Extraarticular Lateral Hindfoot Impingement With Posterior Tibial Tendon Tear: MRI Correlation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Posterior tibial tendon dysfunction with secondary hindfoot valgus can lead to painful extraarticular, lateral talocalcaneal, and subfibular impingements, often necessitating surgical intervention. The purpose of this study was to correlate findings of lateral hindfoot impingement with grading of posterior tibial tendon tears and severity of hindfoot valgus on MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR images from 75 patients (45 women and 30 men) with MRI evidence of posterior tibial tendon tears were evaluated for grade of posterior tibial tendon tear, hindfoot valgus angle, osseous contact or opposing marrow signal changes at the talus-calcaneus or fibula-calcaneus, peroneal tendon subluxation-dislocation, and presence of lateral malleolar bursa. Statistical analyses were performed using Cochran-Armitage, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Twenty-eight cases (37%) of lateral hindfoot impingement were identified, including six talocalcaneal, eight subfibular, and 14 talocalcaneal-subfibular impingements. The prevalence of impingement was significantly increased with greater MRI hindfoot valgus angle (p < 0.001). The prevalence of talocalcaneal-subfibular impingement significantly increased with grading of posterior tibial tendon tear (p = 0.018). Peroneal tendon subluxation was present only with advanced hindfoot valgus (p = 0.010) and impingement (p = 0.004). There was no significant association between the presence of lateral malleolar bursa and hindfoot valgus severity. CONCLUSION: Extraarticular lateral hindfoot impingement is associated with advanced posterior tibial tendon tears and increased MRI hindfoot valgus angle. Peroneal tendon subluxation likely represents an end stage of lateral impingement in patients with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".