: A systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;60(5):1008–13. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2021.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sammarco GJ. Peroneus longus tendon tears: Acute and chronic. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(5):245–53. doi: 10.1177/107110079501600501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dombek MF, Lamm BM, Saltrick K, et al. Peroneal tendon tears: A retrospective review. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2003;42(5):250–58. doi: 10.1016/s1067-2516(03)00314-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kennedy JG, Van Dijk PA, Murawski CD, et al. Functional outcomes after peroneal tendoscopy in the treatment of peroneal tendon disorders. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(4):1148–54. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4012-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.van Dijk PAD, van Dijk CN. Peroneal tendons. In: Canata GL, d’Hooghe P, Hunt KJ, editors. Muscle and tendon ınjuries – evaluation and management. 1st ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2017. pp. 373–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Davda K, Malhotra K, O’Donnell P, et al. Peroneal tendon disorders. EFORT Open Rev. 2017;2(6):281–92. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Van dijk CN, Kort N. Tendoscopy of the peroneal tendons. Arthroscopy. 1998;14(5):471–78. doi: 10.1016/s0749-8063(98)70074-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research are provided here courtesy of International Scientific Information, Inc.

RESOURCES