Hindfoot Endoscopy for the Treatment of Posterior Ankle Impingement Syndrome: A Comparison of Two Methods (a Standard Method versus a Method Using a Protection Cannula)

후방 발목 충돌 증후군에서의 후족부 내시경 사용: 고식적 방법과 보호 도관을 이용한 방법의 비교

  • Kim, Eung-Soo (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gwangmyeong Saeum Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Chang-Rak (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Young-Jun (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital) ;
  • Roh, Sang-Myung (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital) ;
  • Park, Jae-Keun (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Dongrae Bongseng Hospital) ;
  • Gwak, Heui-Chul (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital) ;
  • Jung, Sun-Gyu (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital)
  • 김응수 (광명새움병원 정형외과) ;
  • 이창락 (인제대학교 부산백병원 정형외과) ;
  • 김영준 (인제대학교 부산백병원 정형외과) ;
  • 노상명 (인제대학교 부산백병원 정형외과) ;
  • 박재근 (동래봉생병원 정형외과) ;
  • 곽희철 (인제대학교 부산백병원 정형외과) ;
  • 정선규 (인제대학교 부산백병원 정형외과)
  • Received : 2017.04.13
  • Accepted : 2017.11.20
  • Published : 2018.03.15


Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical results between two different methods of hindfoot endoscopy to treat posterior ankle impingement syndrome. Materials and Methods: Between January 2008 and January 2014, 52 patients who underwent hindfoot endoscopy were retrospectively reviewed. Two methods of hindfoot endoscopy were used; Group A was treated according to van Dijk and colleagues' standard twoportal method, and group B was treated via the modified version of the above, using a protection cannula. For clinical comparison, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score, time required to return to activity, and the presence of complications were used. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the AOFAS scores at the final follow-up, and there was also no statistically significant difference in the times for the scores to return to the preoperative level. There were no permanent neurovascular injuries and wound problems in either group. Conclusion: Use of protection cannula may provide additional safety during hindfoot endoscopy. We could not prove whether protection cannula can provide superior safety for possible neurovascular injury. Considering the possible safety and risk of using additional instrument, the use of this method may be optional.


  1. Stone JW, Guhl JF. Diagnostic arthroscopy of the ankle. In: Andrews JR, Tinnerman LA, editors. Diagnostic and operative arthroscopy. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1997. p.423-30.
  2. Jerosch J, Fadel M. Endoscopic resection of a symptomatic os trigonum. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:1188-93.
  3. Golano P, Vega J, Perez-Carro L, Gotzens V. Ankle anatomy for the arthroscopist. Part I: the portals. Foot Ankle Clin. 2006;11:253-73.
  4. Ferkel RD, Scranton PE Jr. Arthroscopy of the ankle and foot. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1233-42.
  5. Ferkel RD, Heath DD, Guhl JF. Neurological complications of ankle arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 1996;12:200-8.
  6. van Dijk CN, Scholten PE, Krips R. A 2-portal endoscopic approach for diagnosis and treatment of posterior ankle pathology. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:871-6.
  7. Abramowitz Y, Wollstein R, Barzilay Y, London E, Matan Y, Shabat S, et al. Outcome of resection of a symptomatic os trigonum. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1051-7.
  8. Guo QW, Hu YL, Jiao C, Ao YF, Tian DX. Open versus endoscopic excision of a symptomatic os trigonum: a comparative study of 41 cases. Arthroscopy. 2010;26:384-90.
  9. van Dijk CN. Hindfoot endoscopy. Foot Ankle Clin. 2006;11:391-414.
  10. van Dijk CN. Hindfoot endoscopy for posterior ankle pain. Instr Course Lect. 2006;55:545-54.
  11. Acevedo JI, Busch MT, Ganey TM, Hutton WC, Ogden JA. Coaxial portals for posterior ankle arthroscopy: an anatomic study with clinical correlation on 29 patients. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:836-42.