DOI: 10.31038/IJOT.2019241

Abstract

Introduction: Meniscal injuries have a very high incidence among professional and amateur athletes. It is estimated that the incidence amounts to 24 every 100 000 each year. The different forms of imaging diagnostics play an important role in the management of knee injuries, particularly in the event of uncertain clinical diagnosis, helping to avoid unnecessary and expensive surgeries. In order to diagnose meniscal pathologies, the most commonly used imaging test is Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Health Officials from all around the world are becoming increasingly involved in the definition of surgical treatment limits, making an effort to enhance their practice and the patients’ cost-effectiveness.

Our work aims to review evidence about the correspondence between imaging tests -particularly the MRI- and knee arthroscopy as the Gold Standard for the diagnosis of meniscal injuries.

Material and Methods: We performed a systematic search that included Medline (PubMed interphase) and Lilacs databases. The search totaled 607 articles. According to filters and inclusion/exclusion criteria, 23 papers were chosen for our bibliographic review.

Results: The selected papers were prospective studies. Our results are based on data retrieval specifically linked to sensitivity and specificity of the MRI with regards to arthroscopy in meniscal injuries.

Discussion: From the analysis of this information we may consider that there is no consistency in results and opinions in English-published bibliography of a prospective profile. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that the prevailing results are those that prioritize the relevance of MRI in terms of sensitivity and specificity. We must currently accept that MRI is a very costly study for diagnosing meniscal injuries. There are some variations in its sensitivity and specificity, but they are minor and, therefore, do not invalidate these conclusions.

Introduction

Meniscal injuries have a very high incidence among professional and amateur athletes. This injury is one of the most frequent in sports medicine: 24 in every 100 000 athletes suffer one of this each year. They show a bimodal distribution; the first incidence peak is seen among young athletes and the second is seen in middle-aged patients with degenerative joint disease 1].

Macroscopically, the menisci of the knee are two intra-articular semicircular fibrocartilaginous structure, with a wedge shaped structure, placed between the tibia and the femur, in the medial and lateral compartments. They used to be considered as vestigial remains of muscular structures in the knee. Ever since the middle of the Twentieth Century we have thoroughly known their actual functions and their anatomic, therapeutic and prognostic relevance in knee pathology. The menisci have three main functions: load transmission, cushioning and secondary stabilization [2–4].

In general, the medial meniscus is the one with less movement and therefore it gets injured more frequently than the lateral meniscus [5].

In terms of clinical diagnosis, there are over twenty specific tests described for the assessment of meniscal injuries, with sensitivity and specificity levels that fall between 64 and 97% [6–10]. The sensitivity of these tests decreases when there are other associated injuries, particularly of the anterior cruciate ligament [11–13].

The different forms of imaging diagnostic play an important role in the management of knee injuries, and particularly in the event of uncertain clinical diagnosis; they help to avoid unnecessary surgeries [14].

Since MRI was first introduced in 1984 for clinical usage, its diagnostic role in knee injuries has had a substantial impact [15–17]. MRI is the most commonly used imaging study for the diagnosis of meniscal pathologies, even though there has been an increasing amount of studies that conclude that ultrasonography might be a valid diagnostic technique for meniscal injuries [18]. Notwithstanding, MRI possesses one advantage: it assesses both hard and strong parts of the knee together with the meniscal pathology

Some studies have shown that MRI is not better than physical examination for diagnosis of meniscal injuries [7,8,19]; other studies show that diagnostic failures range between 14 and 47% [20–22] and others showed the value of MRI as an effective and non-invasive diagnostic tool [11,23–30].

MRI and ultrasonography are the two most used screening methods for diagnosing meniscal tears and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. While there are numerous studies that show that MRI is a reliable and accurate diagnostic tool, it is very hard to establish its true sensitivity and specificity [29]. Ruwe et.al [31]. claim that MRI avoids unnecessary arthroscopies, while Bridgman et.al [32] State it doesn’t.

Currrently we need the highest levels of evidence in order to support the use of diagnostic tests, especially when these are an important part of the definition of therapeutic limits, such as knee arthroscopy, for anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries. In the future, the technological and clinical advances shall, undoubtedly, change the way we use MRI [33].

Objective

This paper aims to review evidence about the correlation between MRI and knee arthroscopy as the Gold Standard for the diagnosis of meniscal injuries.

Material and Methods

In May 2018, we performed a systematic search that included Medline (PubMed interphase) and Lilacs databases. We used similar search methods in both databases, employing the term MESH for Medline-PubMed.

We combined the results using Boolean operators; the synthetic results for said search were ((“Menisci, Tibial” [Mesh]) AND “Magnetic Resonance Imaging”[Mesh]) AND “Arthroscopy”[Mesh].

In Lilacs we applied the same search method.

The filters we used were articles published between 2004 and 2018, articles written in English and articles about human beings.

Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria were:

• Human, adults, and published in English.
• Prospective cohort studies
  • Evaluation of MRI for the diagnosis of meniscal injuries
  • Arthroscopy as a diagnostic reference (Gold Standard)
  • Results with sensitivity and specificity (Se.& Sp.)

Exclusion Criteria

Exclusion criteria were: retrospective articles, systematic reviews, children injuries, kinds of meniscal injuries.

Thereafter, we selected the title, made an overview (or full review in case of doubts) and used each work’s bibliography as an additional method.

Even though there are differences among the meniscal injury diagnosis criteria in MRIs, it is widely accepted that the presence of an intra-meniscal signal extending to an articular surface and/or a distortion of the regular shape represent a clinically significant injury [34].

Search Strategies

For the bibliographic selection we used, as a guide, the flow chart from the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) protocols (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Systematic Review Flowchart, PRISMA Protocol, 2009.

In Medline-PubMed we obtained 593 results as a total, using MESH terms and Boolean operators. After applying the aforementioned filters, the results were the following:

• Since 2004 to 2018: 396
• In humans: 390
• In English: 360

In the Lilacs platform we found 14 studies, and applying the same filters we found 3 papers, one of which also turned up in the Medline-PubMed search.

From both searches, and excluding the repeated article, we obtained 362 articles that, added to 6 other papers found in the bibliography, gave us a total of 368 studies.

When we applied the aforementioned inclusion and exclusion criteria in both platforms with regards to title and overview, we selected 23 articles in total (this excluded 345 studies); so far the search was conducted by only one author.

Afterwards, these 23 studies were read in full and included in our bibliographic review by 2 authors.

When applicable, we extracted the following data from each work: Author, Year of Publishing, Hospital, Study Design, Amount of Patients, Patients’ Age, Study Period, 1 or both menisci studied, Se. & Sp. (Table 1).

Table 1.

Results

All 23 articles were diagnostic prospective studies with Arthroscopy as Gold Standard as diagnostic reference (Table 1).

Among these studies we found 22 that analyzed the correlation between imaging studies and arthroscopy (Se. & Sp.) in both menisci [35–56] and one paper in a single meniscus [18]. About the correlation between imagenology and arthroscopy in ACL we found 13 papers, [35–37,39,41–43,46–48,52,54,55] and 8 studies regarding the correlation between clinical examination and arthroscopy in meniscal injuries [18,35,43–46,52,53].

We found one work that compared the intensity of the MRI scanner’s field (1.5 T vs. 3T) for the assessment of meniscal and ligamentary disorders in the knee [47]. There were three studies that compared the diagnostic power of different sequences of the MRI scanner for meniscal injuries [38,51,55].

Finally, we found three papers that compared ultrasonography with MRI for the detection of meniscal injuries [18,50,56].

Regarding the description of the studies, we found the following: a) 14 [35,36,39,40,43–48,51–53,55] that showed a higher level of sensitivity than specificity in the medial meniscus and a higher level of specificity than sensitivity in the lateral meniscus; b) five [37,38,41,54,56] that showed a higher level of specificity than of sensitivity in the medial and lateral menisci; c) two [42,49] that showed a higher level of specificity than sensitivity in the medial meniscus and a higher level of sensitivity than specificity in the lateral meniscus (it is relevant to highlight that low-intensity scanners were used in said works); d) one [18] showing a higher level of specificity than sensitivity in the medial meniscus in acute and chronic injuries; and finally e) one study[50] that showed a higher level of sensitivity than of specificity globally in both menisci.

Discussion

The results of our review are shown within the context of other two previous reviews related to meniscal injuries [29,57]. Unlike the previous reviews, our investigation only included prospective studies with the aim of finding the most accurate results.

It is worth highlighting that, even though it is not the main focus of our work, the clinical examination is of utmost relevance with regards to the diagnosis of meniscal injuries. Several studies show that a correct and thorough clinical examination, preferably performed by an expert surgeon, is more sensitive and specific than MRI in order to diagnose medial meniscus injuries but has similar results in lateral meniscus issues [8,43–45,58].

Conceptually, it is customary to request an MRI in the event of diagnostic doubts [35,43,46,52] or when another therapeutic procedure is to be performed, e. g.: anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery [42,45,59].

Another diagnostic element with good results, comparable with MRI, is ultrasonography [50,56]. Cook et al. state that in their series they found the same level of sensitivity but a better level of specificity than MRI for the diagnosis of meniscal injuries, thusly encouraging its usage, firstly due to its efficacy and secondly due to its low cost and quickness regarding the performance logistics [50].

Focusing on MRI, there are studies that substantially support its usage for diagnosing injuries within the context of a traumatic knee and, specifically, for meniscal injuries [60,61]. The vast majority of the studies analyzed in this review affirm that this test has great potential in comparison with other diagnostic tools (such as the clinical examination or the ultrasonography). They show that MRI has a better sensitivity level for the medial meniscus and a better specificity level for the lateral meniscus [35,36,39, 40, 43–48,51–53,55], and, also as previously stated, we compared similar results with other reviews contemporary to ours.^{(29, 57)} There were studies in our review that did not show what most of the bibliography affirms [38,42,49]. Some, such as the one published by Behairy et al., showed opposite results: a higher sensitivity level for the lateral meniscus and a higher specificity level for the medial meniscus. Said authors say that this result might be the consequence of including anterior cruciate ligament injuries, which would decrease the sensitivity of the medial meniscus [11].

Other authors like Magee et. al., said that the MRI scanner’s power might be another element that modifies results [62]. The magnetic field’s intensity is a commonly reported study variable that might have some impact over the precision in meniscal injury cases. However, after analyzing different studies, we found no significant difference among different magnetic fields’ intensities, higher or lower (3.0 T and 1.5 T) [18,41,47,63]. Moreover, there are descriptions stating that 0.2 T scanners are equally effective and have lower costs than the conventional ones used nowadays [64,65]. Furthermore, given the current technological progress, it is necessary to develop new studies.

Some authors limited their revisions to the most current studies; they wanted to use those with modern technology and more experienced imagenology specialists [29]. This isn’t the case of other authors who disagree with the aforesaid, who claim that the previous studies have a higher quality and better methodology and that there might be a selection mistake [57]. In other words, all studies should be included regardless of its publishing year. This also avoids the bias that may happen when authors select a specific year for exclusion.

From the analysis of the collected information, and as a consequence of the preceding discussion, we may consider that there is no consistency of results and opinions in English-published bibliography of a prospective profile. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that the prevailing results are those that prioritize the relevance of MRI in terms of sensitivity and specificity. We must currently accept that MRI is a very costly study for diagnosing meniscal injuries. There are some variations in its sensitivity and specificity, but they are minor and, therefore, do not invalidate these conclusions. There is no doubt that, in future years, technological progress shall provide more accurate devices that will allow us to reach safer diagnostic levels.

Likewise we shouldn’t forget that clinical examination, when combined with MRI, offers the most accurate non-invasive method to obtain the available information about meniscal pathological findings [53, 66].

A thorough search throughout medical literature, including PubMed and Lilacs databases, provided us with 23 studies that informed about the correlation between imaging screening and arthroscopy in both menisci and only one work about the lateral meniscus, all of them published between 2004 and 2018, and they constitute the strength of our study. The limitations are the reduced amount of cases in some studies and the inability of access to final conclusions due to the lack of uniformity in the results of the analyzed studies.

References

1. Clayton RA, Court-Brown CM (2008) The epidemiology of musculoskeletal tendinous and ligamentous injuries. Injury 39: 1338–1344. [crossref]
2. McCarty EC, Marx RG, DeHaven KE (2002) Meniscus repair: considerations in treatment and update of clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res122–134. [crossref]
3. Getgood A, Robertson A (2010) (v) Meniscal tears, repairs and replacement – a current concepts review. Orthopaedics and Trauma. 24: 121–128.
4. Stoller D (2016) Stoller’s Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine: The Knee: LWW 129–133.
5. Majewski M, Susanne H, Klaus S (2006) Epidemiology of athletic knee injuries: A 10-year study. Knee 13: 184–188. [crossref]
6. Gillies H, Seligson D (1979) Precision in the diagnosis of meniscal lesions: a comparison of clinical evaluation, arthrography, and arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61: 343–346.
7. Miller GK (1996) A prospective study comparing the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of meniscus tear with magnetic resonance imaging and its effect on clinical outcome. Arthroscopy 12: 406–413.
8. Rose NE, Gold SM (1996) A comparison of accuracy between clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament tears. Arthroscopy 12: 398–405.
9. Karachalios T, Hantes M, Zibis AH, Zachos V, Karantanas AH, et al. (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of a new clinical test (the Thessaly test) for early detection of meniscal tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87: 955–962. [crossref]
10. Harrison BK, Abell BE, Gibson TW (2009) The Thessaly test for detection of meniscal tears: validation of a new physical examination technique for primary care medicine. Clin J Sport Med 19: 9–12.
11. De Smet AA, Graf BK (1994) Meniscal tears missed on MR imaging: relationship to meniscal tear patterns and anterior cruciate ligament tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162: 905–911. [crossref]
12. Shelbourne KD, Martini DJ, McCarroll JR, VanMeter CD (1995) Correlation of joint line tenderness and meniscal lesions in patients with acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. Am J Sports Med 23: 166–169.
13. Jee WH, McCauley TR, Kim JM (2004) Magnetic resonance diagnosis of meniscal tears in patients with acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28: 402–406.
14. Mather RC 3rd, Garrett WE, Cole BJ, Hussey K, Bolognesi MP, et al. (2015) Cost-effectiveness analysis of the diagnosis of meniscus tears. Am J Sports Med 43: 128–137. [crossref]
15. Mackenzie R, Dixon AK, Keene GS, Hollingworth W, Lomas DJ, et al. (1996) Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: assessment of effectiveness. Clin Radiol 51: 245–250. [crossref]
16. Helms CA (2002) The meniscus: recent advances in MR imaging of the knee. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179: 1115–1122. [crossref]
17. Major NM, Beard LN Jr, Helms CA (2003) Accuracy of MR imaging of the knee in adolescents. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180: 17–19. [crossref]
18. Timotijevic S, Vukasinovic Z, Bascarevic Z (2014) Correlation of clinical examination, ultrasound sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging findings with arthroscopic findings in relation to acute and chronic lateral meniscus injuries. J Orthop Sci 19: 71–76.
19. Brooks S, Morgan M (2002) Accuracy of clinical diagnosis in knee arthroscopy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 84: 265–268. [crossref]
20. Harper KW, Helms CA, Lambert HS 3rd, Higgins LD (2005) Radial meniscal tears: significance, incidence, and MR appearance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185: 1429–1434.
21. Kornaat PR, Bloem JL, Ceulemans RY, Riyazi N, Rosendaal FR, et al. (2006) Osteoarthritis of the knee: association between clinical features and MR imaging findings. Radiology 239: 811–817.
22. Laoruengthana A, Jarusriwanna A (2012) Sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging for knee injury and clinical application for the Naresuan University Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 95: 151–157.
23. Crues JV, 3rd, Mink J, Levy TL, Lotysch M, Stoller DW (1987) Meniscal tears of the knee: accuracy of MR imaging. Radiology 164: 445–448.
24. Fischer SP, Fox JM, Del Pizzo W, Friedman MJ, Snyder SJ, et al. (1991) Accuracy of diagnoses from magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. A multi-center analysis of one thousand and fourteen patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73: 2–10. [crossref]
25. Quinn SF, Brown TR, Szumowski J (1992) Menisci of the knee: radial MR imaging correlated with arthroscopy in 259 patients. Radiology 185: 577–580. [crossref]
26. Justice WW, Quinn SF (1995) Error patterns in the MR imaging evaluation of menisci of the knee. Radiology 196: 617–621. [crossref]
27. Feller JA, Webster KE (2001) Clinical value of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. ANZ J Surg 71: 534–537. [crossref]
28. McNally EG (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. BMJ 325: 115–116. [crossref]
29. Oei EH, Nikken JJ, Verstijnen AC, Ginai AZ, Myriam Hunink MG (2003) MR imaging of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Radiology 226: 837–848. [crossref]
30. Chang CY1, Wu HT, Huang TF, Ma HL, Hung SC (2004) Imaging evaluation of meniscal injury of the knee joint: a comparative MR imaging and arthroscopic study. Clin Imaging 28: 372–376. [crossref]
31. Ruwe PA, Wright J, Randall RL, Lynch JK, Jokl P, et al. (1992) Can MR imaging effectively replace diagnostic arthroscopy? Radiology 183: 335–339. [crossref]
32. Bridgman S, Richards PJ, Walley G, MacKenzie G, Clement D, et al. (2007) The effect of magnetic resonance imaging scans on knee arthroscopy: randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy 23: 1167–1173 e1.
33. Phelan N, Rowland P, Galvin R, O’Byrne JM (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for suspected ACL and meniscal tears of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 24: 1525–1539.
34. De Smet AA (2012) How I diagnose meniscal tears on knee MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199: 481–499. [crossref]
35. Kocabey Y, Tetik O, Isbell WM, Atay OA, Johnson DL (2004) The value of clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of meniscal tears and anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Arthroscopy 20: 696–700.
36. Vaz CE, Camargo OP, Santana PJ, Valezi AC (2005) Accuracy of magnetic resonance in identifying traumatic intraarticular knee lesions. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 60: 445–450.
37. Winters K, Tregonning R (2005) Reliability of magnetic resonance imaging of the traumatic knee as determined by arthroscopy. N Z Med J 118: U1301. [crossref]
38. Schafer FK, Schafer PJ, Brossmann J, Frahm C, Hilgert RE, Heller M, et al. (2006) Value of fat-suppressed proton-density-weighted turbo spin-echo sequences in detecting meniscal lesions: comparison with arthroscopy. Acta Radiol 47: 385–390.
39. Khanda GE, Akhtar W, Ahsan H, Ahmad N (2008) Assessment of menisci and ligamentous injuries of the knee on magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with arthroscopy. J Pak Med Assoc 58: 537–540. [crossref]
40. Naranje S, Mittal R, Nag H, Sharma R (2008) Arthroscopic and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of meniscus lesions in the chronic anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Arthroscopy 24: 1045–1051.
41. Sampson MJ, Jackson MP, Moran CJ, Shine S, Moran R, et al. (2008) Three Tesla MRI for the diagnosis of meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament pathology: a comparison to arthroscopic findings. Clin Radiol 63: 1106–1111.
42. Behairy NH, Dorgham MA, Khaled SA (2009) Accuracy of routine magnetic resonance imaging in meniscal and ligamentous injuries of the knee: comparison with arthroscopy. Int Orthop 33: 961–967. [crossref]
43. Rayan F, Bhonsle S, Shukla DD (2009) Clinical, MRI, and arthroscopic correlation in meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Int Orthop 33: 129–132. [crossref]
44. Ercin E, Kaya I, Sungur I, Demirbas E, Ugras AA, Cetinus EM (2012) History, clinical findings, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopic correlation in meniscal lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20: 851–856.
45. Dzoleva-Tolevska R, Poposka A, Samardziski M, Georgieva D (2013) Comparative analysis of diagnostic methods in meniscal lesions. Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki) 34: 79–83.
46. Navali AM, Bazavar M, Mohseni MA, Safari B, Tabrizi A (2013) Arthroscopic evaluation of the accuracy of clinical examination versus MRI in diagnosing meniscus tears and cruciate ligament ruptures. Arch Iran Med 16: 229–232.
47. Van Dyck P, Vanhoenacker FM, Lambrecht V, Wouters K, Gielen JL, et al. (2013) Prospective comparison of 1.5 and 3.0-T MRI for evaluating the knee menisci and ACL. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95: 916–924. [crossref]
48. Bari AA, Kashikar SV, Lakhkar BN, Ahsan MS (2014) Evaluation of MRI versus arthroscopy in anterior cruciate ligament and meniscal injuries. J Clin Diagn Res 8: RC14–18.
49. Chen HN, Dong QR, Wang Y (2014) Accuracy of low-field MRI on meniscal tears. Genet Mol Res 13: 4267–4271. [crossref]
50. Cook JL, Cook CR, Stannard JP, Vaughn G, Wilson N, et al. (2014) MRI versus ultrasonography to assess meniscal abnormalities in acute knees. J Knee Surg 27: 319–324.
51. Chen W, Zhao J, Wen Y, Xie B, Zhou X, et al. (2015) Accuracy of 3-T MRI using susceptibility-weighted imaging to detect meniscal tears of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23: 198–204.
52. Khan HA, Ahad H, Sharma P, Bajaj P, Hassan N, Kamal Y (2015) Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopic findings in the knee joint. Trauma Mon 20: 18635.
53. Orlando Junior N, de Souza Leao MG, de Oliveira NH (2015) Diagnosis of knee injuries: comparison of the physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging with the findings from arthroscopy. Rev Bras Ortop 50: 712–9.
54. Sharifah MI, Lee CL, Suraya A, Johan A, Syed AF, Tan SP (2015) Accuracy of MRI in the diagnosis of meniscal tears in patients with chronic ACL tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23: 826–30.
55. Chagas-Neto FA, Nogueira-Barbosa MH, Lorenzato MM, Salim R, Kfuri-Junior M, Crema MD (2016) Diagnostic performance of 3D TSE MRI versus 2D TSE MRI of the knee at 1.5 T, with prompt arthroscopic correlation, in the detection of meniscal and cruciate ligament tears. Radiol Bras 49: 69–74.
56. Muresan S, Muresan M, Voidazan S, Neagoe R (2017) The accuracy of musculoskeletal ultrasound examination for the exploration of meniscus injuries in athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 57: 589–94.
57. Crawford R, Walley G, Bridgman S, Maffulli N (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging versus arthroscopy in the diagnosis of knee pathology, concentrating on meniscal lesions and ACL tears: a systematic review. Br Med Bull 84: 5–23.
58. Hardy JC, Evangelista GT, Grana WA, Hunter RE (2012) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee in the community setting. Sports Health 4: 222–31.
59. Ali M, Jackson T, Rayan GM (2009) Closing wedge osteotomy of abnormal middle phalanx for clinodactyly. J Hand Surg Am 34: 914–918. [crossref]
60. Cellár R, Sokol D, Lacko M, Å tolfa Å , Gharaibeh A, et al. (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of intra-articular lesions of the knee]. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 79: 249–254. [crossref]
61. Dutka J, Skowronek M, Skowronek P, Dutka L (2012) Arthroscopic verification of objectivity of the orthopaedic examination and magnetic resonance imaging in intra-articular knee injury. Retrospective study. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 7: 13–8.
62. Magee T1, Williams D (2006) 3.0-T MRI of meniscal tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187: 371–375. [crossref]
63. Grossman JW, De Smet AA, Shinki K (2009) Comparison of the accuracy rates of 3-T and 1.5-T MRI of the knee in the diagnosis of meniscal tear. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193: 509–514. [crossref]
64. Kersting-Sommerhoff B, Gerhardt P, Golder W, Hof N, Riel KA, Helmberger H, et al. (1995) MRI of the knee joint: first results of a comparison of 0,2-T specialized system and 1,5-T high field strength magnet]. Rofo162: 390–5.
65. Böttcher P, Brühschwein A, Winkels P, Werner H, Ludewig E, et al. (2010) Value of low-field magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing meniscal tears in the canine stifle: a prospective study evaluating sensitivity and specificity in naturally occurring cranial cruciate ligament deficiency with arthroscopy as the gold standard. Vet Surg 39: 296–305. [crossref]
66. Glashow JL, Katz R, Schneider M, Scott WN (1989) Double-blind assessment of the value of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate and meniscal lesions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71: 113–9.

DOI: 10.31038/IJOT.2019235

Abstract

Background: The origin of osteoporosis is attributed to several factors and its prevalence is on the increase. It is one of the principal causes of fractures, morbidity, and chronic pain. Muscle and coordination exercises may help to improve physical performance in everyday life, alleviate pain, and prevent falls. On the other hand, the effect of targeted drug therapy on these parameters is not known yet.

Methods: Twenty-five patients with osteoporosis were observed prospectively for 18 months. During this time the patients received targeted drug therapy for the disease. The results of treatment (pre/post) in regard of parameters of physical fitness and pain were analysed.

Results: No changes were noted in respect of torso strength, mobility, and coordination (p>0.05). The patients’ body height was reduced to a significant extent (p<0.001), their hand grip strength on the right side was significantly reduced (p=0.006), and their pain levels were significantly reduced (p=0.001). Factors influencing the success of treatment were body weight, height, the administration of teriparatide, and sports.

Conclusions: While pain can be influenced by medication for the treatment of osteoporosis, no effect or even a decline was noted in parameters of physical fitness.

Keywords

Hand grip strength, mobility, osteoporosis, torso strength, pain treatment

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a systemic disease of bone, marked by reduced bone mass and a disrupted microarchitecture of bone. The result is a greater propensity for fractures and the frequent occurrence of fractures. The latter are associated with pain, limited mobility and quality of life, as well as greater morbidity and mortality [1]. Furthermore, the patient experiences a loss of conditional resources such as muscle strength, endurance, and coordination.

A number of therapy options in terms of drugs and physiotherapy are available for the treatment of this disease. Regular physical exercise alleviates pain, prevents falls, and improves mobility and quality of life [2–4]. Specific medications for osteoporosis, such as bisphosphonates, reduce fracture rates by adhering firmly to bone surfaces and inhibiting the enzyme known as farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase, which is needed in osteoclasts for the formation of the cytoskeleton [5,6]. Monoclonal antibodies also contribute significantly to reducing the risk of fractures [7]. The impact of long-term specific drug therapy on the development of motor and coordination skills in the course of the disease has been poorly investigated so far. Especially pain caused by osteoporosis is of paramount importance for many patients. Alleviating such pain by drug therapy would be subjectively interpreted as successful treatment and an improvement in quality of life for many patients; this was the subject of the current prospective study.

Material and Methods

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact of targeted drug therapy on parameters of physical fitness and pain experienced by patients with osteoporosis. Statements about the factors influencing the success of treatment will also be evaluated.

Study Design and Recruitment

We conducted a prospective single-centre clinical investigation of a treatment group. All probands were informed in detail about the methods, purposes, and risks of the study protocol. Furthermore, they were handed out a copy of their written informed consent. The probands were recruited during the outpatient consultation hours for osteoporosis at the Südstadt Klinikum in Rostock. The recruitment of patients takes 2 years. This made it difficult to predict the required number of patients with regard to the significance of the clinical examination.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria for the clinical study were the presence of proven osteoporosis requiring treatment in patients with pathological bone densitometry values and the availability of X-rays of the thoracic and lumbar spine. At the start of the study, all patients underwent a physical investigation to determine their orthopaedic status, which included the Chair-Rising test (CR test), walking speed (WS), Tandem Stand (TS), Tandem Gait (TG), Hand Grip Strength (HGS), and a guideline-oriented laboratory screening.

Exclusion criteria were all forms of severe heart failure, uncontrolled hypertension, relevant neurological deficits, vestibulopathy, and the need for external care.

Clinical Tests

Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)

It consists of three tests: tandem stand, walking for 4 meters, and the CR test [8,9]. For each task the patient may achieve a maximum of 4 points. The scores of the three tests are then added. A person may achieve a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 12 points. We used the SPPB to measure the function of the lower extremities when performing tasks similar to the activities of daily living. Based on the total score, one can estimate how severely the patient is limited in his/her daily life. Patients with a final score of 0 to 3 points are strongly impaired, especially when walking a few hundred meters, ascending stairs, and in self-care [10,8]. Patients with a final score of 4 to 6 points are moderately impaired, and those with a score from 7 to 9 points are mildly impaired. A patient who achieves a score of 10 to 12 points is minimally impaired or not impaired in his/her daily life.

The patient’s balance and coordination were tested with the aid of the tandem stand. Three positions were retained for 10 seconds each: standing with closed feet, semi-tandem stand (the heel of one foot is at the mid-portion of the inside of the other foot), and tandem stand (one foot behind the other). The patient is free to decide which foot is placed in the front.

The walking test measures the time taken to walk 4 meters at normal speed. This task combines the patient’s strength and coordination in walking and is therefore a good parameter to assess physical performance capacity [11]. The threshold value for limited mobility is a walking speed of ≤0.8 meters per second [12].

The CR test measures five consecutive cycles of standing up from, and sitting on a chair without armrests, with the patient’s arms folded across his/her chest. In general the SPPB is a frequently used instrument that has proved its value not only for the identification and description of probands at the disabled end of the functional spectrum, but also for non-disabled elderly persons [9].

The results constitute a part of the SPPB on the one hand, and provide information about a normal or elevated risk of falls on the other: a score ≤10 s is normal, whereas a score >10 s signifies an elevated risk of falling [13].

Figure 1 (Figure 1) shows an example of the CR test (a), the TS (b), and the test of WS (c).

Figure 1. Exemplary tests of strength, coordination and mobility
CR test (a), TS (b), WS (c)

Hand Grip Strength (HGS)

In addition to the SPPB we measured HGS in kilograms (kg) with a traditional hand grip strength dynamometer. A score of <27 kg is considered to indicate limited physical capacity for men, while the cut-off value for women is 16 kg [12]. The HGS is an efficient and simple method to test overall strength in elderly persons, and has a high and independent predictive power in regard of functional limitations and disabilities [14,15].

Tandem Gait (TG)

TG: The patient is asked to walk 8 steps in a straight line. The outcome provides additional information about the risk of falling, to the extent that 8 walked steps are considered synonymous with a halved risk of falling in a comparison of age [13].

Pain

In the present clinical trial we used the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The latter is a unidimensional pain scale with 11 grades, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the most severe imaginable pain. The probands selected the grade that described their perception of pain. The advantages of the NRS are the low error rate of its results and its high acceptance by test persons [16].

Non-Pharmacological Treatment for Osteoporosis

Calcium

Many postmenopausal women consume too little calcium. Supplementation is therefore useful, also to reduce fracture rates [17]. In the present investigation we tried to achieve a calcium supplementation level of 800 mg daily in order to achieve optimum absorption. After an initial laboratory investigation of retention parameters the patients were given nutritional counselling and advised to consume natural sources of calcium such as milk and cheese instead of food supplements (500 mg). The latter was only used in cases of marked deficiency, because the undesirable gastrointestinal effects of taking calcium could reduce the patients’ compliance. Furthermore, it has been found that higher doses of calcium may cause kidney stones or myocardial infarction [18].

Cholecalciferol

The probands were advised to take 20000 IU of vitamin D3 every week. The aim of the treatment was to achieve a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin-D level above 55 nmol/l.

Additionally all probands were given information about a balanced diet with a protein content of 1 g/kg daily [5].

Pharmacological Treatment for Osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates

A variety of bisphosphonates are currently approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. We used the following substances among others:

• Alendronate 10 mg daily or 70 mg weekly taken orally; men with osteoporosis were given 10 mg daily.
• Zolendronate 5 mg intravenously once every year in postmenopausal women and men with an elevated risk of fractures, including those with a recent fracture due to mild trauma, and for the treatment of osteoporosis in association with long-term systemic glucocorticoid therapy in both genders.
• Ibandronate 150 mg a month taken orally, or 3 mg as an intravenous injection every 3 months in postmenopausal women with an elevated risk of fractures [19].

Denosumab

This is a monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of the nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL), an important regulator of the development and activity of osteoclasts. It is also approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis and for men with an elevated risk of fractures. In the present study denosumab was administered – in persons with the appropriate indication – as a subcutaneous injection at a dose of 60 mg every 6 months [19].

Teriparatide

Several cell pathways in the osteoblast are activated by teriparatide, which in turn leads to greater osteoblast recruitment [5]. In patients with an appropriate indication, teriparatide was administered at a dose of 20 to 40 mg daily.

Strontiumranelate

The distrontium saltknown as strontiumranelateconsists of two atoms of stable strontium and the organic portion, which is ranelic acid. It improves osteoblastic cell replication and enhances collagen synthesis. Simultaneously it reduces the differentiation of osteoclasts and the bone resorption activity of mature osteoclasts in vitro [20]. In patients with the appropriate indication it was given at a dose of 2 g daily.

Testosterone

Hypogonadism is the most frequent cause of osteoporosis in men. In this setting it may be useful to administer the male sexual hormone testosterone as a gel.

Statistics

The collected data were analysed using the statistical software packet SPSS, Version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). In a first step we performed a descriptive evaluation. The quantitative characteristics were described using means [MW], Standard Deviation (SD), minimum and maximum values, and the number of available observations; these were shown with the interval of means ± standard deviation. For the qualitative characteristics we mentioned absolute and percentage frequencies of the individual grades of severity.

Depending on the result of the Shapiro-Wilk tests on normal distribution, we used the dependent t-test to evaluate changes in the respective parameters between the various time points of measurement, and Wilcoxon’s rank sum test. To test qualitative characteristics and analyse categorical frequencies we used the Chi² test. We then calculated the effect size from the quotient of the test value (z) and the square root of the number of probands (n). A resulting value below 0.3 was rated as a weak effect, a value between 0.3 and 0.5 as a moderately strong effect, and a value higher than 0.5 as a strong effect. The effect size of Cohen’s D was determined from the quotient of the mean value difference and the standard deviation (SD). A resulting value from 0.2 onward was rated weak, a value from 0.5 onward as moderate, and a value beyond 0.8 as a strong effect.

All p-values are the result of two-sided statistical tests; the level of significance was set to p≤0.05.

Results

Probands and Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population

Twenty-five patients with osteoporosis participated in the clinical trial. The patients’ age at the start of the investigation was between 48 and 78 years (65.0 ± 8.3). Twenty-three of 25 probands (92 %) concluded the clinical investigation. NRS values could not be determined for two patients because of the absence of appropriate documentation. Table 1 summarizes the baseline characteristics of the study population.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study population (n = 25)

Data presented as means ± SD and percentages

Height, Body Weight, BMI

The patients’ height at the time point T0 was on average 167.2 ± 7.7 cm. In the observation period we registered a mean value of 164.5 ± 8.1 cm, which amounted to a highly significant difference (p<0.001) between the two time points. The change in the patients’ BMI was also very significant (p=0.008). On the other hand, weight did not differ significantly between T0 und T1 (p>0.05).

CR test

With regard to the CR test, at the start of the investigation we noted a mean value of 9.7 ± 2.3 seconds. After the conclusion of treatment there was a statistical trend in terms of a deterioration of torso strength (10.7 ± 2.7 s, p=0.086).

Walking Speed

WS at the time point T0 was on average 0.9 ± 0.1 m/s. At T1 the mean value was 0.9 ± 0.2 m/s. The pairwise comparison of means revealed no significant difference (p=0.573).

Table 2 provides an overview of the above mentioned parameters.

Table 2. Results of parametric tests as percentage changes (n=25)

Data presented as means ± SD, ^† t test against 0, *weak, **moderate, ***strong

Hand Grip Strength

HGS on the right side was reduced after drug therapy from 29.6 ± 9.9 kg to 27.2 ± 8.6 kg; the difference was highly significant (p=0.006). On the left side there was no significant difference (p>0.05). On the left side HGS was 28.0 ± 9.8 kg at the start of treatment and then reduced to 26.5 ± 8.4 kg.

Figure 2 shows the relative changes in the CR test, WS, and HGS.

Figure 2. Relative changes in selected parameters of strength and mobility

Tandem Gait

On tandem gait the patients were able to walk a minimum of 4 steps and a maximum of 8 steps at the start of treatment. At time point T1 we observed no significant difference in this regard (p>0.05).

SPPB

The SPPB values were between 8 and 11 points at the start of the investigation, and 10.2 ± 1.0 points on average. A comparison of values at the start of the investigation (T0) and after 18 months of drug treatment for osteoporosis (T1) revealed no significant difference (10.2 ± 1.0 points, p=0.776).

Pain

Sixty percent of the study participants said they had occasional pain and 28% had pain every day. The intensity of pain was moderate (NRS 4.4 ± 2.9) at the start of the investigation. Pain was primarily described as dulland was mainly experienced in the lumbar spine. Thirty-two percent of patients had persistent pain throughout the day or in the evening. Twenty-eight percent of the patients used painkillers of the WHO category I regularly while 8% used NSAID. Four percent of patients used phytopharmaceuticals or painkillers of the WHO category II, and 12% used a combination of treatments. After 18 months of drug treatment for osteoporosis the patients’ pain levels on the NRS were reduced on average to 2.6 ± 2.0 points; the result was highly significant (p=0.001), and the effect was strong (r=0.508).

Table 3 provides a summary of the results in regard of the above mentioned parameters.

Table 3. Results of the non-parametricsigned rank test (n=25)

^ƟWilcoxon test, *weak, **moderate, ***strong

Success of Treatment

We rated the success of treatment (SOT) on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10. An improvement by at least 2 points on the NRS was rated as successful treatment. Eight patients concluded the treatment successfully, whereas 15 patients experienced no success of treatment (NTS). We also determined the corresponding factors that influenced the success of treatment.

The two groups differed very significantly in terms of body weight at the start of the investigation [57.4 ± 6.8 kg (SOT) vs. 70.3 ± 11.2 kg (NTS), p=0.007], and still differed significantly after the intervention [59.6 ± 9.0 kg (SOT) vs. 69.3 ± 10.0 kg (NTS), p=0.033]. With regard to height, a statistically significant difference was noted between the two groups [161.9 ± 6.8 cm (SOT) vs. 169.0 ± 6.6 cm (NTS), p=0.023], which remained significant in the observation period [158.8 ±  4.4 cm (SOT) vs. 166.5 ± 7.9 cm (NTS), p=0.019]. With regard to BMI, at baseline the difference between the two groups revealed a trend towards significance (p=0.073), which was no longer present after the conclusion of treatment (p>0.05). With regard to the prescribed drugs, a difference was only noted between the SOT and NTS groups when they took teriparatide (p=0.043). As regards sports, a significant difference was noted between the SOT and NTS groups (p=0.021).

In contrast, for the CR test, walking speed, new fractures, and food rich in calcium, we registered no significant differences between the individual time points of measurement (p>0.05) (Table 4). The factors influencing the success of treatment are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Success of treatment

*defined as a reduction on the NRS by 2 points. Data expressed as means ± SD, ^πindependent t test, ^cChi-square test

Discussion

The present investigation is the first to provide comprehensive data on the effects of 18 months of drug treatment for osteoporosis on parameters of physical fitness and pain. The level of pain could be reduced significantly in the entire group, whereas the parameters of physical fitness remained unchanged or even deteriorated. While the reasons for this change are manifold, we presume that the drug treatment could have influenced the patients’ perception of pain. In our investigation, especially teriparatide was found to exert favourable effects. Soen et al. [21] achieved similar results in their investigation of about 2000 patients who took 20 μg of teriparatide daily. The mode of action of this drug is not fully investigated yet and calls for further research. One potential mechanism of reducing back pain is reducing the severity as well as the number of new vertebral fractures [22]. New fractures played a subsidiary role in the present study, especially with regard to the success of treatment. The other drugs that we administered also had an effect on the patients’ perception of pain, regardless of the success of treatment. In the present study 68 % of the probands were given bisphosphonates, which enhance bone density by inhibiting osteoclast activity, and thus markedly suppress bone turnover when used for a long period of time [23]. However, these drugs may also cause an accumulation of micro injuries and thus impair the healing of stress fractures [24]. Despite an increasing quantity of bone, the quality of bone may deteriorate, which may favour bisphosphonate-related proximal femoral fractures among other conditions [25]. However, an animal experiment performed by Naito et al. [26] showed that treatment with alendronate may halt bone resorption and reduce levels of pain mediators. Compared to other bisphosphonates, the unique mechanism of action of minodronate on the inhibition of the P2X(2/3) receptor is advantageous, especially in reducing back pain among patients with osteoporosis [27]. However, in the present investigation we did not use minodronate. It should be noted that patients with osteoporosis benefit from the alleviation of pain in terms of an improvement of their quality of life.

Worthy of note was the significant change in hand grip strength on the right side. Simultaneously, pain levels were reduced in patients who did the sports program regularly. We attribute this effect to the specificity of the component of strength; in other words, only those patients who perform specific exercises for muscle strength are able to increase their muscle strength. Some participants performed the muscle strengthening exercises regularly while others swam or biked.

The results of the present study reveal that, in addition to drug treatment for osteoporosis, consistent muscle exercises may be useful. In a meta-analysis of the impact of various physical activities on osteoporosis, many studies revealed an increase in bone density under regular physical activity. Moderately intensive exercises performed twice to four times a week, in short intervals and at a high frequency, appeared to be especially effective [28]. In the present study only five patients performed regular sports at baseline by way of intensive muscle exercises. Based on these results, patients should be advised to perform regular exercise. Sling therapy is a suitable option; among our patients this exercise led to a significant reduction of pain, improvement of physical fitness, and a positive perception of their subjective health [4].

Independent of drug therapy, a lower body weight with a normal BMI does appear to exert a positive effect on pain levels. In the group that achieved successful treatment, the probands were on average about 12.5 kg lighter and their BMI was markedly lower than the corresponding values in patients who did not achieve successful treatment. Segar et al. [29] showed that a high BMI is associated with pain, especially in the lower extremity; the authors also noted back pain in these patients.

Conclusion

• Teriparatide has – more than other drugs – a positive effect on the pain experienced by patients with osteoporosis.
• Independent of the perception of pain, drugs for osteoporosis have no impact on muscle strength.
• Physical activity or exercise in a sufficient dose does contribute to the reduction of pain in the long term among patients with osteoporosis.
• A normal BMI may influence the perception of pain in patients with osteoporosis.
• Supplementary muscle exercises aligned to the patient’s level of fitness appear meaningful in addition to drug therapy.

Limitations

The prospective design and the limited size of the group are limitations of the present study. More complex statistical procedures could not be used. Thus, no general conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the present data. The absence of the blinding of patients and investigators is a further limitation. This is a single pilot study, so a misinterpretation of the findings is possible. Our results may not be generalizable. In general the investigation period of 18 months is short. Bisphosphonates partly unfold their effect up to 3 years. This permits limited statements about the long-term effects of the treatment. In future investigations we intend to evaluate the data of a longer period of intervention and thus achieve a better level of evidence.

Declaration

Ethical Approval

We declare that this study with human subjects is in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 as amended in 2000 and that it has been approved by the competent institutional ethics committee of the University of Rostock (Trial registration No. A 2018–0247).

Consent to participate

All  subjects  were  informed  comprehensively  about  the  methods,  purposes and risks of the study protocol and also received a written declaration of informed consent.

Consent for publication

BF agreed in writing to the publication of the illustration.

Availability of data and material

The vote of the Ethics Committee can be found at the following address (https: //www.ethik.med.uni-rostock.de/ A 2018–0247). The consent to the publication of the photographic material has been given to the journal.

Authors’ contribution

HCS led the investigation and is co-responsible for the clinical trial concept. He also participated in the recruitment of the test subjects. GS designed the data preparation concept. UV carried out the survey, measurement and documentation of the data. RB participated in the data preparation and correction of the typesetting. VB was responsible for the translation of the journal article. AH carried out the statistical data evaluation.

References

1. Zanker J, Duque G (2018) Osteoporosis in Older Persons. Old and New Players. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
2. Bergland A, Thorsen H, Karesen R (2011) Effect of exercise on mobility, balance, and health-related quality of life in osteoporotic women with a history of vertebral fracture. A randomized, controlled trial. Osteoporosis international 22: 1863–1871.
3. Iwamoto J, Suzuki H, Tanaka K, et al. (2009) Preventative effect of exercise against falls in the elderly. A randomized controlled trial. Osteoporosis international 20: 1233–1240.
4. Schröder G, Knauerhase A, Kundt G, Schober H-C. 2012. Effects of physical therapy on quality of life in osteoporosis patients – a randomized clinical trial. Health and quality of life outcomes 10: 101.
5. Tella SH, Gallagher JC (2014) Prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology 142: 155–170.
6. Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, et al. (2018) Fracture Prevention with Zoledronate in Older Women with Osteopenia. The New England journal of medicine 379: 2407–2416.
7. Saag KG, Petersen J, Brandi ML, et al. (2017) Romosozumab or Alendronate for Fracture Prevention in Women with Osteoporosis. The New England journal of medicine 377: 1417–1427.
8. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Simonsick EM, et al. (1995) Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. The New England journal of medicine 332: 556–561.
9. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, et al. (2000) Lower extremity function and subsequent disability. Consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 55: M221–31.
10. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, et al. (1994) A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function. Association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. Journal of gerontology 49: M85–94.
11. Seefried L, Genest F (2017) Functional diagnostics of sarcopenia. Osteology 26: 13–17.
12. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. (2018) Sarcopenia. Revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age and ageing.
13. Runge M (2009) Fünf Esslinger. Ein Bewegungsprogramm für Muskel-Knochen- Fitness.
14. Rantanen T (2003) Muscle strength, disability and mortality. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports 13: 3–8.
15. Rantanen T, Volpato S, Ferrucci L, et al. (2003) Handgrip strength and cause-specific and total mortality in older disabled women. Exploring the mechanism. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 51: 636–641.
16. Basler HD (2011) Akutschmerztherapie in Pädiatrie und Geriatrie – Schmerzmessung: Welche Schmerzskala bei welchen Patienten? Anästhesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther: 334–342.
17. Prince RL, Devine A, Dhaliwal SS, Dick IM (2006) Effects of calcium supplementation on clinical fracture and bone structure. Results of a 5-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in elderly women. Archives of internal medicine 166: 869–875.
18. Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Baron JA, et al. (2010) Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events.Meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 341: 3691.
19. Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, et al. (2017) UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Archives of osteoporosis 12: 43.
20. Dimai HP (2005) Strontium ranelate. A novel concept for the treatment of osteoporosis. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 117: 728–738.
21. Soen S, Fujiwara S, Takayanagi R, et al. (2017). Real-world effectiveness of daily teriparatide in Japanese patients with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. Final results from the 24-month Japan Fracture Observational Study (JFOS). Current medical research and opinion 33: 2049–2056.
22. Genant HK, Halse J, Briney WG, et al. (2005) The effects of teriparatide on the incidence of back pain in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Current medical research and opinion 21: 1027–1034.
23. Odvina CV, Zerwekh JE, Rao DS, et al. 2005. Severely suppressed bone turnover. A potential complication of alendronate therapy. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism 90: 1294–1301.
24. Unnanuntana A, Saleh A, Mensah KA, et al. (2013) Atypical femoral fractures. What do we know about them?: AAOS Exhibit Selection. The Journal of bone and joint surgery 95: 1–13.
25. Ma C-M, Cheung M-H, Wong W-B (2015) Surgical Difficulties and Complications in the Treatment of Bisphosphonate-related Proximal Femur Fractures. 非典型股骨近端骨折外科手術的困難和併發症. Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation 19: 83–88.
26. Naito Y, Wakabayashi H, Kato S, et al. 2017. Alendronate inhibits hyperalgesia and suppresses neuropeptide markers of pain in a mouse model of osteoporosis. Journal of orthopaedic science 22: 771–777.
27. Ohishi T, Matsuyama Y (2018) Minodronate for the treatment of osteoporosis. Therapeutics and clinical risk management 14: 729–739.
28. Moreira LDF, Oliveira MLd, Lirani-Galvao AP, et al. (2014) Physical exercise and osteoporosis. Effects of different types of exercises on bone and physical function of postmenopausal women. Arquivosbrasileiros de endocrinologia e metabologia 58: 514–522.
29. Segar AH, Urban JPG, Fairbank JCT, Judge A. 2016. The Association between Body Mass Index (BMI) and Back or Leg Pain in Patients with Spinal Conditions. Results from the Genodisc Study. Spine 41: 1237–E1243.

DOI: 10.31038/IJOT.2019234

Abstract

Background: Two different screw configurations for the fixation of juvenile Tillaux fractures have been reported. One technique, direct fixation involves placement of one or two screws directly through the fragment, into the medial epiphysis or across the physis and into the metaphysis. The second technique involves placement of one or two screws through the medial epiphysis and into the fragment. The purpose of the study was to retrospectively study both techniques with regard to their effectiveness in maintaining an open anatomic reduction.

Methods: A review of all juvenile Tillaux fractures that had been operatively treated at our institution over a 5 year period was performed. A total of thirty-eight fractures were identified with twenty-three fractures (61%) treated utilizing a direct fixation technique and fifteen fractures (39%) treated utilizing an indirect fixation technique. All fractures were followed to union with a mean follow-up of twenty-one weeks.

Results: Thirty-four of the thirty-eight fractures were anatomically reduced on intraoperative radiographs with elimination of joint step-off on all radiographs and a residual one-millimeter fracture gap noted in four fractures. No fracture displaced between the time of internal fixation and healing. The mean healed fracture gap was 0mm and the mean healed joint step-off was 0mm. Four of the fifteen fractures stabilized with indirect fixation required hardware removal. One of the twenty-three fractures stabilized using direct fixation required hardware removal.

Conclusion: Either direct or indirect fixation of juvenile Tillaux fractures is effective in maintaining an anatomic open reduction of the joint surface.

Introduction

The juvenile Tillaux fracture was first recognized by Paul Jules Tillaux [1] but was not extensively described until the report of Kleiger and Mankin [2]. The fracture occurs primarily in older adolescents in whom closure of the distal tibial physis has begun [3–7]. Early descriptions of the fracture reported successful treatment with closed reduction and casting [2,8,9]. However, reports of early degenerative changes in patients with displaced intraarticular distal tibia fractures have led to recommendations for open reduction and internal fixation in displaced intraarticular distal tibia fractures [10]. Some authors have advocated closed reduction with percutaneous fixation [11] or arthroscopic reduction [12,13] but open reduction is the standard of care [14–22]. The literature describes two different fixation techniques. The first involves placement of one or two pins or screws through the epiphyseal fragment and into the distal tibial metaphysis [18,20,21,23–25] (figure 1). The second technique involves placement of one or two screws through the medial malleolus and into the Tillaux fragment [17] (figure 2). Both techniques have been used at our institution. This study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of each technique at maintaining the anatomic reduction obtained at the time of open reduction.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining institutional review board approval, a review of all distal tibial Tillaux fractures treated operatively at our institution between over a five year period was performed. Patients successfully treated with cast immobilization and without surgical intervention were excluded. Charts were reviewed for demographic information, operative details and postoperative complications and follow-up. Radiographs were reviewed for confirmation of the fracture pattern, the screw configuration used and intraoperative measurement of the displacement after fixation. Follow-up radiographs were reviewed to assess healing and measure displacement in both a transverse direction (fracture gap) and a vertical direction (joint step off).

A total of forty-five patients with forty-five fractures were identified. Seven patients had radiographs that could not be located or inadequate follow-up for inclusion in the study. A total of thirty-eight patients with thirty-eight fractures were identified that were followed to union. A total of sixteen males and twenty-two females were included. The mean age of the patients was thirteen years and eight months (range eleven years and one month to sixteen years and two months). The right ankle was involved in twenty-two fractures (58%) and the left in sixteen (42%). A total of twenty-three fractures (61%) were stabilized using direct fixation while fifteen fractures (39%) underwent indirect fixation. All patients were followed to fracture union, which occurred in all fractures within six weeks after the injury. The mean follow up was twenty-one weeks (range six to 124 weeks)

Surgical Technique

After the patient had been placed in the supine position with a bump under the ipsilateral hip, the involved extremity was prepared and draped free. Under tourniquet, in all patients, an anterior longitudinal incision was made over the ankle and dissection was performed down to the level of the anterior tibial tendon. Dissecting either medial to the anterior tibial tendon or between the anterior tibial tendon and the extensor hallicus longus tendon an arthrotomy was then performed. The Tillaux fragment was then identified and distracted by inserting a freer elevator into the fracture site. Hematoma was then curetted from the fracture site and the ankle joint thoroughly irrigated. The articular surface was then reduced under direct vision using the elevator and held reduced using a large bone reduction clamp. One of two fixation configurations was then used after open reduction at the surgeon’s discretion. The first technique, designated direct fixation, involved the placement of one or two cannulated 4.0mm, partially threaded, interfragmentary screws (Smith-Nephew-Richards, Memphis, Tennessee, USA) angled proximally, medially and posteriorly through the Tillaux fragment and into either the distal tibial epiphysis or across the physis and into the metaphysis (Fig. 1a-f). The second technique, designated indirect fixation¹⁷, involved making a small (3mm) incision over the medial aspect of the epiphysis and placement of one or two cannulated interfragmentary screws through the medial epiphysis between the physis and the joint surface using image intensification (Fig. 2a-e). Closure of the incisions was carried out after confirming anatomic reduction both visually by inspecting the joint surface and by using image intensification. Regardless of the screw configuration utilized, the ankle was immobilized in a short leg cast or orthotic walker boot and the patient was requested to be non-weight bearing for six weeks. Hardware removal was not routinely performed after fracture healing but was performed if the patent experienced significant discomfort with activity over the area of screws.

Figure 1a. Anteroposterior radiograph of the left ankle in a 13+0 year old female after a twisting injury sustained after stepping into a hole showing a displaced Tillaux fracture.

Figure 1b. Lateral radiograph of the left ankle in the same patient.

Figure 1c. Coronal reconstruction of computed tomography of the distal tibia following closed reduction showing significant gapping of the Tillaux fragment.

Figure 1d. Coronal reconstruction of computed tomography of the distal tibia in the mid tibia following closed reduction showing mild displacement of the Tillaux fragment.

Figure 1e. Anteroposterior intraoperative image of the ankle in the same patient obtained using an image intensifier intraoperatively after open anatomic reduction and internal fixation using direct fixation with one screw

Figure 1f. Lateral image of the ankle in the same patient.

Figure 2a. Anteroposterior radiograph of the left ankle in a 12+6 year old female after an injury sustained while playing soccer. A displaced Tillaux fracture is present

Figure 2b. Lateral radiograph of the left ankle in the same patient.

Figure 2c. Computed axial tomographic image of the left distal tibia showing displacement of the Tillaux fragment.

Figure 2d. Intraoperative anteroposterior image of the ankle in the same patient obtained using an image intensifier intraoperatively after open anatomic reduction and internal fixation using indirect fixation with two screws.

Figure 2e. Intraoperative lateral image of the ankle in the same patient obtained using an image intensifier intraoperatively after open anatomic reduction and internal fixation using indirect fixation with two screws.

Results

Anatomic reduction was obtained in thirty-four of the thirty-eight fractures at the time of operative fixation. Joint step off was eliminated in all patients. Three of the twenty-three fractures treated by direct fixation (13%) and one of the fifteen fractures treated by indirect fixation (7%) were noted to have a residual one-millimeter fracture gap intraoperatively that was felt to be acceptable. Measurements at the time of bony union revealed that no fracture had displaced joint step off (mean 0 mm). At the time of union, no patient had a measurable fracture gap (mean 0 mm). One of the twenty-three patients who had direct fixation (4%) requested hardware removal. Four of the fifteen patients who had indirect fixation (29%) requested hardware removal. No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred although transient tingling in the distribution of the superficial peroneal nerve was noted postoperatively in a few patients. This had resolved by the time of final follow-up in all patients. No patient developed other neurovascular complications, wound problems or infection. Hardware removal was uncomplicated in all patients who requested removal of the screws.

Discussion

Juvenile Tillaux fractures are uncommon and most reports consist of small series or case reports with the largest series in the literature representing 10 patients [26,27] Here we report the operative experience at our institution over an extended period of time with this uncommon fracture. Our routine during this time has been to perform antero-posterior, lateral, and mortise radiographs as the initial radiographic evaluation. Fractures that were displaced were splinted and operative treatment recommended. Fractures that were not clearly displaced were placed into long leg casts with the knee bent 45–90°. After cast placement, computed tomography with coronal and sagittal reconstruction was performed to evaluate the joint surface [19, 28–33]. Displacement with fracture gap or joint step-off of more than 1mm was considered to be significant and operative treatment recommended. Operative treatment in each instance involved open reduction with internal fixation using 4.0mm cannulated screws. Closed reduction of these fractures, if attempted was performed prior to definitive imaging and in our experience rarely achieved the anatomic reduction of the joint surface that we believe is essential to good long-term results.

The advantage of direct fixation is that it is technically slightly easier, not requiring joint space visualization and image intensification needed for indirect fixation. In addition, direct fixation does not require additional incisions to be made in the area of the medial malleolus. Crossing the physis typically involves little risk of late growth problems because these fractures typically occur after closure of the posterior and medial aspects of the distal tibial physis^{2, 7}. Indirect fixation has the advantage of requiring a slightly smaller anterior incision because drilling and screw placement is not performed through this incision. Indirect fixation also has the advantage of simplified screw removal in the event of painful hardware. Hardware removal was more frequently requested in the patients who had been stabilized using indirect fixation, possibly due to prominence of the screws at the medial malleolus causing problems with shoe wear. Either technique seems to be effective in maintaining an anatomic reduction that has been achieved by open reduction.

In conclusion, both direct and indirect fixation of juvenile Tillaux fractures are effective in maintaining an anatomic reduction of the fracture when the limb is immobilized in a short leg, below knee cast or orthotic walker boot when the patient is kept non-weight bearing.

Acknowledgement

Study conducted at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis Shriners Hospital for Children, and St. Louis Children’s Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

References

1. Rang M (1983) Children’s Fractures. (2^nd edn). Philadelphia and Toronto: J.B. Lippincott Company 1983.
2. Kleiger B, Mankin HJ (1964) Fracture of the lateral portion of the distal tibial epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 46: 25–32.
3. Protas JM, Kornblatt BA (1981) Fractures of the lateral margin of the distal tibia. The Tillaux fracture. Radiology 138: 55–7.
4. Letts RM (1982) The hidden adolescent ankle fracture. J Pediatr Orthop 2: 161–4.
5. Love SM, Ganey T, Ogden JA (1990) Postnatal epiphyseal development: the distal tibia and fibula. J Pediatr Orthop. 10: 298–305.
6. Ogden JA, McCarthy SM (1983) Radiology of postnatal skeletal development. VIII. Distal tibia and fibula. Skeletal Radiol 10: 209–20.
7. Spinella AJ, Turco VJ (1988) Avulsion fracture of the distal tibial epiphysis in skeletally immature athletes (juvenile Tillaux fracture). Orthop Rev 17: 1245–9.
8. Kleiger B (1956) The mechanism of ankle injuries. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 38: 59–70.
9. Spiegel PG, Cooperman DR, Laros GS (1978) Epiphyseal fractures of the distal ends of the tibia and fibula. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 60: 1046–50.
10. Ertl JP, Barrack RL, Alexander AH, VanBuecken K (1988) Triplane fracture of the distal tibial epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 70: 967–76.
11. Schlesinger I, Wedge JH (1993) Percutaneous reduction and fixation of displaced juvenile Tillaux fractures: a new surgical technique. J Pediatr Orthop 13: 389–91.
12. Leetun DT, Ireland ML (2002) Arthroscopically assisted reduction and fixation of a juvenile Tillaux fracture. Arthroscopy 18: 427–9.
13. Ogawa T, Shimizu S (2017) Arthroscopically assisted surgical fixation of a juvenile Tillaux fracture and implant removal: A case report. J Clin Orthop Trauma 8: 32–7.
14. Dailiana ZH, Malizos KN, Zacharis K, Mavrodontidis AN, Shiamishis GA, et al (1999) Distal tibial epiphyseal fractures in adolescents. Am J Orthop 28: 309–12.
15. de Sanctis N, Della Corte S, Pempinello C (2000) Distal tibial and fibular epiphyseal fractures in children: prognostic criteria and long-term results in 158 patients. J Pediatr Orthop B 9: 40–4.
16. Koury SI, Stone CK, Harrell G, La Charite DD (1999) Recognition and management of Tillaux fractures in adolescents. Pediatr Emerg Care 15: 37–9.
17. Lintecum N, Blasier RD (1996) Direct reduction with indirect fixation of distal tibial physeal fractures: a report of a technique. J Pediatr Orthop 16: 107–112.
18. Kling TF Jr (1990) Operative treatment of ankle fractures in children. Orthop Clin North Am. 21: 381–92.
19. von Laer L (1985) Classification, diagnosis, and treatment of transitional fractures of the distal part of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 67: 687–98.
20. Kling TF, Jr., Bright RW, Hensinger RN (1984) Distal tibial physeal fractures in children that may require open reduction. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 66: 647–57.
21. Dias LS, Giegerich CR (1983) Fractures of the distal tibial epiphysis in adolescence. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 65: 438–444.
22. Britton PD (1988) Adolescent-type Tillaux fracture of the ankle: two case reports. Arch Emerg Med 5: 180–3.
23. Dingeman RD, Shaver GB (1978) Operative treatment of displaced Salter-Harris III distal tibial fractures. Clin Orthop 135: 101–103.
24. Salter RB (1974) Injuries of the ankle in children. Orthop Clin North Am 1974;5: 147–152.
25. Dias LS, Tachdjian MO (1978) Physeal injuries of the ankle in children. Clin Orthop 136: 230–3.
26. Tiefenboeck TM, Binder H, Joestl J, et al. (2017) Displaced juvenile Tillaux fractures : Surgical treatment and outcome. Wien Klin Wochenschr 129: 169–75.
27. Kaya A, Altay T, Ozturk H, Karapinar L (2007) Open reduction and internal fixation in displaced juvenile Tillaux fractures. Injury 38: 201–5.
28. Yao J, Huurman WW (1986) Tomography in a juvenile Tillaux fracture. J Pediatr Orthop 6: 349–51.
29. Felman AH (1989) Tillaux fractures of the tibia (in adolescents). Pediatr Radiol 20: 87–9.
30. Horn BD, Crisci K, Krug M, Pizzutillo PD, MacEwen GD (2001) Radiologic evaluation of juvenile Tillaux fractures of the distal tibia. J Pediatr Orthop 21: 162–4.
31. O’Connor DK, Mulligan ME (1998) Extra-articular triplane fracture of the distal tibia: a case report. Pediatr Radiol. 28: 332–3.
32. Steinlauf SD, Stricker SJ, Hulen CA (1998) Juvenile Tillaux fracture simulating syndesmosis separation: a case report. Foot Ankle Int 19(5): 332–5.
33. Karrholm J (1997) The triplane fracture: four years of follow-up of 21 cases and review of the literature. J Pediatr Orthop B 6: 91–102.