Next Article in Journal
Lightweight Differentiated Transmission Based on Fuzzy and Random Modeling in Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks
Next Article in Special Issue
Editorial: Biomedical Data in Human–Machine Interaction
Previous Article in Journal
An Implementation of Inverse Cosine Hardware for Sound Rendering Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigating the Impact of Guided Imagery on Stress, Brain Functions, and Attention: A Randomized Trial
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Hearing and Seeing Nerve/Tendon Snapping: A Systematic Review on Dynamic Ultrasound Examination

Department of Neurosciences, Institute of Human Anatomy, University of Padova, 35121 Padova, Italy
Department of Medicine—DIMED, School of Radiology, Radiology Institute, University of Padua, 35122 Padova, Italy
Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Hacettepe University Medical School, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2023, 23(15), 6732;
Submission received: 25 June 2023 / Revised: 18 July 2023 / Accepted: 26 July 2023 / Published: 27 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomedical Data in Human-Machine Interaction)


Nerve/tendon snapping can occur due to their sudden displacement during the movement of an adjacent joint, and the clinical condition can really be painful. It can actually be challenging to determine the specific anatomic structure causing the snapping in various body regions. In this sense, ultrasound examination, with all its advantages (especially providing dynamic imaging), appears to be quite promising. To date, there are no comprehensive reviews reporting on the use of dynamic ultrasound examination in the diagnosis of nerve/tendon snapping. Accordingly, this article aims to provide a substantial discussion as to how US examination would contribute to ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ these pathologies’ different maneuvers/movements.

1. Introduction

Snapping commonly occurs as a result of the sudden displacement of an anatomical or pathological structure during the movement of an adjacent joint [1]. Apart from causing curiosity, the clinical scenario can often be accompanied by discomfort or pain, limiting daily professional/sporting activities [1]. Snapping is usually audible and palpable, but rarely visible; therefore, imaging and detecting the actual/responsible structure is crucial, but difficult as well [2,3,4]. Although radiographs, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used for assessing several anatomic structures in this aspect, ultrasound (US) examination appears to be superior and able to contribute more [3,4]. Apart from its high resolution as regards nerve/tendon imaging, the dynamic evaluation of the structures in a patient- and physician-friendly approach is paramount for better understanding ‘snapping’ [2,3,4]. US examination provides a precise (real-time) correlation between the symptoms and the movement of the suspected structure [1,5,6]. Depending on the suspected nerve/tendon, snapping can be triggered/tested during any position, also conveniently reassuring the patient [5]. Prompt dynamic US examination requires excellent knowledge on US physics, and consequently regarding various artifacts and interactions with different tissues, for better interpretation of the US images/videos [2,3,4].
Although the use of US examination for snapping is well-known, there is no comprehensive review present in the pertinent literature describing how sonographic ‘seeing’ or ‘hearing’ can be performed. As such, the purpose of this article was to report the significance/utility of US examination in the diagnosis of snapping tendons and nerves.

2. Materials and Methods

The present review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and metanalysis (PRISMA). The literature research was carried out using databases like PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. The following keyword combinations were run: “snapping” OR “popping” OR “dislocation” OR “subluxation” AND “ultrasound imaging” AND/OR “ultrasonography” AND “tendons” OR “nerves”. No publication date or language restrictions were imposed. The initial search yielded 220 papers for nerves and 99 papers for tendons. Thereafter, 120 articles for nerves and 20 for tendons were removed before screening (Figure 1). The retrieved studies (100 papers for nerves and 79 for tendons) were then reviewed. Papers focusing on treatment, surgery or treatment that did not discuss how to perform US examination, or those not published in English, were excluded. A total of 72 papers for nerves and 65 for tendons were further reviewed for their titles and abstracts. Finally, 60 papers for nerves and 62 for tendons were identified for full-text reading, whereby 40 papers for nerves and 48 for tendons were included in this systematic review.

3. Results

Papers selected as regards the US imaging of nerve/tendon snapping either in patients or healthy subjects were analyzed. The agreement between the authors for including the articles was perfect (Cohen’s k = 0.87). The main characteristics of the studies (published between 1983 and 2023) are summarized in Table 1 for nerves [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46] and in Table 2 for tendons [1,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94].
The 40 papers reviewed for nerves comprised 16 original articles, 6 reviews, 14 case reports, 3 retrospective studies and 2 letters to the editor [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. Similarly, 49 papers reviewed for tendons comprised 7 original articles, 17 reviews, 23 case reports/series and 1 retrospective study [48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]. For nerves, 1156 males (63.8%) and 657 females (36.2%) with an average age of 29.8 ± 15 years had been studied. For tendons, 455 males (29.9%) and 1066 females (70.1%) with an average age of 24.3 ± 14 years had been studied. Usually, the snapping was assessed using B-mode imaging, either with linear or curvilinear probes. The most commonly involved structures were the ulnar nerve (87.5%) and iliopsoas tendon (37.5%).

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this review article is a unique summary of 89 publications on US examination for nerve/tendon snapping. In particular, having also summarized the relevant maneuvers/movements, we have demonstrated the utility of dynamic US imaging as a gold standard diagnostic method for snapping. Of note, this type of assessment not only ascertains the snapping structure, but also the possible abnormalities in relation to the clinical condition [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94] (Table 3).
The etiology of snapping is linked to a wide range of functional factors [1,9,10,34], especially in biomechanical disorders in which the underlying mechanism is complex. Repetitive movements, overuse, muscle and fascial imbalances or structural abnormalities can be reasons for snapping. In some cases, snapping may be painless, while in some others it can be accompanied by significant discomfort/pain. Additionally, patients affected by snapping/popping phenomena are more susceptible to developing chronic pain and limited joint movement [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]. The majority of the literature reviewed in this study highlighted the role of US examination to unravel difficulties in diagnosing and unveiling the exact biomechanical alterations associated with snapping/popping due to ambiguous symptoms and signs [1,2,3,4,5]. In this regard, performing a simple US examination following an inconclusive physical examination can undoubtedly be contributory [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94].
Snapping phenomena varied between genders; while the prevalence values were 63.8% (nerves) and 29.9% (tendons) in males, they were, respectively, 36.2% and 70.1% in females. All this could be determined by a different tissue composition in the different sexes. We believe that this ‘almost complete’ opposition needs further investigation.

4.1. Nerve Snapping

Concerning nerve snapping (Video S1), the most common regions were reported to be the elbow and the ulnar nerve (87.5%) (Figure 2, Video S2), followed by the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve (at the elbow), the median nerve (at the wrist) and the sciatic nerve (in the thigh) (Video S3). For the ulnar nerve (snapping over the medial epicondyle), dynamic and short-axis imaging at the cubital tunnel level have been used during various positions of elbow flexion/extension. Additionally, isometric triceps contraction has also been used in certain cases [42].
In this context, considering the benefits of immediate/dynamic visualization of the complete movement, along with the nerve structure along its entire trajectory, dynamic imaging appears to be the most advantageous imaging modality [42,44,47]. Moreover, Shen et al. [44] reported an instability of the ulnar nerve in children, possibly in relation to the flexible retinaculum of the cubital tunnel. Schertz et al. [19] demonstrated that the morphological compression and dislocation of the ulnar nerve correlated with symptomatology. They postulated that patients with anatomic and/or dynamic variation of the ulnar nerve and its surrounding structures were more prone to developing ulnar-nerve-related complaints [19]. Similarly, the snapping of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve over the medial epicondyle was assessed during elbow flexion [23]. Median nerve snapping over the palmaris longus tendon [46], the sciatic nerve at the ischiofemoral space (during hip rotations) [28], the proper digital nerve of the fifth toe (during flexion/extension) [29] and the superficial radial nerve during thumb flexion/extension [34] are some other scenarios reported in the literature. Dynamic US examination can be readily performed from a technical standpoint. However, it is imperative for the sonographer to possess detailed knowledge of the local anatomy in order to precisely identify the possible anatomical variations. While such variations can be evaluated (generally statically) by using computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging, US is a far more accessible and affordable diagnostic modality [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. It is noteworthy that a visualization of the snapping can also be coupled with the sensation or sound of snapping during real-life instances.

4.2. Tendon Snapping

Regarding tendon snapping, several factors such as a conflict with bony structures, other tendons (intersection), retinacula and thickened pulleys, or instability caused by the rupture of retinacula, have been reported [1]. The iliopsoas tendon was the most commonplace (37.5%), in which hip flexion/extension, rotation and abduction were used to induce snapping [50,51,52,64,75,76,79,80,81,93]. Moreover, distal biceps brachii and brachialis tendon snappings [49] were described to ensue (during elbow flexion/extension) over the trochlea. The iliotibial band (during hip flexion/extension) [64], sartorius, gracilis, biceps femoris, popliteus and semitendinosus tendons (during knee flexion/extension), peroneal (Figure 3, Video S4), tibialis posterior and plantaris tendons (during ankle dorsiflexion/inversion), extensor pollicis brevis tendon (during finger flexion/extension), rotator cuff tendons, distal biceps/triceps tendons and wrist flexor/extensor tendons have also been reported to snap in various regions [4,34,68].
Depending on the specific biomechanics of the assessed tendon, combined/detailed positionings of the relevant joints can be easily performed under dynamic US examination [62,78]. For example, biceps femoris snapping usually is shown as a jerky movement of the tendon over the fibular head during knee extension at 90° [1,91]. Magnetic resonance imaging is usually normal in this particular snapping, or may only show a predisposing factor [70,93]. There could possibly be a cord-like anterior arm of the biceps femoris tendon that separates from the direct arm of the tendon 3–4 cm above its insertion [1,91]. Similarly, anatomical variations in other tendons, such as pes anserinus [86], iliopsoas [50,51,52,66,75,76,79,80,81,93], popliteus [73] and peroneals [77,84], can also be predisposed to snapping. In disabling cases, US examination is not only crucial in the diagnosis but also for the eventual pre-operative planning [1].

4.3. Future Perspectives Assessing Pros/Cons of Dynamic US Examination in the Evaluation of Nerve/Tendon Snapping

To date, the concept of dynamic US imaging has been widely accepted [2,3,4]. However, several of the dynamic US assessments obtained can contribute to the exact diagnosis and monitoring of the snapping condition if they are properly interpreted in a clinical/surgical/rehabilitative context. In terms of therapeutic approach, different publications reported that the precise detection of the cause and its severity played an important role. Accordingly, conservative vs. surgical treatment alternatives can be promptly applied, as well as followed, thereafter. Needless to say, the former group includes proper posture maintenance, excessive movement avoidance, regular stretching and strengthening, all of which aim to help muscle/fascial balance and flexibility [95].
However, while the pros are that dynamic US imaging enables real-time and multi-directional US observation, providing a more accurate, precise and objective approach to assessing the nerves and tendons movement, the cons would be that in some cases, during dynamic US imaging, it can be difficult to identify which anatomic structure is snapping. Bjerre et al. [39] reported that an accessory snapping triceps tendon can clinically be confused with the snapping of the ulnar nerve [39], as the two structures are closely located at the medial epicondyle. Moreover, a careful evaluation of nearby anatomical structures is mandatory, with particular attention on the various movement directions and degrees during the maneuvers. For example, Asopa et al. [68] demonstrated that the pes anserinus snapping can be secondary to a meniscal cyst, and only by dynamic US imaging was it possible to underline the snapping cause, avoiding incorrect surgery. The MRI revealed a lobulated parameniscal cyst, but it was unable to provide a definitive explanation for the snapping sensation. In contrast, dynamic US imaging permits the successful identification of both meniscal cysts and tears, permitting the observation that the sartorius was anterior to the cyst in the neutral position, while the gracilis tendon was located posteriorly. Inevitably, during knee flexion, the sartorius tendon snapped over the cyst and moved to a posterior position at the front edge of the gracilis tendon. When extending the knee back to a neutral position with active quadriceps muscle contraction, the sartorius tendon swiftly moved forward, traversing over the cyst, resulting in a distressing snapping sensation [68].
Due to the superior sensitivity of dynamic US examination in comparison with static US examination and MRI, it has the potential to be an initial modality or to reduce the numbers of imaging examinations. While interest in this US examination is increasing, there are several issues to be considered and solved. First, more methodologically rigorous studies are still needed. The issues in conducting clinical studies include the choice of reference standards for the final diagnosis, the competency of examiners and the standardization of findings. Second, there were few pieces of evidence on the utility of dynamic US examination to differentiate particular nerve/tendon snapping based on the standardization of dynamic US maneuvers. Third, knowledge of anatomical variations is crucial to better highlight the correct anatomical structure snaps and the reasons that determine it.
The utility of dynamic US examination in nerve/tendon snapping has been shown mainly in the fields of physical and rehabilitative medicine, radiology, orthopedics and neurology. Collaboration between these specialties is indispensable for the further development of this assessment modality.
The limitations of this review would be the small number of patients included in different studies and the heterogeneity of the article types. Also, taking into account the possible variations as regards the expertise of sonographers and the device settings, it was not reasonable or conclusive to carry out further statistical analysis.

5. Conclusions

In closing, this review shows that dynamic US examination can be efficiently incorporated as an extension of physical examination for the evaluation of nerve/tendon snapping in daily clinical practice. It is noteworthy that such an assessment would not only unmask the actual cause/structure responsible for snapping, but would also guide the treatment as well as the close follow up during management. To this end, simultaneously ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ the snapping under US examination is invaluable for musculoskeletal physicians.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at:, Video S1. Snapping of the radial nerve. Video S2. Snapping of the ulnar nerve. Video S3. Snapping of the sciatic nerve. Video S4. Snapping of the peroneal tendons.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.P., N.P. and L.Ö.; methodology, C.P., N.P. and L.Ö.; software, C.P. and N.P.; validation, C.P., N.P., C.S., V.M., A.P., R.D.C. and L.Ö.; formal analysis, C.P., N.P., C.S., V.M., A.P., R.D.C. and L.Ö.; investigation, C.P. and N.P.; resources, C.P.; data curation, C.P., N.P. and L.Ö.; writing—original draft preparation, C.P. and N.P.; writing—review and editing, C.P., N.P. and L.Ö.; visualization, C.P., N.P., C.S., V.M., A.P., R.D.C. and L.Ö.; supervision, C.P.; project administration, C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.


The authors thank the Institute of Human Anatomy of Padova.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Marchand, A.J.; Proisy, M.; Ropars, M.; Cohen, M.; Duvauferrier, R.; Guillin, R. Snapping knee: Imaging findings with an emphasis on dynamic sonography. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2012, 199, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pirri, C.; Stecco, C.; Güvener, O.; Mezian, K.; Ricci, V.; Jačisko, J.; Novotný, T.; Kara, M.; Chang, K.V.; Dughbaj, M.; et al. EURO-MUSCULUS/USPRM Dynamic Ultrasound Protocols for Knee. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2023, 102, e67–e72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mezian, K.; Ricci, V.; Güvener, O.; Jačisko, J.; Novotný, T.; Kara, M.; Chang, K.V.; Naňka, O.; Pirri, C.; Stecco, C.; et al. EURO-MUSCULUS/USPRM Dynamic Ultrasound Protocols for (Adult) Hip. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2022, 101, e162–e168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ricci, V.; Güvener, O.; Chang, K.V.; Wu, W.T.; Mezian, K.; Kara, M.; Leblebicioğlu, G.; Pirri, C.; Ata, A.M.; Dughbaj, M.; et al. EURO-MUSCULUS/USPRM Dynamic Ultrasound Protocols for Elbow. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2022, 101, e83–e92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Çağlayan, G.; Özçakar, L.; Kaymak, S.U.; Kaymak, B.; Tan, A.A. Effects of Sono-feedback during aspiration of Baker’s cysts: A controlled clinical trial. J. Rehabil. Med. 2016, 48, 386–389. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Cambon-Binder, A. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2021, 107, 102754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tsukada, K.; Yasui, Y.; Sasahara, J.; Okawa, Y.; Nakagawa, T.; Kawano, H.; Miyamoto, W. Ulnar Nerve Dislocation and Subluxation from the Cubital Tunnel Are Common in College Athletes. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pisapia, J.M.; Ali, Z.S.; Hudgins, E.D.; Khoury, V.; Heuer, G.G.; Zager, E.L. Ultrasonography Detects Ulnar Nerve Dislocation Despite Normal Electrophysiology and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. World Neurosurg. 2017, 99, 809.e1–809.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Lee, K.S.; Rosas, H.G.; Craig, J.G. Musculoskeletal ultrasound: Elbow imaging and procedures. Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2010, 14, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Coraci, D.; Giovannini, S.; Imbimbo, I.; Santilli, V.; Padua, L. Ulnar Nerve Dislocation at the Elbow: The Role of Ultrasound. World Neurosurg. 2017, 103, 934–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Martinoli, C.; Bianchi, S.; Derchi, L.E. Tendon and nerve sonography. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 1999, 37, 691–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kakita, M.; Mikami, Y.; Ibusuki, T.; Shimoe, T.; Kamijo, Y.I.; Hoekstra, S.P.; Tajima, F. The prevalence of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow and ulnar nerve dislocation in recreational wheelchair marathon athletes. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Martinoli, C.; Bianchi, S.; Dahmane, M.; Pugliese, F.; Bianchi-Zamorani, M.P.; Valle, M. Ultrasound of tendons and nerves. Eur. Radiol. 2002, 12, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Omejec, G.; Podnar, S. Does ulnar nerve dislocation at the elbow cause neuropathy? Muscle Nerve 2016, 53, 255–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Endo, F.; Tajika, T.; Kuboi, T.; Shinagawa, S.; Tsukui, T.; Nakajima, T.; Kogure, Y.; Chikuda, H. The ultrasonographic assessment of the morphologic changes in the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel in Japanese volunteers: Relationship between dynamic ulnar nerve instability and clinical symptoms. JSES Int. 2021, 5, 942–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Okamoto, M.; Abe, M.; Shirai, H.; Ueda, N. Morphology and dynamics of the ulnar nerve in the cubital tunnel. Observation by ultrasonography. J. Hand. Surg. Br. 2000, 25, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cornelson, S.M.; Sclocco, R.; Kettner, N.W. Ulnar nerve instability in the cubital tunnel of asymptomatic volunteers. J. Ultrasound 2019, 22, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kang, S.; Yoon, J.S.; Yang, S.N.; Choi, H.S. Retrospective study on the impact of ulnar nerve dislocation on the pathophysiology of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Peer J. 2019, 7, e6972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schertz, M.; Mutschler, C.; Masmejean, E.; Silvera, J. High-resolution ultrasound in etiological evaluation of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Eur. J. Radiol. 2017, 95, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Grechenig, W.; Clement, H.; Mayr, J.; Peicha, G. Ultrasound detection of dislocation of the ulnar nerve from the sulcus of the elbow joint. Praxis 2003, 92, 1129–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Kim, B.J.; Koh, S.B.; Park, K.W.; Kim, S.J.; Yoon, J.S. Pearls & Oy-sters: False positives in short-segment nerve conduction studies due to ulnar nerve dislocation. Neurology 2008, 70, e9–e13. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Imao, K.; Miwa, H.; Tsubokawa, N.; Maki, Y.; Endo, N. Dislocation of the Medial Head of the Triceps With Ulnar Nerve Location Anterior to the Medial Epicondyle. J. Hand. Surg. Am. 2020, 45, 72.e1–72.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Cesmebasi, A.; O’driscoll, S.W.; Smith, J.; Skinner, J.A.; Spinner, R.J. The snapping medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve. Clin. Anat. 2015, 28, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Plaikner, M.; Loizides, A.; Loescher, W.; Spiss, V.; Gruber, H.; Djurdjevic, T.; Peer, S. Thickened hyperechoic outer epineurium, a sonographic sign suggesting snapping ulnar nerve syndrome? Ultraschall. Med. 2013, 34, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, B.J.; Date, E.S.; Lee, S.H.; Yoon, J.S.; Hur, S.Y.; Kim, S.J. Distance measure error induced by displacement of the ulnar nerve when the elbow is flexed. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2005, 86, 809–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yoo, M.J.; Kim, D.D.J.; Oh-Park, M. Exacerbation of habitual dislocation of ulnar nerve by concurrent dislocation of triceps muscle: Complementary role of dynamic ultrasonography to electrodiagnosis. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2007, 86, 1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shimizu, H.; Beppu, M.; Arai, T.; Kihara, H.; Izumiyama, K. Ultrasonographic findings in cubital tunnel syndrome caused by a cubitus varus deformity. Hand Surg. 2011, 16, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hatem, M.; Martin, H.D.; Safran, M.R. Snapping of the Sciatic Nerve and Sciatica Provoked by Impingement Between the Greater Trochanter and Ischium: A Case Report. JBJS Case Connect. 2020, 10, e2000014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Reisner, J.H.; Boettcher, B.J.; Johnson, A.C.; Cummings, N.M.; Jelsing, E.J. To Be or Not to Be (A Morton’s/Interdigital Neuroma): That Is the Question-A Case Series of Lateral Forefoot Pain Localized to the Proper Digital Nerve of the Fifth Toe. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2021, 31, e287–e289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Chuang, H.J.; Hsiao, M.Y.; Wu, C.H.; Özçakar, L. Dynamic Ultrasound Imaging for Ulnar Nerve Subluxation and Snapping Triceps Syndrome. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2016, 95, e113–e114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kang, J.H.; Joo, B.E.; Kim, K.H.; Park, B.K.; Cha, J.; Kim, D.H. Ultrasonographic and Electrophysiological Evaluation of Ulnar Nerve Instability and Snapping of the Triceps Medial Head in Healthy Subjects. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2017, 96, e141–e146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Allen, G.; Wilson, D. Ultrasound of the upper limb: When to use it in athletes. Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2012, 16, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bjerre, J.J.; Johannsen, F.E.; Rathcke, M.; Krogsgaard, M.R. Snapping elbow-A guide to diagnosis and treatment. World J. Orthop. 2018, 9, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chang, K.V.; Hung, C.Y.; Özçakar, L. Snapping Thumb and Superficial Radial Nerve Entrapment in De Quervain Disease: Ultrasound Imaging/Guidance Revisited. Pain. Med. 2015, 16, 2214–2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jacobson, J.A.; Jebson, P.J.; Jeffers, A.W.; Fessell, D.P.; Hayes, C.W. Ulnar nerve dislocation and snapping triceps syndrome: Diagnosis with dynamic sonography--report of three cases. Radiology 2001, 220, 601–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Yiannakopoulos, C.K. Imaging diagnosis of the snapping triceps syndrome. Radiology 2002, 225, 607–608, author reply 608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Michael, A.E.; Young, P. Is triceps hypertrophy associated with ulnar nerve luxation? Muscle Nerve 2018, 58, 523–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Erez, O.; Khalil, J.G.; Legakis, J.E.; Tweedie, J.; Kaminski, E.; Reynolds, R.A. Ultrasound evaluation of ulnar nerve anatomy in the pediatric population. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2012, 32, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Granata, G.; Padua, L.; Celletti, C.; Castori, M.; Saraceni, V.M.; Camerota, F. Entrapment neuropathies and polyneuropathies in joint hypermobility syndrome/Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2013, 124, 1689–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tai, T.W.; Kuo, L.C.; Chen, W.C.; Wang, L.H.; Chao, S.Y.; Huang, C.N.; Jou, I.M. Anterior translation and morphologic changes of the ulnar nerve at the elbow in adolescent baseball players. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2014, 40, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Van Den Berg, P.J.; Pompe, S.M.; Beekman, R.; Visser, L.H. Sonographic incidence of ulnar nerve (sub)luxation and its associated clinical and electrodiagnostic characteristics. Muscle Nerve 2013, 47, 849–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kawabata, M.; Miyata, T.; Tatsuki, H.; Naoi, D.; Ashihara, M.; Miyatake, K.; Kusaba, Y.; Watanabe, D.; Matsuzaki, M.; Suzuki, Y.; et al. Ultrasonographic prevalence of ulnar nerve displacement at the elbow in young baseball players. PMR 2022, 14, 955–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Konin, G.P.; Nazarian, L.N.; Walz, D.M. US of the elbow: Indications, technique, normal anatomy, and pathologic conditions. Radiographics 2013, 33, E125–E147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Shen, P.C.; Chern, T.C.; Wu, K.C.; Tai, T.W.; Jou, I.M. The assessment of the ulnar nerve at the elbow by ultrasonography in children. J. Bone Joint. Surg. Br. 2008, 90, 657–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Grechenig, W.; Mayr, J.; Peicha, G.; Boldin, C. Subluxation of the ulnar nerve in the elbow region--ultrasonographic evaluation. Acta Radiol. 2003, 44, 662–664. [Google Scholar]
  46. L’Heureux-Lebeau, B.; Odobescu, A.; Moser, T.; Harris, P.G.; Danino, M.A. Ulnar subluxation of the median nerve following carpal tunnel release: A case report. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2012, 65, e99–e101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Filippou, G.; Mondelli, M.; Greco, G.; Bertoldi, I.; Frediani, B.; Galeazzi, M.; Giannini, F. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: How frequent is the idiopathic form? An ultrasonographic study in a cohort of patients. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2010, 28, 63–67. [Google Scholar]
  48. Yen, Y.M.; Lewis, C.L.; Kim, Y.J. Understanding and Treating the Snapping Hip. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2015, 23, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Ooi, M.W.X.; Tham, J.L.; Al-Ani, Z. Role of dynamic ultrasound in assessment of the snapping elbow and distal biceps tendon injury. Ultrasound 2022, 30, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, K.S.; Rosas, H.G.; Phancao, J.P. Snapping hip: Imaging and treatment. Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2013, 17, 286–294. [Google Scholar]
  51. Janzen, D.L.; Partridge, E.; Logan, P.M.; Connell, D.G.; Duncan, C.P. The snapping hip: Clinical and imaging findings in transient subluxation of the iliopsoas tendon. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 1996, 47, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Blankenbaker, D.G.; Tuite, M.J. Iliopsoas musculotendinous unit. Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2008, 12, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shapiro, S.A.; Hernandez, L.O.; Montero, D.P. Snapping Pes Anserinus and the Diagnostic Utility of Dynamic Ultrasound. J. Clin. Imaging Sci. 2017, 7, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Winston, P.; Awan, R.; Cassidy, J.D.; Bleakney, R.K. Clinical examination and ultrasound of self-reported snapping hip syndrome in elite ballet dancers. Am. J. Sports Med. 2007, 35, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chang, K.V.; Wu, W.T.; Özçakar, L. Ultrasound imaging and guided hydrodilatation for the diagnosis and treatment of internal snapping hip syndrome. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2019, 35, 582–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nolton, E.C.; Ambegaonkar, J.P. Recognizing and Managing Snapping Hip Syndrome in Dancers. Med. Probl. Perform. Art. 2018, 33, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pesquer, L.; Guillo, S.; Poussange, N.; Pele, E.; Meyer, P.; Dallaudière, B. Dynamic ultrasound of peroneal tendon instability. Br. J. Radiol. 2016, 89, 20150958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Lungu, E.; Michaud, J.; Bureau, N.J. US Assessment of Sports-related Hip Injuries. Radiographics 2018, 38, 867–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Ayhan, E.; Cevik, K. Triggering Thumb Is Not Always a Trigger Thumb. J. Hand. Surg. Glob. Online 2022, 4, 483–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Draghi, F.; Bortolotto, C.; Draghi, A.G.; Gitto, S. Intrasheath Instability of the Peroneal Tendons: Dynamic Ultrasound Imaging. J. Ultrasound Med. 2018, 37, 2753–2758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Blankenbaker, D.G.; De Smet, A.A.; Keene, J.S. Sonography of the iliopsoas tendon and injection of the iliopsoas bursa for diagnosis and management of the painful snapping hip. Skeletal. Radiol. 2006, 35, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Erpala, F.; Ozturk, T. “Snapping” of the extensor carpi ulnaris tendon in asymptomatic population. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2021, 22, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Flanum, M.E.; Keene, J.S.; Blankenbaker, D.G.; Desmet, A.A. Arthroscopic treatment of the painful "internal" snapping hip: Results of a new endoscopic technique and imaging protocol. Am. J. Sports Med. 2007, 35, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Chang, K.S.; Cheng, Y.H.; Wu, C.H.; Özçakar, L. Dynamic ultrasound imaging for the iliotibial band/snapping hip syndrome. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2015, 94, e55–e56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Piechota, M.; Maczuch, J.; Skupiński, J.; Kukawska-Sysio, K.; Wawrzynek, W. Internal snapping hip syndrome in dynamic ultrasonography. J. Ultrason. 2016, 16, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Andronic, O.; Nakano, N.; Daivajna, S.; Board, T.N.; Khanduja, V. non-arthroplasty iliopsoas impingement in athletes: A narrative literature review. Hip. Int. 2019, 29, 460–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Blankenbaker, D.G.; Tuite, M.J. The painful hip: New concepts. Skeletal. Radiol. 2006, 35, 352–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Asopa, V.; Douglas, R.J.; Heysen, J.; Martin, D. Diagnosing snapping sartorius tendon secondary to a meniscal cyst using dynamic ultrasound avoids incorrect surgical procedure. Case Rep. Radiol. 2013, 2013, 813232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Fantino, O.; Borne, J.; Bordet, B. Conflicts, snapping and instability of the tendons. Pictorial essay. J. Ultrasound 2012, 15, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Lohrer, H.; Nauck, T. Posterior tibial tendon dislocation: A systematic review of the literature and presentation of a case. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010, 44, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Hsieh, T.S.; Kuo, Y.J.; Chen, Y.P. Ultrasound-detected lateral band snapping syndrome in proximal interphalangeal joint of small finger-A rare case report. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2019, 62, 73–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Greene, B.D.; Smith, S.E.; Smith, J.T. Snapping Plantaris Tendon: A Rare Case in a Competitive Dancer. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. Glob. Res. Rev. 2021, 5, e21.00008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Shukla, D.R.; Levy, B.A.; Kuzma, S.A.; Stuart, M.J. Snapping popliteus tendon within an osteochondritis dissecans lesion: An unusual case of lateral knee pain. Am. J. Orthop. 2014, 43, E210–E213. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  74. Tanaka, Y.; Gotani, H.; Yano, K.; Sasaki, K.; Miyashita, M.; Hamada, Y. Sonographic evaluation of effects of the volar plate on trigger finger. J. Orthop. Sci. 2015, 20, 999–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Anderson, S.A.; Keene, J.S. Results of arthroscopic iliopsoas tendon release in competitive and recreational athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2008, 36, 2363–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Deslandes, M.; Guillin, R.; Cardinal, E.; Hobden, R.; Bureau, N.J. The snapping iliopsoas tendon: New mechanisms using dynamic sonography. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008, 190, 576–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Raikin, S.M.; Elias, I.; Nazarian, L.N. Intrasheath subluxation of the peroneal tendons. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2008, 90, 992–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. MacLennan, A.J.; Nemechek, N.M.; Waitayawinyu, T.; Trumble, T.E. Diagnosis and anatomic reconstruction of extensor carpi ulnaris subluxation. J. Hand. Surg. Am. 2008, 33, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pelsser, V.; Cardinal, E.; Hobden, R.; Aubin, B.; Lafortune, M. Extraarticular snapping hip: Sonographic findings. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2001, 176, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cardinal, E.; Buckwalter, K.A.; Capello, W.N.; Duval, N. US of the snapping iliopsoas tendon. Radiology 1996, 198, 521–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. De la Hera Cremades, B.; Escribano Rueda, L.; Lara Rubio, A. Snapping knee caused by the thickening of the medial hamstrings. Rev. Española De Cirugía Ortopédica Y Traumatol. 2017, 61, 200–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Han, F.; Gartner, L.; Pearce, C.J. Snapping plantaris tendon: Case report. Foot Ankle Int. 2014, 35, 1358–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Akagawa, M.; Kimura, Y.; Saito, H.; Kijima, H.; Saito, K.; Segawa, T.; Wakabayashi, I.; Kashiwagura, T.; Miyakoshi, N.; Shimada, Y. Snapping Pes Syndrome Caused by the Gracilis Tendon: Successful Selective Surgery with Specific Diagnosis by Ultrasonography. Case Rep. Orthop. 2020, 2020, 1783813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Grandberg, C.; de Oliveira, D.P.; Gali, J.C. Superior peroneal retinaculum reattachment for an atraumatic peroneus brevis tendon subluxation: A case report. J. Med. Case Rep. 2022, 16, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Smith, E.; Shrivastava, M.; Botchu, R. Snapping Sartorius tendon due to a medial knee ganglion: An unusual cause of medial knee pain. J. Ultrasound 2022, 25, 391–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Rainey, C.E.; Taysom, D.A.; Rosenthal, M.D. Snapping pes anserine syndrome. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2014, 44, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Uemura, T.; Yano, K.; Miyashima, Y.; Konishi, S.; Nakamura, H. Posttraumatic triggering of the extensor pollicis brevis tendon in de Quervain’s disease successfully diagnosed with ultrasonography: A case report. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2021, 49, 398–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hung, C.Y.; Chang, K.V.; Lam, S. Dynamic Sonography for Snapping Knee Syndrome Caused by the Gracilis Tendon. J. Ultrasound Med. 2018, 37, 803–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Karataglis, D.; Papadopoulos, P.; Fotiadou, A.; Christodoulou, A.G. Snapping knee syndrome in an athlete caused by the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons. A case report. Knee 2008, 15, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Vidoni, A.; Shrivastava, M.; Botchu, R. Intrasynovial spindle cell lipoma of the deep flexor of the middle finger causing intermittent carpal tunnel syndrome-case report and review of the literature. J. Ultrasound 2020, 23, 419–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Guillin, R.; Mendoza-Ruiz, J.J.; Moser, T.; Ropars, M.; Duvauferrier, R.; Cardinal, E. Snapping biceps femoris tendon: A dynamic real-time sonographic evaluation. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2010, 38, 435–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Martinez-Salazar, E.L.; Vicentini, J.R.T.; Johnson, A.H.; Torriani, M. Hallux saltans due to stenosing tenosynovitis of flexor hallucis longus: Dynamic sonography and arthroscopic findings. Skeletal. Radiol. 2018, 47, 747–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Fazekas, M.L.; Stracciolini, A. Snapping Pes Syndrome in a Pediatric Athlete. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2015, 14, 361–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hashimoto, B.E.; Green, T.M.; Wiitala, L. Ultrasonographic diagnosis of hip snapping related to iliopsoas tendon. J. Ultrasound Med. 1997, 16, 433–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Stecco, C.; Pirri, C.; Fede, C.; Yucesoy; Can, A.; De Caro, R.; Stecco, A. Fascial or Muscle Stretching? A Narrative Review. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Study selection flow diagram.
Figure 1. Study selection flow diagram.
Sensors 23 06732 g001
Figure 2. Snapping of the ulnar nerve: (A) neutral position, (B) 45° elbow flexion, (C) 110° elbow flexion, (D) 45° elbow flexion during return to neutral position and (E) return to neutral position. Arrow: Ulnar nerve.
Figure 2. Snapping of the ulnar nerve: (A) neutral position, (B) 45° elbow flexion, (C) 110° elbow flexion, (D) 45° elbow flexion during return to neutral position and (E) return to neutral position. Arrow: Ulnar nerve.
Sensors 23 06732 g002
Figure 3. Snapping of peroneal tendons: (A) neutral position, (B) first degrees of foot eversion and (C) complete foot eversion. *: fibularis brevis tendon. °: fibularis longus tendon.
Figure 3. Snapping of peroneal tendons: (A) neutral position, (B) first degrees of foot eversion and (C) complete foot eversion. *: fibularis brevis tendon. °: fibularis longus tendon.
Sensors 23 06732 g003
Table 1. Papers on ultrasound and nerve snapping.
Table 1. Papers on ultrasound and nerve snapping.
Authors and YearArticle TypeParticipantsSexAge (y)US ImagingManeuver/MovementNerve
Cambon-Binder, A. (2021) [7]Review---B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Tsukada, K. et al. (2019) [8]Retrospective study246 athletesM19.5 ± 1.2 y.B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Pisapia, J.M. et al. (2017) [9]Case report1F15 y.B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Lee, K.S. et al. (2010) [9]Review---B-mode-Ulnar
Coraci, D. et al. (2017) [10]Letter to editor1F41 yB-mode, 18 MHz45° forearm flexionUlnar
Martinoli, C. et al. (1999) [11]Review---B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Kakita, M. et al. (2012) [12]Clinical trial38M50 ± 15 y.B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Martinoli, C. et al. (2002) [13]Review---B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Omejec, G. et al. (2016) [14]Original article226 armsM50 ± 14 y.B-modeElbow
Endo, F. et al. (2021) [15]Original article153 healthy participants44 M 112 F65.4 y.B-modeMaximal elbow flexionUlnar
Okamoto, M. et al. (2000) [16]Original article100 heathy volunteers50 M 50 F20–69 y.B-Mode, 7.5 MHzElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Cornelson, S.M. et al. (2019) [17]Case reports4225 M 17 F18–65 y.B-ModeElbow in three different positions: extension, 45° flexion, and full flexionUlnar
Kang, S. et al. (2019) [18]Original article6565 M45 ± 14 y.B-mode with 5–12 MHz linear array transducerElbow full extension to full flexionUlnar
Schertz, M. et al. (2017) [19]Comparative study11752 M 65 F47.3 y.B-mode with linear probe 5–12 MHzStarting from 90° flexion to complete flexion of the elbowUlnar
Grechenig, W. et al. (2003) [20]Case reports22 M38 y. and 12 y.B-modeElbow joint flexionUlnar
Kim, B.J. et al. (2008) [21]Original article117 healthy volunteers52 M
65 F
20–50 y.B-mode with 7.5 to 12 MHz linear transducer.At any angle during elbow flexion using real-time ultrasonographyUlnar
Imao, K. et al. (2015) [22]Case report1M43 y.B-mode withDuring elbow flexion more than 90°Ulnar
Cesmebasi, A. et al. (2015) [23]Case report41M
3 F
18.5 y.B-modeSnapping over the medial epicondyleMedial antebrachial
Plaikner, M. et al. (2013) [24]Retrospective study112 M
9 F
28–82 y.B-mode with linear probe L 17–5 MHzDuring maximal extension and flexion of the elbowUlnar
Kim, B.J. et al. (2005) [25]Original article3919 M 20 F20–50 y.B-Mod with linear probe 7.5 to 12MHzElbow extension and flexionUlnar
Yoo, M.J. et al. (2007) [26]Case report1F50 y.B-Mode with linear probe medium frequency of 10 MHzAt 70 degrees of elbow flexion; at 90 degrees elbow flexionUlnar
Shimizu, H. et al. (2011) [27]Retrospective study84 F 4 M15–31 y.B-Mode with linear probe medium frequency of 10 MHzElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Hatem, M. et al. (2020) [28]Case report1F64 y.B-Mode with curvilinear probeDislocation from the ischiofemoral space during hip mobilization from internal to external rotationSciatic
Reisner, J.H. et al. (2021) [29]Case series2--B-mode-Proper Digital of
the Fifth Toe
Chuang, H.J. et al. (2016) [30]Case report1M34 y.B-modeDuring active elbow flexion over 100 degreesUlnar
Kang, J.O. et al. (2017) [31]Original article2613 M
13 F
-B-mode with 13-MHz high-frequency linear array transducerElbow in three different positions: extension, 90-degree flexion, and full flexionUlnar
Allen, G. et al. (2012) [32]Review---B-mode-Ulnar
Bierre, J.J. et al. (2018) [33]Case report2M16 y.B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Chang, K.V. et al. (2017) [34]Case report1F73 y.B-modeDuring extensor, pollicis brevis (EPB) tendon glided over the adjacent abductor pollicis longus (APL) tendonSuperficial Radial
Jacobson, J.A. et al. (2001) [35]Case report33F17–52 y.B-mode with 10-MHz linear transducerElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Yiannakopoulos, C.K. et al. (2002) [36]Letter to editors21 F
1 M
28–48 y.B-mode-Ulna
Michael, A.E. et al. (2018) [37]Cross-sectional study6262 M18–60 y.B-mode linear array transducer (15–7 MHz)Cross-section image in elbow extension, 90-degree flexion, maximal flexion, and additionally in maximal flexion with isometric tension of the tricepsUlnar
Erez, O. et al. (2012) [38]Prospective study51-6 m.–18 y.B-modeFully extended and flexed past 90 degreesUlnar
Granata, G. et al. (2013) [39]Original article3026 F 4 M15–58 y.B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Tai, T.W. et al. (2014) [40]Cross-sectional ultrasonographic study39M13 y.B-mode with 5- to 10-MHz linear-array transducerElbow extended and at 45°, 90° and 120° of flexionUlnar
Van Den Berg, P.J. et al. (2013) [41]Prospective study7028 M
42 F
19–79 y.B-mode with a 7–18 MHz linear-array transducerPatients were positioned supine, keeping the arm beside the head with the elbow flexed to 70 degreesUlnar
Kawabata, M. et al. (2022) [42]Cross-sectional study.5856 M
2 F
10–12B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Konin, G.P. et al. (2013) [43]Review---US B-mode with linear probe of 12–17 MHzElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
Shen, P.C. et al. (2013) [44]Original article237108 F 129 M6–11 y.B-mode with a 5 MHz to 10 MHz linear-array transducerElbow extended and at 45°, 90° and 120° of flexionUlnar
Grechenig, W. et al. (2003) [45]Case report2M38 y. and 12 y.B-modeElbow extension and flexionUlnar
L’Heureux-Lebeau, B. et al. (2012) [46]Case report1M27 y.B-modeSubluxation of the median nerve from one side of the PL tendon during wrist flexionMedian
Filippou, G. et al. (2010) [47]Original article9149 M
42 F
15–81 y.B-modeElbow flexion/extensionUlnar
y. = years; F = female; M = male; m. = months. - = non specified.
Table 2. Papers on ultrasound and tendon snapping.
Table 2. Papers on ultrasound and tendon snapping.
Authors and YearType of PaperParticipantsSexAge (y)US ImagingManeuver/MovementTendon
Yen, Y.M. et al. (2015) [48]Review---B-mode-Iliopsoas
Ooi, M.W.X. et al. (2022) [49]Original article---B-modeElbow flexion and extensionDistal biceps and brachialis
Lee, K.S. et al. (2013) [50]Review---B-mode with linear probe 5–12 MHz.During hip flexion, external rotation, and abductionIliopsoas, iliotibial band and gluteus maximus
Janzen, D.L. et al. (1996) [51]Original article7-17–30 y.B-mode linear probe 5–12 MHzDuring hip flexion, external rotation, and abductionIliopsoas
Blankenbaker, D.G. et al. (2008) [52]Review---B-modeDuring hip flexion, external rotation, and abductionIliopsoas
Shapiro, S.A. et al. (2017) [53]Case report21 M 1 F31 y. and 72 y.B-modeRepetitive flexion and extension of kneeGracilis and semitendinosus
Winston, P. et al. (2007) [54]Cross-sectional study8730 M 57 F15 to 40 y.B-modeThe subjects voluntarily reproduced the snap while the hips were scannedIliopsoas
Chang, K.V. et al. (2019) [55]Case report1M42 y.B-modeReturn from hip flexed and abducted in neutral position; during hip flexion and extensionIliopsoas
Nolton, E.C. et al. (2018) [56]Review- -B-modeDuring hip flexion and extensionIliopsoas
Pesquer, L. et al. (2016) [57]Review---B-mode with high-frequency superficial probesAt different levels of motion in dorsi-flexion, also forced dorsi-flexionPeroneal
Lungu, E. et al. (2018) [58]Review---B-modeDuring hip flexion and extensionIliopsoas
Ayhan, E. et al. (2022) [59]Case report1F18 y.B-mode with linear probe L14-6 10-MHzFinger flexion/extensionExtensor pollicis brevis
Draghi, F. et al. (2018) [60]Review---B-mode with high-frequencyDorsiflexionPeroneal
Blankenbaker, D.G. et al. (2006) [61]Retrospective study4015 M 25 F15–72 y.B-mode 7–4 MHz; 8–4 MHz, 10 MHzDuring hip flexion and extensionIliopsoas
Allen, G. et al. (2012) [32]Review---B-mode-Rotator cuff, proximal long biceps, distal biceps, rotator cuff, the proximal long head of biceps, the distal biceps, the distal triceps, the flexor and extensor around the elbow and wrist, and the individual within the hand
Erpala, F. et al. (2021) [62]Prospective randomized study775340 M 415 F18–66 y.B-modeParticipants were positioned on examination chair with wrist at flexion and forearm at supination (simulating provocation test)Extensor Carpi ulnaris
Flanum, M.E. et al. (2007) [63]Case series61 M
5 F
24–48 y.B-modeDuring flexion/extensionIliopsoas
Chang, K.S. et al. (2015) [64]Case report1M34 y.B-modeSnapping of the ITB over the GT during hip flexion and extensionIliotibial band
Chang, K.V. et al. (2015) [34]Case report1F73 y.B-modeDuring extensor, pollicis brevis (EPB) tendon glided over the adjacent abductor pollicis longus (APL) tendonExtensor pollicis brevis
Piechota, M. et al. (2016) [65]Review---B-modeProvocation testIliopsoas
Andronic, O. et al. (2019) [66]Review---B-modeFABER position, the tendon can be seen snapping over the iliopectineal eminenceIliopsoas
Blankenbaker, D.G. et al. (2006) [67]Review---B-mode 5–12 MHzDuring flexionIliopsoas
Asopa, V. et al. (2013) [68]Case report1M40 y.B-modeKnee flexion/extensionSartorius
Marchand, A.J. et al. (2012) [1]Review---B-modeKnee flexion/extensionBiceps and popliteus
Fantino, O. et al. (2012) [69]Review---B-modeSpecific testsPosterior tibialis, peroneal; extensor carpi ulnaris, long head of the biceps muscle
Lohrer, H. et al. (2010) [70]Review + case report1M58 y.B-modeDislocated posterior tibial tendon over the right malleolus during flexion/extensionPosterior tibialis
Hsieh, T.S. et al. (2019) [71]Case report1F43 y.B-modeDuring flexion/extension of PIP jointExtensor digitorum
Greene, B.D. et al. (2021) [72]Case report1F15 y.B-modePlantar/dorsal flexionPlantaris
Shukla, D.R. et al. (2014) [73]Review---B-modeDuring flexion/extensionPopliteus
Tanaka, Y. et al. (2015) [74]Comparative study2411 M 13 F26–74 y.B-modeDuring finger flexion/extensionFlexor digitorum
Anderson, S.A. et al. (2008) [75]Case series154 M 11 F15–62 y.B-modeDuring hip flexion/extensionIliopsoas
Deslandes, M. et al. (2008) [76]Review and case series145 M
9 F
13–50 y.B-mode with 5–12 MHzDuring hip flexion/extensionIliopsoas
Raikin, S.M. et al. (2008) [77]Original article5715 M 42 F-B-modeAnkle eversion/inversionPeroneal
MacLennan, A.J. et al. (2008) [78]Original article2114 M 7 F14–44 y.B-modeWrist flexion/extensionExtensor carpi ulnaris
Pelsser, V. et al. (2001) [79]Original article203 M 17 F12–39 y.B-mode with curvilinear probeDuring hip flexion/extensionIliopsoas
Cardinal, E. et al. (1996) [80]Case reports31 M
2 F
24–36 y.B-modeDuring hip flexion/extensionIliopsoas
de la Hera Cremades, B. et al. (2017) [81]Case report1F23 y.B-modeDuring hip flexion/extensionIliopsoas
Han, F. et al. (2014) [82]Case report1M30 y.B-modeDuring ankle plantar/dorsal flexionPlantaris
Akagawa, M. et al. (2020) [83]Case report1M26 y.B-modeDuring knee flexion/extensionGracilis
Grandberg, C. et al. (2022) [84]Case report1F25 y.B-modeAnkle eversion/inversionPeroneals
Smith, E. et al. (2022) [85]Case report1F70 y.B-modeKnee flexion/extensionSartorius
Rainey, C.E. et al. (2015) [86]Case report1M25 y.B-modeKnee flexion/extensionPes anserinus
Uemura, T. et al. (2021) [87]Case report1M52 y.B-modeFinger flexion/extensionExtensor pollicis brevis
Hung, C.Y. et al. (2018) [88]Case report1M39 y.B-modeKnee flexion/extensionGracilis
Karataglis, D. et al. (2008) [89]Case report1M32 y.B-modeKnee flexion/extensionSemitendinosus and gracilis
Vidoni, A. et al. (2020) [90]Case report1M26 y.B-modeFinger flexion/extensionDeep flexor digiti
Guillin, R. et al. (2010) [91]Case report22 M25–44 y.B-modeKnee flexion/extensionBiceps femoris
Martinez-Salazar, al. (2018) [92]Case report1F42 y.B-modeHallux flexion/extensionFlexor hallucis
Fazekas, M.L. et al. (2015) [93]Case report1M14 y.B-modeKnee flexion/extensionSemitendinosus and gracilis
Hashimoto, B.E. et al. (1997) [94]Case report1F14 y.B-modeDuring hip flexion/extensionIliopsoas
y. = years; M = male; F = female; - = non specified.
Table 3. The most common snapping nerves and tendons.
Table 3. The most common snapping nerves and tendons.
Medial antebrachial cutaneous
Proper digital (5th toe)
Distal triceps brachii
Biceps femoris
Semitendinosus and gracilis
Posterior tibialis
Extensor pollicis brevis
Extensor carpi ulnaris
Proximal long biceps brachii
Distal long biceps brachii
Rotator cuff
Deep flexor digiti tendon
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pirri, C.; Pirri, N.; Stecco, C.; Macchi, V.; Porzionato, A.; De Caro, R.; Özçakar, L. Hearing and Seeing Nerve/Tendon Snapping: A Systematic Review on Dynamic Ultrasound Examination. Sensors 2023, 23, 6732.

AMA Style

Pirri C, Pirri N, Stecco C, Macchi V, Porzionato A, De Caro R, Özçakar L. Hearing and Seeing Nerve/Tendon Snapping: A Systematic Review on Dynamic Ultrasound Examination. Sensors. 2023; 23(15):6732.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pirri, Carmelo, Nina Pirri, Carla Stecco, Veronica Macchi, Andrea Porzionato, Raffaele De Caro, and Levent Özçakar. 2023. "Hearing and Seeing Nerve/Tendon Snapping: A Systematic Review on Dynamic Ultrasound Examination" Sensors 23, no. 15: 6732.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop