Is cross-sectional imaging necessary for fractures of the distal lower leg in children and adolescents: results of a nationwide survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".