Is cross-sectional imaging necessary for fractures of the distal lower leg in children and adolescents: results of a nationwide survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: In childhood and adolescence, cross-sectional imaging, most commonly computed tomography (CT), is often performed for advanced diagnosis of joint injuries of the distal lower leg and upper ankle. Due to radiation exposure, the need for CT remains controversial, as these injuries follow stereotypies and usually have a similar course. Alternatively, the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is also discussed. Since radiation sensitivity at this young age is much higher than in adults, an effort must be to minimize radiation exposure according to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles. The aim of this survey is to evaluate the current procedure in Germany in the diagnosis of pediatric injuries of the distal lower leg and upper ankle. METHODS: For data collection, a survey entitled "CT in fractures of the ankle joint in childhood and adolescence: subject of the survey are injuries between 8 and 15 years of age" of the Section of Pediatric Traumatology in the German Association of Trauma Surgery was sent to all members via the distribution list of the German Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology and the distribution list of the German Society of Pediatric Surgery in a period from September 20, 2022-December 21, 2022. The survey included a total of 21 questions. Target groups were trauma and pediatric surgeons and orthopedic surgeons working in the hospital and in practice. RESULTS: A total of 525 participants took part in the survey: ultrasound diagnostics are used by almost 25% and the Ottawa Ankle Rules by over 50% always or in most cases. A conventional x-ray is always or most often used by over 90%. CT imaging is rarely used by 88.57%, mainly for surgical planning or analysis of fracture progression. 69.9% report that their radiology department uses a pediatric protocol for CT exams; 25.71% do not know if this is the case. MRI imaging is also used infrequently by 89.33%, mostly to identify associated injuries. Overall, CT imaging is chosen by 55.62% and MRI imaging by 35.24% as the sectional imaging modality for suspected fractures; 95.05% consider sectional imaging useful for a triplane fracture, 59.24% for a two-plane fracture, 41.71% for a Salter-Harris type III/IV injury, and 8% for a Salter-Harris type I/II injury. CONCLUSION: The survey showed that the conventional X-ray is still the gold standard. Interestingly, more than half of the respondents regularly use the Ottawa Ankle Rules, and diagnostics using ultrasound are also used by almost a quarter. Awareness of radiation protection in children exists, although a quarter of all participants do not know the extent to which their radiology department has a specific pediatric protocol for CT imaging. Cross-sectional imaging is performed on a regular basis. Regarding the actual extent of imaging, there is a clear divergence between theory and practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».