Diagnostic criteria of forearm Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome: A systematic review.

Abstract

Background: Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome (CECS) of the forearm is characterized by an increase of the pressure in the forearm compartments during repeated activities. Its diagnosis is challenging because of the lack of clearly established diagnostic criteria.

Purpose: We aimed to provide a comprehensive description of the diagnostic methods used for CECS of the forearm, to assess if a more effective diagnosis strategy could be identified.

Methods: We used PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and Science Direct databases to search articles. We carried out multiple searches using the mesh terms ("Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome" OR "Chronic compartment syndrome" OR "Exertional compartment") AND ("forearm" OR "upper limb"). Inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective studies on CECS of the forearm including case reports. We used PRISMA guidelines. The included studies were critically appraised using GRADE approach.

Results: A total of 625 articles were screened and 33 studies were included. It represented 590 patients (505 men and 85 women), with a mean age of 26.6 years old. Among them, 282 competed at an elite level. Motorcycling and motocross were the most frequent sports (66%). Six diagnostic methods were employed. Intra-compartmental pressure (ICP) measurement was the most frequently used method in 26 studies. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 9 studies, while electromyography was employed in only 2 studies. One study reported the measurement of grip strength using a manual dynamometer, one study compared forearm circumference before and after effort, and one used myotonometry. Various exercise protocols were observed. Stress-testing using a hand-grip was the most common protocol in 14 studies. Exercise duration varied from 2 min to 60 min.

Conclusion: Existing data do not provide sufficient evidence to favor an alternative diagnostic method over ICP measurements that should be used cautiously given the absence of formal validation. Non-invasive methods might be easier to use, but should be subjected to further research.

Level of evidence: III.