title: Lumps and bumps around the foot and ankle: an assessment of frequency with ultrasound and MRI.
abstract: Benign and malignant tumours and tumour-like conditions frequently present as lumps in the foot and ankle. Although definitive histological diagnosis cannot be ascertained short of a biopsy, most entities can be confidently characterised on ultrasound and/or MRI. Masses in the foot and ankle present with lump, pain, paraesthesia, restricted mobility or a combination of these. In this review we have focussed on the relative frequency of masses in the foot and ankle that present as focal lumps, with a brief description of their typical appearance on ultrasound and MRI. Ganglions were the largest group in our series representing 24 % of the masses, followed by tendon- and ligament-related lesions and, bony lesions representing 16 % and 11 % of the masses respectively.
authors: Department of Radiology, The Royal Liverpool Hospital, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. drakash_ganguly@yahoo.co.uk
authors: Akash
authors: A
authors: Ganguly
authors: Hifz
authors: H
authors: Aniq
authors: Bill
authors: B
authors: Skiadas
mesh_terms: D000038:Abscess / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology; D001859:Bone Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology*; D004487:Edema / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology; D005534:Foot Diseases; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012307:Risk Factors; D012983:Soft Tissue Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology*; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006113:United Kingdom / Q000453:epidemiology
references: Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Feb;21(1):37-50
references: 21317567
references: Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2005 May;91(3):232-8
references: 15976667
references: Radiographics. 2008 Mar-Apr;28(2):481-99
references: 18349452
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Jan;180(1):99-107
references: 12490487
references: Radiol Clin North Am. 2008 Nov;46(6):1093-103, vii
references: 19038615
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Nov;193(5):1425-33
references: 19843763
references: Radiographics. 2007 Jan-Feb;27(1):173-87
references: 17235006
references: Eur Radiol. 2003 May;13(5):1125-36
references: 12695837
references: Foot Ankle Clin. 2003 Dec;8(4):751-63
references: 14719840
references: Radiographics. 2006 Sep-Oct;26(5):1543-65
references: 16973781
references: Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2005 Jun;9(2):135-49
references: 16044382
references: Clin Imaging. 1998 May-Jun;22(3):216-9
references: 9559235
references: Radiol Clin North Am. 2005 Jul;43(4):771-807, ix
references: 15893537
references: J Radiol. 2008 Jan;89(1 Pt 1):21-34
references: 18288023
references: Eur J Radiol. 2010 Jul;75(1):2-11
references: 20466500
references: J Rheumatol. 2003 Jun;30(6):1191-5
references: 12784388
references: Skeletal Radiol. 1995 Feb;24(2):139-41
references: 7747181
references: Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2010 May;20(2):105-8
references: 20607019
references: Clin Radiol. 2005 Mar;60(3):308-32
references: 15710135
references: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001 Oct;14(4):464-71
references: 11599072
references: Radiol Clin North Am. 2008 Nov;46(6):1027-43, vi
references: 19038611
references: Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007 Apr;89(3):272-5
references: 17394713
references: Insights Imaging. 2011 Aug;2(4):439-452
references: 22347966