» Articles » PMID: 29541806

The Distal Tibial Classic Metaphyseal Lesion: Medial Versus Lateral Cortical Injury

Overview
Journal Pediatr Radiol
Specialty Pediatrics
Date 2018 Mar 16
PMID 29541806
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The distal tibia is a common location for the classic metaphyseal lesion (CML). Prior radiologic-pathologic studies have suggested a tendency for medial, as opposed to lateral, cortical injury with the CML, but there has been no formal study of the geographic distribution of this strong indicator of abuse.

Objective: This study compares medial versus lateral cortical involvement of distal tibial CMLs in a clinical cohort of infants with suspected abuse.

Materials And Methods: Reports of 1,020 skeletal surveys performed for suspected abuse (July 2005-June 2016) were reviewed. Twenty-six distal tibial CMLs (14 unilateral, 6 bilateral) with anteroposterior (AP) and lateral projections on the initial skeletal survey and at least an AP view on the follow-up survey were identified in 20 infants. Two blinded pediatric radiologists determined if the medial and/or lateral margins of the distal tibial metaphysis were involved by the CML.

Results: Average interreader absolute agreement and kappa scores were 0.69-0.90 and 0.45-0.72, respectively. Average intrareader absolute agreement and kappa scores were 0.65-0.88 and 0.44-0.57, respectively. Analyses showed that the distal tibial CML almost always involved the medial cortical margin (reader 1=89%, reader 2=88%, pooled=89%) and the fracture infrequently involved the lateral cortical margin (reader 1=12%, reader 2=38%, pooled=26%). The percentage point difference between fracture involvement in medial and lateral margins was statistically significant from zero (P<0.001).

Conclusion: The distal tibial CML is most often encountered medially; lateral involvement is uncommon. This observation should help guide the radiologic diagnosis and could have implications for understanding the biomechanics of this distinctive injury.

Citing Articles

Prevalence of metaphyseal injury and its mimickers in otherwise healthy children under two years of age.

Eide P, Djuve A, Myklebust R, Forseth K, Nottveit A, Brudvik C Pediatr Radiol. 2019; 49(8):1051-1055.

PMID: 31143984 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-019-04413-5.


Ultrasound findings in classic metaphyseal lesions: emphasis on the metaphyseal bone collar and zone of provisional calcification.

Marine M, Hibbard R, Jennings S, Karmazyn B Pediatr Radiol. 2019; 49(7):913-921.

PMID: 30923870 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-019-04373-w.


Subperiosteal new bone formation with the distal tibial classic metaphyseal lesion: prevalence on radiographic skeletal surveys.

Tsai A, Connolly S, Ecklund K, Johnston P, Kleinman P Pediatr Radiol. 2019; 49(4):551-558.

PMID: 30607436 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-018-4329-z.

References
1.
Kleinman P, Zurakowski D, Strauss K, Cleveland R, Perez-Rosello J, Nichols D . Detection of simulated inflicted metaphyseal fractures in a fetal pig model: image optimization and dose reduction with computed radiography. Radiology. 2008; 247(2):381-90. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2472070811. View

2.
Servaes S, Brown S, Choudhary A, Christian C, Done S, Hayes L . The etiology and significance of fractures in infants and young children: a critical multidisciplinary review. Pediatr Radiol. 2016; 46(5):591-600. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-016-3546-6. View

3.
Barber I, Perez-Rossello J, Wilson C, Kleinman P . The yield of high-detail radiographic skeletal surveys in suspected infant abuse. Pediatr Radiol. 2014; 45(1):69-80. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-014-3064-3. View

4.
Thompson A, Bertocci G, Kaczor K, Smalley C, Pierce M . Biomechanical investigation of the classic metaphyseal lesion using an immature porcine model. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 204(5):W503-9. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.13267. View

5.
SILVERMAN F . The roentgen manifestations of unrecognized skeletal trauma in infants. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1953; 69(3):413-27. View