TY - JOUR
T1 - Tibial Spine Fractures
T2 - How Much Are We Missing Without Pretreatment Advanced Imaging? A Multicenter Study
AU - The Tibial Spine Research Interest Group
AU - Shimberg, Jilan L.
AU - Aoyama, Julien T.
AU - Leska, Tomasina M.
AU - Ganley, Theodore J.
AU - Fabricant, Peter D.
AU - Patel, Neeraj M.
AU - Cruz, Aristides I.
AU - Ellis, Henry B.
AU - Schmale, Gregory A.
AU - Green, Daniel W.
AU - Jagodzinski, Jason E.
AU - Kushare, Indranil
AU - Lee, R. Jay
AU - McKay, Scott
AU - Rhodes, Jason
AU - Sachleben, Brant
AU - Sargent, Catherine
AU - Yen, Yi Meng
AU - Mistovich, R. Justin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s).
PY - 2022/11
Y1 - 2022/11
N2 - Background: There is a high rate of concomitant injuries reported in pediatric patients with tibial spine fractures, ranging from 40% to 68.8%. Many tibial spine fractures are treated without initial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Purpose: To understand rates of concomitant injury and if the reported rates of these injuries differed among patients with and without pretreatment MRI. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; level of evidence, 3. Methods: We performed an institutional review board–approved multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients treated for tibial spine fractures between January 1, 2000, and January 31, 2019, at 10 institutions. Patients younger than 25 years of age with tibial spine fractures were included. Data were collected on patient characteristics, injury, orthopaedic history, pretreatment physical examination and imaging, and operative findings. We excluded patients with multiple trauma and individuals with additional lower extremity fractures. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: those with and those without pretreatment MRI. The incidence of reported concomitant injuries was then compared between groups. Results: There were 395 patients with a tibial spine fracture who met inclusion criteria, 139 (35%) of whom were reported to have a clinically significant concomitant injury. Characteristics and fracture patterns were similar between groups. Of patients with pretreatment MRI, 79 of 176 (45%) had an identified concomitant injury, whereas only 60 of 219 patients (27%) without pretreatment MRI had a reported concomitant injury (P <.001). There was a higher rate of lateral meniscal tears (P <.001) in patients with pretreatment MRI than in those without. However, there was a higher rate of soft tissue entrapment at the fracture bed (P =.030) in patients without pretreatment MRI. Overall, 121 patients (87%) with a concomitant injury required at least 1 treatment. Conclusion: Patients with pretreatment MRI had a statistically significantly higher rate of concomitant injury identified. Pretreatment MRI should be considered in the evaluation of tibial spine fractures to improve the identification of concomitant injuries, especially in patients who may otherwise be treated nonoperatively or with closed reduction. Further studies are necessary to refine the indications for MRI in patients with tibial spine fractures, determine the characteristics of patients at highest risk of having a concomitant injury, define the sensitivity and specificity of MRI in tibial spine fractures, and investigate patient outcomes based on pretreatment MRI status.
AB - Background: There is a high rate of concomitant injuries reported in pediatric patients with tibial spine fractures, ranging from 40% to 68.8%. Many tibial spine fractures are treated without initial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Purpose: To understand rates of concomitant injury and if the reported rates of these injuries differed among patients with and without pretreatment MRI. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; level of evidence, 3. Methods: We performed an institutional review board–approved multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients treated for tibial spine fractures between January 1, 2000, and January 31, 2019, at 10 institutions. Patients younger than 25 years of age with tibial spine fractures were included. Data were collected on patient characteristics, injury, orthopaedic history, pretreatment physical examination and imaging, and operative findings. We excluded patients with multiple trauma and individuals with additional lower extremity fractures. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: those with and those without pretreatment MRI. The incidence of reported concomitant injuries was then compared between groups. Results: There were 395 patients with a tibial spine fracture who met inclusion criteria, 139 (35%) of whom were reported to have a clinically significant concomitant injury. Characteristics and fracture patterns were similar between groups. Of patients with pretreatment MRI, 79 of 176 (45%) had an identified concomitant injury, whereas only 60 of 219 patients (27%) without pretreatment MRI had a reported concomitant injury (P <.001). There was a higher rate of lateral meniscal tears (P <.001) in patients with pretreatment MRI than in those without. However, there was a higher rate of soft tissue entrapment at the fracture bed (P =.030) in patients without pretreatment MRI. Overall, 121 patients (87%) with a concomitant injury required at least 1 treatment. Conclusion: Patients with pretreatment MRI had a statistically significantly higher rate of concomitant injury identified. Pretreatment MRI should be considered in the evaluation of tibial spine fractures to improve the identification of concomitant injuries, especially in patients who may otherwise be treated nonoperatively or with closed reduction. Further studies are necessary to refine the indications for MRI in patients with tibial spine fractures, determine the characteristics of patients at highest risk of having a concomitant injury, define the sensitivity and specificity of MRI in tibial spine fractures, and investigate patient outcomes based on pretreatment MRI status.
KW - concomitant soft tissue injury
KW - pediatric knee
KW - tibial spine fracture
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092177148&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85092177148&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0363546520957666
DO - 10.1177/0363546520957666
M3 - Article
C2 - 32970957
AN - SCOPUS:85092177148
SN - 0363-5465
VL - 48
SP - 3208
EP - 3213
JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 13
ER -