AC Portal
Document Navigator

Chronic Foot Pain

Variant: 1   Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
Radiography foot Usually Appropriate ☢
US foot Usually Not Appropriate O
Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures Usually Not Appropriate Varies
MRI foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI foot without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT foot with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
CT foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
CT foot without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
Bone scan foot Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Variant: 2   Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US foot Usually Appropriate O
MRI foot without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures May Be Appropriate Varies
MRI foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT foot with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
CT foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
CT foot without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
Bone scan foot Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Variant: 3   Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
MRI foot without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CT foot without IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢
US foot May Be Appropriate O
Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures May Be Appropriate Varies
MRI foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT foot with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
CT foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
Bone scan foot Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Variant: 4   Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
MRI foot without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CT foot without IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢
US foot May Be Appropriate O
Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures May Be Appropriate Varies
MR arthrography foot May Be Appropriate O
MRI foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT foot with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
CT foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
Bone scan foot Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Variant: 5   Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US foot Usually Appropriate O
MRI foot without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI foot without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CT foot with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢
CT foot without IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢
Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
Bone scan foot Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Variant: 6   Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
MRI foot without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
US foot May Be Appropriate O
Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) Varies
MRI foot without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
3-phase bone scan foot May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT foot with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
CT foot without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
CT foot without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢
Bone scan foot Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Panel Members
Nicholas Said, MD, MBAa; Michael G. Fox, MD, MBAb; Nicholas C. Nacey, MDc; Fawad Aslam, MBBS, MSd; Ryan Avery, MDe; Donna G. Blankenbaker, MDf; Cristy N. French, MDg; Matthew A. Frick, MDh; Katherine R. Hall, MDi; Mary Kristin Lowry, MDj; Karan A. Patel, MDk; J. Derek Stensby, MDl; Eric A. Walker, MD, MHAm; Daniel E. Wessell, MD, PhDn.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Initial Imaging Definition
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
A. Bone scan foot
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
B. CT foot with IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
C. CT foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
D. CT foot without IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
E. Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
F. MRI foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
G. MRI foot without IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
H. Radiography foot
Variant 1: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
I. US foot
Variant 2: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Variant 2: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan foot
Variant 2: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT foot with IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT foot without IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures
Variant 2: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. MRI foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. MRI foot without IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or fascia or muscle or other soft tissue origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. US foot
Variant 3: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Variant 3: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan foot
Variant 3: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT foot with IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT foot without IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures
Variant 3: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. MRI foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. MRI foot without IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect occult fracture or painful ossicles or pain of other osseous origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. US foot
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan foot
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT foot with IV contrast
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT foot without IV contrast
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. MR arthrography foot
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. MRI foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. MRI foot without IV contrast
Variant 4: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect osteochondral lesion or cartilage abnormality or degenerative joint disease or pain of other articular origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
I. US foot
Variant 5: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Variant 5: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan foot
Variant 5: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT foot with IV contrast
Variant 5: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 5: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT foot without IV contrast
Variant 5: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures
Variant 5: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. MRI foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 5: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. MRI foot without IV contrast
Variant 5: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect foreign body. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. US foot
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. 3-phase bone scan foot
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. Bone scan foot
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT foot with IV contrast
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. CT foot without IV contrast
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. Image-guided anesthetic +/- corticosteroid injection foot or surrounding structures
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. MRI foot without and with IV contrast
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. MRI foot without IV contrast
Variant 6: Adult. Chronic foot pain. Suspect Baxter neuropathy or complex regional pain syndrome or entrapment syndrome or other neurogenic origin. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
I. US foot
Summary of Highlights
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause
The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.
Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. McGlamry ED, Southerland JT, Vickers D, Boberg JS. McGlamry's comprehensive textbook of foot and ankle surgery. Fourth edition ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
2. Crim J. The painful lateral column of the foot: from back to front. [Review]. Skeletal Radiology. 51(6):1115-1125, 2022 Jun.
3. Hawke F, Burns J. Understanding the nature and mechanism of foot pain. Journal of Foot & Ankle Research. 2:1, 2009 Jan 14.J. foot ankle res.. 2:1, 2009 Jan 14.
4. Joong MA, El-Khoury GY. Radiologic evaluation of chronic foot pain. [Review] [32 refs]. Am Fam Physician. 76(7):975-83, 2007 Oct 01.
5. Hawke F, Burns J, Radford JA, du Toit V. Custom-made foot orthoses for the treatment of foot pain. [Review] [80 refs]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (3)CD006801, 2008 Jul 16.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (3)CD006801, 2008 Jul 16.
6. Menz HB.. Chronic foot pain in older people. [Review]. Maturitas. 91:110-4, 2016 Sep.Maturitas. 91:110-4, 2016 Sep.
7. Walker EA, Beaman FD, Wessell DE, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Osteomyelitis of the Foot in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S440-S50.
8. Chang EY, Tadros AS, Amini B, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Ankle Pain. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S26-S38.
9. Pierce JL, Perry MT, Wessell DE, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Osteomyelitis, Septic Arthritis, or Soft Tissue Infection (Excluding Spine and Diabetic Foot): 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2022;19:S473-S87.
10. Subhas N, Wu F, Fox MG, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Extremity Joint Pain-Suspected Inflammatory Arthritis, Crystalline Arthritis, or Erosive Osteoarthritis: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S20-S32.
11. Gorbachova T, Chang EY, Ha AS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Trauma to the Foot. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S2-S11.
12. Shereff MJ, DiGiovanni L, Bejjani FJ, Hersh A, Kummer FJ. A comparison of nonweight-bearing and weight-bearing radiographs of the foot. Foot Ankle 1990;10:306-11.
13. Shelton TJ, Singh S, Bent Robinson E, et al. The Influence of Percentage Weight-Bearing on Foot Radiographs. Foot Ankle Spec 2019;12:363-69.
14. Harris RI, Beath T. Etiology of peroneal spastic flat foot. 1948;30B(4):624-634.
15. Taylor JA, Sartoris DJ, Huang GS, Resnick DL. Painful conditions affecting the first metatarsal sesamoid bones. Radiographics. 13(4):817-30, 1993 Jul.Radiographics. 13(4):817-30, 1993 Jul.
16. Wright AA, Hegedus EJ, Lenchik L, Kuhn KJ, Santiago L, Smoliga JM. Diagnostic Accuracy of Various Imaging Modalities for Suspected Lower Extremity Stress Fractures: A Systematic Review With Evidence-Based Recommendations for Clinical Practice. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:255-63.
17. Jain S, Mannan K. The diagnosis and management of Morton's neuroma: a literature review. [Review]. Foot ankle spec.. 6(4):307-17, 2013 Aug.
18. Thomas JL, Christensen JC, Kravitz SR, et al. The diagnosis and treatment of heel pain: a clinical practice guideline-revision 2010. [Review] [462 refs]. Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery. 49(3 Suppl):S1-19, 2010 May-Jun.J Foot Ankle Surg. 49(3 Suppl):S1-19, 2010 May-Jun.
19. Osborne HR, Breidahl WH, Allison GT. Critical differences in lateral X-rays with and without a diagnosis of plantar fasciitis. J Sci Med Sport. 9(3):231-7, 2006 Jun.
20. Breunung N, Barwick T, Fernando R, et al. Additional benefit of SPECT-CT in investigating heel pain. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 33(10):705-6, 2008 Oct.Clin Nucl Med. 33(10):705-6, 2008 Oct.
21. Cochet H, Pele E, Amoretti N, Brunot S, Lafenetre O, Hauger O. Anterolateral ankle impingement: diagnostic performance of MDCT arthrography and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 194(6):1575-80, 2010 Jun.
22. Jaffee NW, Gilula LA, Wissman RD, Johnson JE. Diagnostic and therapeutic ankle tenography: outcomes and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 176(2):365-71, 2001 Feb.
23. Fram BR, Rogero R, Fuchs D, Shakked RJ, Raikin SM, Pedowitz DI. Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Peroneal Tendon Sheath Ultrasound-Guided Corticosteroid Injection. Foot Ankle Int 2019;40:888-94.
24. Lucas PE, Hurwitz SR, Kaplan PA, Dussault RG, Maurer EJ. Fluoroscopically guided injections into the foot and ankle: localization of the source of pain as a guide to treatment--prospective study. Radiology. 1997;204(2):411-415.
25. Lee MJ, Kim S, Huh YM, et al. Morton neuroma: evaluated with ultrasonography and MR imaging. Korean J Radiol. 8(2):148-55, 2007 Mar-Apr.
26. Ashman CJ, Klecker RJ, Yu JS. Forefoot pain involving the metatarsal region: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. [Review] [58 refs]. Radiographics. 21(6):1425-40, 2001 Nov-Dec.
27. Terk MR, Kwong PK, Suthar M, Horvath BC, Colletti PM. Morton neuroma: evaluation with MR imaging performed with contrast enhancement and fat suppression. Radiology. 1993;189(1):239-241.
28. Flores DV, Mejia Gomez C, Fernandez Hernando M, Davis MA, Pathria MN. Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity: Anatomy, Biomechanics, Staging, and Imaging Findings. [Review]. Radiographics. 39(5):1437-1460, 2019 Sep-Oct.
29. Chang MY, Hong SH, Yoo HJ, Choi JY, Chae HD, Moon SJ. MRI of Cuboid Pulley Lesion. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 211(4):867-871, 2018 10.
30. Khan I, Peters J, Welck M, Saifuddin A. Sinus tarsi and sinus tarsi syndrome: An imaging review. [Review]. European Journal of Radiology. 161:110725, 2023 Apr.
31. Grasel RP, Schweitzer ME, Kovalovich AM, et al. MR imaging of plantar fasciitis: edema, tears, and occult marrow abnormalities correlated with outcome. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Sep;173(3):699-701.
32. Chimutengwende-Gordon M, O'Donnell P, Singh D. Magnetic resonance imaging in plantar heel pain. Foot Ankle Int. 31(10):865-70, 2010 Oct.
33. Sung W, Weil L Jr, Weil LS Sr, Rolfes RJ. Diagnosis of plantar plate injury by magnetic resonance imaging with reference to intraoperative findings. J Foot Ankle Surg. 51(5):570-4, 2012 Sep-Oct.
34. Albright RH, Brooks BM, Chingre M, Klein EE, Weil LS, Jr., Fleischer AE. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) versus dynamic ultrasound for plantar plate injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2022;152:110315.
35. Kier R, Abrahamian H, Caminear D, et al. MR arthrography of the second and third metatarsophalangeal joints for the detection of tears of the plantar plate and joint capsule. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 194(4):1079-81, 2010 Apr.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 194(4):1079-81, 2010 Apr.
36. Mohana-Borges AV, Theumann NH, Pfirrmann CW, Chung CB, Resnick DL, Trudell DJ. Lesser metatarsophalangeal joints: standard MR imaging, MR arthrography, and MR bursography--initial results in 48 cadaveric joints. Radiology. 227(1):175-82, 2003 Apr.
37. Zanetti M, Strehle JK, Kundert HP, Zollinger H, Hodler J. Morton neuroma: effect of MR imaging findings on diagnostic thinking and therapeutic decisions. Radiology. 213(2):583-8, 1999 Nov.Radiology. 213(2):583-8, 1999 Nov.
38. Zanetti M, Ledermann T, Zollinger H, Hodler J. Efficacy of MR imaging in patients suspected of having Morton's neuroma. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 168(2):529-32, 1997 Feb.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 168(2):529-32, 1997 Feb.
39. Franco H, Pagliaro T, Sparti C, Walsh HJ. Comparing Clinical Examination and Radiological Evaluation in the Preoperative Diagnosis and Location of Symptomatic Interdigital (Morton's) Neuroma. Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery. 62(5):883-887, 2023 Sep-Oct.
40. Bignotti B, Signori A, Sormani MP, Molfetta L, Martinoli C, Tagliafico A. Ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for Morton neuroma: systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur Radiol. 25(8):2254-62, 2015 Aug.
41. Zanetti M, Strehle JK, Zollinger H, Hodler J. Morton neuroma and fluid in the intermetatarsal bursae on MR images of 70 asymptomatic volunteers. Radiology. 1997;203(2):516-520.
42. McCarthy CL, Wilson DJ, Coltman TP. Anterolateral ankle impingement: findings and diagnostic accuracy with ultrasound imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 37(3):209-16, 2008 Mar.
43. Sabir N, Demirlenk S, Yagci B, Karabulut N, Cubukcu S. Clinical utility of sonography in diagnosing plantar fasciitis. J Ultrasound Med. 24(8):1041-8, 2005 Aug.
44. Abdel-Wahab N, Fathi S, Al-Emadi S, Mahdi S. High-resolution ultrasonographic diagnosis of plantar fasciitis: A correlation of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Rheum Dis 2008;11:279-86.
45. Kapoor A, Sandhu HS, Sandhu PS, Kapoor A, Mahajan G, Kumar A. Realtime elastography in plantar fasciitis: comparison with ultrasonography and MRI. Current Orthopaedic Practice 2010;21:600-08.
46. Draghi F, Gitto S, Bortolotto C, Draghi AG, Ori Belometti G. Imaging of plantar fascia disorders: findings on plain radiography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. [Review]. Insights Into Imaging. 8(1):69-78, 2017 Feb.Insights imaging. 8(1):69-78, 2017 Feb.
47. Jeswani T, Morlese J, McNally EG. Getting to the heel of the problem: plantar fascia lesions. [Review] [26 refs]. Clin Radiol. 64(9):931-9, 2009 Sep.
48. Sussman WI, Park DJ, Rucci PM, Chen YH. Subluxing fractured plantar fat pad: a case series and description of novel sonographic findings. Skeletal Radiology. 50(6):1241-1247, 2021 Jun.
49. Feuerstein CA, Weil L Jr, Weil LS Sr, Klein EE, Fleischer A, Argerakis NG. Static Versus Dynamic Musculoskeletal Ultrasound for Detection of Plantar Plate Pathology. Foot & Ankle Specialist. 7(4):259-265, 2014 Jul 15.Foot ankle spec.. 7(4):259-265, 2014 Jul 15.
50. Stone M, Eyler W, Rhodenizer J, van Holsbeeck M. Accuracy of Sonography in Plantar Plate Tears in Cadavers. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 36(7):1355-1361, 2017 Jul.J Ultrasound Med. 36(7):1355-1361, 2017 Jul.
51. Gregg J, Silberstein M, Schneider T, Marks P. Sonographic and MRI evaluation of the plantar plate: A prospective study. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16(12):2661-2669.
52. Xu Z, Duan X, Yu X, Wang H, Dong X, Xiang Z. The accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of Morton's neuroma: a systematic review. [Review]. Clin Radiol. 70(4):351-8, 2015 Apr.
53. Angoules AG, Angoules NA, Georgoudis M, Kapetanakis S. Update on diagnosis and management of cuboid fractures. [Review]. World j. orthop.. 10(2):71-80, 2019 Feb 18.
54. Hirschmann MT, Davda K, Rasch H, Arnold MP, Friederich NF. Clinical value of combined single photon emission computerized tomography and conventional computer tomography (SPECT/CT) in sports medicine. [Review]. Sports med. arthrosc. rev.. 19(2):174-81, 2011 Jun.
55. Chisin R, Peyser A, Milgrom C. Bone scintigraphy in the assessment of the hallucal sesamoids. Foot & Ankle International. 16(5):291-4, 1995 May.Foot Ankle Int. 16(5):291-4, 1995 May.
56. Arican P, Okudan B, Sefizade R, Naldoken S. Diagnostic Value of Bone SPECT/CT in Patients with Suspected Osteomyelitis. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 28(3):89-95, 2019 09 06.
57. Georgoulias P, Georgiadis I, Dimakopoulos N, Mortzos G. Scintigraphy of stress fractures of the sesamoid bones. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 26(11):944-5, 2001 Nov.Clin Nucl Med. 26(11):944-5, 2001 Nov.
58. Mandell GA, Harcke HT. Scintigraphic manifestations of infraction of the second metatarsal (Freiberg's disease). Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 28(2):249-51, 1987 Feb.J Nucl Med. 28(2):249-51, 1987 Feb.
59. Romanowski CA, Barrington NA. The accessory navicular--an important cause of medial foot pain. Clin Radiol. 1992;46(4):261-264.
60. Chan BY, Markhardt BK, Williams KL, Kanarek AA, Ross AB. Os Conundrum: Identifying Symptomatic Sesamoids and Accessory Ossicles of the Foot. [Review]. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 213(2):417-426, 2019 08.
61. Mosel LD, Kat E, Voyvodic F. Imaging of the symptomatic type II accessory navicular bone. Australas Radiol. 48(2):267-71, 2004 Jun.
62. Jain S, Karunanithi S, Agarwal KK, Kumar G, Roy SG, Tripathi M. Incremental value of single photon emission tomography/computed tomography in 3-phase bone scintigraphy of an accessory navicular bone. Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 29(3):191-2, 2014 Jul.Indian J. Nucl. Med.. 29(3):191-2, 2014 Jul.
63. Usmani S, Sit C, Gnanasegaran G, den Wyngaert TV, Marafi F. Pictorial atlas of symptomatic accessory ossicles by 18F-Sodium Fluoride (NaF) PET-CT. American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 7(6):275-282, 2017.
64. Almeida RR, Mansouri M, Tso DK, et al. The added value of cross-sectional imaging in the detection of additional radiographically occult fractures in the setting of a Chopart fracture. EMERG. RADIOL.. 25(5):513-520, 2018 Oct.
65. Choi CH, Ogilvie-Harris DJ. Occult osteochondral fractures of the subtalar joint: a review of 10 patients. J Foot Ankle Surg. 41(1):40-3, 2002 Jan-Feb.
66. Haapamaki VV, Kiuru MJ, Koskinen SK. Ankle and foot injuries: analysis of MDCT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 183(3):615-22, 2004 Sep.
67. Suh CH, Yun SJ, Jin W, Lee SH, Park SY, Ryu CW. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT for the detection of bone marrow oedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur Radiol. 28(10):4182-4194, 2018 Oct.
68. Biedert R, Hintermann B. Stress fractures of the medial great toe sesamoids in athletes. Foot & Ankle International. 24(2):137-41, 2003 Feb.Foot Ankle Int. 24(2):137-41, 2003 Feb.
69. Sanders TG, Rathur SK. Imaging of painful conditions of the hallucal sesamoid complex and plantar capsular structures of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. [Review] [37 refs]. Radiol Clin North Am. 46(6):1079-92, vii, 2008 Nov.
70. Chun KA, Oh HK, Wang KH, Suh JS. Freiberg's disease: quantitative assessment of osteonecrosis on three-dimensional CT. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 101(4):335-40, 2011 Jul-Aug.
71. Yao L, Do HM, Cracchiolo A, Farahani K. Plantar plate of the foot: findings on conventional arthrography and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 163(3):641-4, 1994 Sep.
72. Mellado JM, Ramos A, Salvado E, Camins A, Danus M, Sauri A. Accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones of the ankle and foot: imaging findings, clinical significance and differential diagnosis. [Review] [30 refs]. Eur Radiol. 13 Suppl 4:L164-77, 2003 Dec.
73. Karasick D, Schweitzer ME. The os trigonum syndrome: imaging features. AJR. 1996;166(1):125-129.
74. Sadineni RT, Pasumarthy A, Bellapa NC, Velicheti S. Imaging Patterns in MRI in Recent Bone Injuries Following Negative or Inconclusive Plain Radiographs. J Clin Diagn Res. 9(10):TC10-3, 2015 Oct.
75. Baker JC, Hoover EG, Hillen TJ, Smith MV, Wright RW, Rubin DA. Subradiographic Foot and Ankle Fractures and Bone Contusions Detected by MRI in Elite Ice Hockey Players. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 44(5):1317-23, 2016 May.Am J Sports Med. 44(5):1317-23, 2016 May.
76. Pierre-Jerome C, Reyes EJ, Moncayo V, Chen ZN, Terk MR. MRI of the cuboid bone: analysis of changes in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients and their clinical significance. Eur J Radiol. 81(10):2771-5, 2012 Oct.
77. Porter DA.. Fifth Metatarsal Jones Fractures in the Athlete. Foot Ankle Int. 39(2):250-258, 2018 02.
78. Karasick D, Schweitzer ME. Disorders of the hallux sesamoid complex: MR features. [Review] [30 refs]. Skeletal Radiology. 27(8):411-8, 1998 Aug.Skeletal Radiol. 27(8):411-8, 1998 Aug.
79. Mateen S, Kwaadu KY, Ali S. Diagnosis, imaging, and potential morbidities of the hallux interphalangeal joint os interphalangeus. [Review]. Skeletal Radiology. 51(6):1143-1151, 2022 Jun.
80. Tafur M, Rosenberg ZS, Bencardino JT. MR Imaging of the Midfoot Including Chopart and Lisfranc Joint Complexes. [Review]. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America. 25(1):95-125, 2017 Feb.Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 25(1):95-125, 2017 Feb.
81. Berman Z, Tafur M, Ahmed SS, Huang BK, Chang EY. Ankle impingement syndromes: an imaging review. [Review]. Br J Radiol. 90(1070):20160735, 2017 Feb.
82. Gregg JM, Schneider T, Marks P. MR imaging and ultrasound of metatarsalgia--the lesser metatarsals. [Review] [50 refs]. Radiol Clin North Am. 46(6):1061-78, vi-vii, 2008 Nov.
83. Couturier S, Gold G. Imaging Features of Avascular Necrosis of the Foot and Ankle. [Review]. Foot & Ankle Clinics. 24(1):17-33, 2019 Mar.
84. Wang CL, Shieh JY, Wang TG, Hsieh FJ. Sonographic detection of occult fractures in the foot and ankle. J Clin Ultrasound. 27(8):421-5, 1999 Oct.
85. Oh SJ, Kim YH, Kim SK, Kim MW. Painful os peroneum syndrome presenting as lateral plantar foot pain. Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine. 36(1):163-6, 2012 Feb.Ann. rehabil. med.. 36(1):163-6, 2012 Feb.
86. van Hasselt AJ, Pustjens J, de Zwart AD, Dal M, de Vries AJ, van Raaij TM. Clinical impact of 99mTc-HDP SPECT/CT imaging as standard workup for foot and ankle osteoarthritis. BJR Open. 5(1):20230017, 2023.
87. Omar IM, Weaver JS, Altbach MI, et al. Imaging of osteoarthritis from the ankle through the midfoot. [Review]. Skeletal Radiology. 52(11):2239-2257, 2023 Nov.Skeletal Radiol. 52(11):2239-2257, 2023 Nov.
88. Steadman J, Sripanich Y, Rungprai C, Mills MK, Saltzman CL, Barg A. Comparative assessment of midfoot osteoarthritis diagnostic sensitivity using weightbearing computed tomography vs weightbearing plain radiography. European Journal of Radiology. 134:109419, 2021 Jan.
89. Richter M, de Cesar Netto C, Lintz F, Barg A, Burssens A, Ellis S. The Assessment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Weight-Bearing Computed Tomography. [Review]. Foot & Ankle Clinics. 27(1):13-36, 2022 Mar.Foot Ankle Clin. 27(1):13-36, 2022 Mar.
90. Deng E, Gao L, Shi W, et al. Both Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography Are Reliable and Valid in Evaluating Cystic Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 8(9):2325967120946697, 2020 Sep.
91. Ha AS, Cunningham SX, Leung AS, Favinger JL, Hippe DS. Weightbearing Digital Tomosynthesis of Foot and Ankle Arthritis: Comparison With Radiography and Simulated Weightbearing CT in a Prospective Study. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 212(1):173-179, 2019 01.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 212(1):173-179, 2019 01.
92. Khosla S, Thiele R, Baumhauer JF. Ultrasound guidance for intra-articular injections of the foot and ankle. Foot & Ankle International. 30(9):886-90, 2009 Sep.Foot Ankle Int. 30(9):886-90, 2009 Sep.
93. Peterson CK, Buck F, Pfirrmann CW, Zanetti M, Hodler J. Fluoroscopically guided diagnostic and therapeutic injections into foot articulations: report of short-term patient responses and comparison of outcomes between various injection sites. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 197(4):949-53, 2011 Oct.
94. Saifuddin A, Abdus-Samee M, Mann C, Singh D, Angel JC. CT guided diagnostic foot injections. Clin Radiol. 60(2):191-5, 2005 Feb.
95. Khoury NJ, el-Khoury GY, Saltzman CL, Brandser EA. Intraarticular foot and ankle injections to identify source of pain before arthrodesis. AJR. 1996;167(3):669-673.
96. Camerer M, Ehrenstein B, Hoffstetter P, Fleck M, Hartung W. High-resolution ultrasound of the midfoot: sonography is more sensitive than conventional radiography in detection of osteophytes and erosions in inflammatory and non-inflammatory joint disease. Clinical Rheumatology. 36(9):2145-2149, 2017 Sep.Clin Rheumatol. 36(9):2145-2149, 2017 Sep.
97. Zubler V, Zanetti M, Dietrich TJ, Espinosa N, Pfirrmann CW, Mamisch-Saupe N. Is there an Added Value of T1-Weighted Contrast-Enhanced Fat-suppressed Spin-Echo MR Sequences Compared to STIR Sequences in MRI of the Foot and Ankle?. European Radiology. 27(8):3452-3459, 2017 Aug.
98. Nevalainen MT, Pitkanen MM, Saarakkala S. Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasonography for Evaluation of Osteoarthritis of Ankle Joint: Comparison With Radiography, Cone-Beam CT, and Symptoms. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 41(5):1139-1146, 2022 May.J Ultrasound Med. 41(5):1139-1146, 2022 May.
99. Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW, Kransdorf MJ. Wooden foreign bodies: imaging appearance. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 178(3):557-62, 2002 Mar.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 178(3):557-62, 2002 Mar.
100. Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarci M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(2):72-78.
101. Jarraya M, Hayashi D, de Villiers RV, et al. Multimodality imaging of foreign bodies of the musculoskeletal system. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(1):W92-102, 2014 Jul.
102. Hoffstetter P, Friedrich C, Framme C, et al. [Detection of intraorbital foreign material using MDCT]. Rofo 2011;183:543-8.
103. Ruder TD, Thali Y, Bolliger SA, et al. Material differentiation in forensic radiology with single-source dual-energy computed tomography. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 2013;9:163-9.
104. Carneiro BC, Cruz IAN, Chemin RN, et al. Multimodality Imaging of Foreign Bodies: New Insights into Old Challenges. [Review]. Radiographics. 40(7):1965-1986, 2020 Nov-Dec.Radiographics. 40(7):1965-1986, 2020 Nov-Dec.
105. Monu JU, McManus CM, Ward WG, Haygood TM, Pope TL, Jr., Bohrer SP. Soft-tissue masses caused by long-standing foreign bodies in the extremities: MR imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:395-7.
106. Murakami AM, Chang A, Foo LF. Traumatic Lateral Plantar Artery Pseudoaneurysm and the Use of Time-Resolved MR Angiography. HSS J 2010;6:214-8.
107. Karcnik TJ, Nazarian LN, Rao VM, Gibbons GE, Jr. Foreign body granuloma simulating solid neoplasm on MR. Clin Imaging 1997;21:269-72.
108. Hunter TB, Taljanovic MS. Foreign bodies. Radiographics 2003;23:731-57.
109. Boyse TD, Fessell DP, Jacobson JA, Lin J, van Holsbeeck MT, Hayes CW. US of soft-tissue foreign bodies and associated complications with surgical correlation. Radiographics 2001;21:1251-6.
110. Bray PW, Mahoney JL, Campbell JP. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in the diagnosis of foreign bodies in the hand. J Hand Surg Am 1995;20:661-6.
111. Jacobson JA, Powell A, Craig JG, Bouffard JA, van Holsbeeck MT. Wooden foreign bodies in soft tissue: detection at US. Radiology. 1998;206(1):45-48.
112. Horton LK, Jacobson JA, Powell A, Fessell DP, Hayes CW. Sonography and radiography of soft-tissue foreign bodies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1155-9.
113. Rubin JM, Adler RS, Bude RO, Fowlkes JB, Carson PL. Clean and dirty shadowing at US: a reappraisal. Radiology 1991;181:231-6.
114. Davae KC, Sofka CM, DiCarlo E, Adler RS. Value of power Doppler imaging and the hypoechoic halo in the sonographic detection of foreign bodies: correlation with histopathologic findings. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 22(12):1309-13; quiz 1314-6, 2003 Dec.J Ultrasound Med. 22(12):1309-13; quiz 1314-6, 2003 Dec.
115. Cappello ZJ, Kasdan ML, Louis DS. Meta-analysis of imaging techniques for the diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome type I. [Review]. J Hand Surg [Am]. 37(2):288-96, 2012 Feb.
116. Flanigan RM, DiGiovanni BF. Peripheral nerve entrapments of the lower leg, ankle, and foot. Foot Ankle Clin 2011;16:255-74.
117. Nwawka OK, Miller TT. Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Nerve Injection Techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:507-16.
118. Borchers AT, Gershwin ME. Complex regional pain syndrome: a comprehensive and critical review. [Review]. Autoimmun Rev. 13(3):242-65, 2014 Mar.
119. Schurmann M, Zaspel J, Lohr P, et al. Imaging in early posttraumatic complex regional pain syndrome: a comparison of diagnostic methods. Clin J Pain. 23(5):449-57, 2007 Jun.
120. Schweitzer ME, Mandel S, Schwartzman RJ, Knobler RL, Tahmoush AJ. Reflex sympathetic dystrophy revisited: MR imaging findings before and after infusion of contrast material. Radiology. 1995;195(1):211-214.
121. Agten CA, Kobe A, Barnaure I, Galley J, Pfirrmann CW, Brunner F. MRI of complex regional pain syndrome in the foot. European Journal of Radiology. 129:109044, 2020 Aug.
122. Garwood ER, Duarte A, Bencardino JT. MR Imaging of Entrapment Neuropathies of the Lower Extremity. [Review]. Radiol Clin North Am. 56(6):997-1012, 2018 Nov.
123. Kim SJ, Hong SH, Jun WS, et al. MR imaging mapping of skeletal muscle denervation in entrapment and compressive neuropathies. [Review]. Radiographics. 31(2):319-32, 2011 Mar-Apr.
124. De Maeseneer M, Madani H, Lenchik L, et al. Normal Anatomy and Compression Areas of Nerves of the Foot and Ankle: US and MR Imaging with Anatomic Correlation. [Review]. Radiographics. 35(5):1469-82, 2015 Sep-Oct.
125. Schmid DT, Hodler J, Mengiardi B, Pfirrmann CW, Espinosa N, Zanetti M. Fatty muscle atrophy: prevalence in the hindfoot muscles on MR images of asymptomatic volunteers and patients with foot pain. Radiology. 253(1):160-6, 2009 Oct.
126. Chari B, McNally E. Nerve Entrapment in Ankle and Foot: Ultrasound Imaging. [Review]. Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology. 22(3):354-363, 2018 Jul.
127. Presley JC, Maida E, Pawlina W, Murthy N, Ryssman DB, Smith J. Sonographic visualization of the first branch of the lateral plantar nerve (baxter nerve): technique and validation using perineural injections in a cadaveric model. J Ultrasound Med. 32(9):1643-52, 2013 Sep.
128. Nazarian LN, Schweitzer ME, Mandel S, et al. Increased soft-tissue blood flow in patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the lower extremity revealed by power Doppler sonography. AJR. 1998;171(5):1245-1250.
129. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
130. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.