第五跖骨应力性骨折与骨密度增加和负重CT上的排列改变有关。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
François Lintz,Wolfram Grün,Enrico Pozzessere,Emily Luo,Erik Jesus Huanuco Casas,Pierre-Henri Vermorel,Antoine Acker,Cesar de Cesar Netto
{"title":"第五跖骨应力性骨折与骨密度增加和负重CT上的排列改变有关。","authors":"François Lintz,Wolfram Grün,Enrico Pozzessere,Emily Luo,Erik Jesus Huanuco Casas,Pierre-Henri Vermorel,Antoine Acker,Cesar de Cesar Netto","doi":"10.1097/corr.0000000000003613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nStress fractures of the fifth metatarsal (M5) are common among individuals engaging in repetitive impact activities or patients with preexisting deformities. Compared with patients who have traumatic fractures, those with stress fractures often develop delayed union, nonunions, or recurrence. Risk factors such as hindfoot varus and foot adduction have been implicated. The recent advent of weightbearing CT enables the study of specific bone density and orientation characteristics that have not, to our knowledge, previously been explored. Such tools could detect higher risk patients and help trigger potential preventive measures.\r\n\r\nQUESTIONS/PURPOSES\r\nDo patients with an M5 stress fracture present altered three-dimensional orientation and alignment parameters compared with an age- and sex-matched control group? (2) Do the feet and M5s of patients with an M5 stress fracture present different foot ankle offset (FAO) parameters compared with the control group? (3) Do the M5s of patients with an M5 stress fracture present with altered bone density patterns compared with the control group, and is a clinically relevant threshold identifiable?\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis institutional review board-approved retrospective case-control study analyzed 15 feet of patients with M5 stress fractures and 15 feet of a control group using weightbearing CT. Between February 2022 and May 2024, a total of 74 patients with available weightbearing CT scans were treated for an M5 fracture. Among those patients, we considered 77% (57) of proximal fractures as potentially eligible. Of those patients, 39% (22 of 57) were included; a further 32% (7 of 22) were later excluded because of metal artifact conflicting with M5 bone density assessment, leaving 68% (15 of 22) for analysis here. Controls were selected from our weightbearing CT archive, matched for age and sex and excluded if any foot disorder or prior intervention was identified. Accordingly, there were seven males and eight females in each group, and five and nine left sides, respectively, in the stress fractures and control groups. The mean ± SD age was 53 ± 13 years for the stress fractures group versus 51 ± 12 years for controls. Mean ± SD BMI was 34.4 ± 10.2 kg/m2 for the stress fractures group and 36.8 ± 8.2 kg/m2 for controls. For the first study question, M5 orientations and baseline foot alignment parameters were evaluated based on Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data sets using weightbearing CT software. For the second study question, weightbearing CT software was used to measure the FAO and assess the spatial relationship of the M5 with the foot tripod. For the third study question, segmentation and bone density measurements, using Hounsfield units (HUs), were performed with commercially available and open-source software. Receiver operating characteristic analysis with the Youden index was performed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the HU M5/HU talus density ratio for identifying stress fractures.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThe stress fractures group exhibited a lower M5 base height at mean ± SD 9 ± 3 mm versus 12 ± 3 mm (p = 0.045), greater ground contact frequency (11 of 15 versus 0 of 15 for the control group; p < 0.001), and an increased median (range) M5/M4 length ratio of 1.06 (0.95 to 1.14) versus 1.01 (0.97 to 1.10) for controls (p = 0.04). Hindfoot varus and foot adduction were associated with stress fractures, as indicated by altered hindfoot alignment and tarsometatarsal angles. The stress fractures group demonstrated a mean 50% increase in the HU M5/HU talus density ratio, at a median (range) of 1.52 (0.9 to 2.3) versus 1.02 (0.97 to 1.1) (p < 0.001). A relative increase by a factor of 1.2 in the HU M5/HU talus density ratio was associated with the stress fractures group with 80% sensitivity and 94% specificity.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nStress fractures of the M5 are known to be associated with hindfoot varus and forefoot adductus. The present study adds that these injuries may also be associated with reduced base height, increased plantarflexion, a longer M5, and higher bone density. Future prospective studies could investigate whether using a threshold of 1.2 for the HU M5/HU talus density ratio to trigger early preventive measures could help decrease the occurrence of stress fractures.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nLevel III, prognostic study.","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fifth Metatarsal Stress Fractures Are Associated With Increased Bone Density and Altered Alignment on Weightbearing CT.\",\"authors\":\"François Lintz,Wolfram Grün,Enrico Pozzessere,Emily Luo,Erik Jesus Huanuco Casas,Pierre-Henri Vermorel,Antoine Acker,Cesar de Cesar Netto\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/corr.0000000000003613\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nStress fractures of the fifth metatarsal (M5) are common among individuals engaging in repetitive impact activities or patients with preexisting deformities. Compared with patients who have traumatic fractures, those with stress fractures often develop delayed union, nonunions, or recurrence. Risk factors such as hindfoot varus and foot adduction have been implicated. The recent advent of weightbearing CT enables the study of specific bone density and orientation characteristics that have not, to our knowledge, previously been explored. Such tools could detect higher risk patients and help trigger potential preventive measures.\\r\\n\\r\\nQUESTIONS/PURPOSES\\r\\nDo patients with an M5 stress fracture present altered three-dimensional orientation and alignment parameters compared with an age- and sex-matched control group? (2) Do the feet and M5s of patients with an M5 stress fracture present different foot ankle offset (FAO) parameters compared with the control group? (3) Do the M5s of patients with an M5 stress fracture present with altered bone density patterns compared with the control group, and is a clinically relevant threshold identifiable?\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nThis institutional review board-approved retrospective case-control study analyzed 15 feet of patients with M5 stress fractures and 15 feet of a control group using weightbearing CT. Between February 2022 and May 2024, a total of 74 patients with available weightbearing CT scans were treated for an M5 fracture. Among those patients, we considered 77% (57) of proximal fractures as potentially eligible. Of those patients, 39% (22 of 57) were included; a further 32% (7 of 22) were later excluded because of metal artifact conflicting with M5 bone density assessment, leaving 68% (15 of 22) for analysis here. Controls were selected from our weightbearing CT archive, matched for age and sex and excluded if any foot disorder or prior intervention was identified. Accordingly, there were seven males and eight females in each group, and five and nine left sides, respectively, in the stress fractures and control groups. The mean ± SD age was 53 ± 13 years for the stress fractures group versus 51 ± 12 years for controls. Mean ± SD BMI was 34.4 ± 10.2 kg/m2 for the stress fractures group and 36.8 ± 8.2 kg/m2 for controls. For the first study question, M5 orientations and baseline foot alignment parameters were evaluated based on Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data sets using weightbearing CT software. For the second study question, weightbearing CT software was used to measure the FAO and assess the spatial relationship of the M5 with the foot tripod. For the third study question, segmentation and bone density measurements, using Hounsfield units (HUs), were performed with commercially available and open-source software. Receiver operating characteristic analysis with the Youden index was performed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the HU M5/HU talus density ratio for identifying stress fractures.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nThe stress fractures group exhibited a lower M5 base height at mean ± SD 9 ± 3 mm versus 12 ± 3 mm (p = 0.045), greater ground contact frequency (11 of 15 versus 0 of 15 for the control group; p < 0.001), and an increased median (range) M5/M4 length ratio of 1.06 (0.95 to 1.14) versus 1.01 (0.97 to 1.10) for controls (p = 0.04). Hindfoot varus and foot adduction were associated with stress fractures, as indicated by altered hindfoot alignment and tarsometatarsal angles. The stress fractures group demonstrated a mean 50% increase in the HU M5/HU talus density ratio, at a median (range) of 1.52 (0.9 to 2.3) versus 1.02 (0.97 to 1.1) (p < 0.001). A relative increase by a factor of 1.2 in the HU M5/HU talus density ratio was associated with the stress fractures group with 80% sensitivity and 94% specificity.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSION\\r\\nStress fractures of the M5 are known to be associated with hindfoot varus and forefoot adductus. The present study adds that these injuries may also be associated with reduced base height, increased plantarflexion, a longer M5, and higher bone density. Future prospective studies could investigate whether using a threshold of 1.2 for the HU M5/HU talus density ratio to trigger early preventive measures could help decrease the occurrence of stress fractures.\\r\\n\\r\\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\\r\\nLevel III, prognostic study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000003613\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000003613","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:第五跖骨应力性骨折(M5)在从事重复性冲击活动的个体或先前存在畸形的患者中很常见。与外伤性骨折患者相比,应力性骨折患者往往出现延迟愈合、不愈合或复发。危险因素,如后足内翻和足内收已牵连。最近出现的负重CT使我们能够研究特定的骨密度和方向特征,据我们所知,以前还没有被探索过。这些工具可以检测高风险患者,并有助于触发潜在的预防措施。问题/目的与年龄和性别匹配的对照组相比,M5应力性骨折患者是否存在三维定向和对齐参数的改变?(2)与对照组相比,M5应力性骨折患者的足部和M5是否存在不同的足踝偏移(FAO)参数?(3)与对照组相比,M5应力性骨折患者的M5是否存在骨密度模式的改变,是否存在可识别的临床相关阈值?方法:本研究经机构审查委员会批准,采用负重CT对15英尺M5应力性骨折患者和15英尺对照组进行回顾性病例对照研究。在2022年2月至2024年5月期间,共有74名患者接受了负重CT扫描,治疗M5骨折。在这些患者中,我们认为77%(57)的近端骨折可能符合条件。在这些患者中,39%(57例中的22例)被纳入;由于金属伪像与M5骨密度评估相冲突,另外32%(22人中的7人)后来被排除,留下68%(22人中的15人)在这里进行分析。对照组从我们的负重CT档案中选择,年龄和性别匹配,如果发现有足部疾病或先前干预,则排除。因此,每组有7名男性和8名女性,应力性骨折组和对照组分别有5名和9名左侧。应力性骨折组的平均±SD年龄为53±13岁,对照组为51±12岁。应力性骨折组BMI平均值为34.4±10.2 kg/m2,对照组为36.8±8.2 kg/m2。对于第一个研究问题,使用负重CT软件基于医学数字成像和通信(DICOM)数据集评估M5方向和基线足对准参数。对于第二个研究问题,使用负重CT软件测量FAO并评估M5与足三脚架的空间关系。对于第三个研究问题,使用Hounsfield单元(HUs)进行分割和骨密度测量,并使用商用和开源软件进行。采用约登指数进行受者操作特征分析,以确定HU M5/HU距骨密度比识别应力性骨折的敏感性和特异性。结果应力骨折组M5基高(平均±SD为9±3 mm)低于对照组(平均±SD为12±3 mm) (p = 0.045),接触地面频率更高(15 / 11比15 / 0);p < 0.001), M5/M4长度比中位数(范围)为1.06(0.95至1.14),而对照组为1.01(0.97至1.10)(p = 0.04)。后足内翻和足内收与应力性骨折有关,这可以从后足对线和跗跖骨角度的改变中看出。应力骨折组HU M5/HU距骨密度比平均增加50%,中位数(范围)为1.52(0.9 ~ 2.3),而中位数(范围)为1.02 (0.97 ~ 1.1)(p < 0.001)。应力性骨折组的HU M5/HU距骨密度比相对增加1.2倍,敏感性为80%,特异性为94%。结论M5应力性骨折与后足内翻和前足内收有关。目前的研究补充说,这些损伤也可能与基底高度降低、跖屈曲增加、M5较长和骨密度较高有关。未来的前瞻性研究将探讨使用1.2的HU M5/HU距骨密度比阈值来触发早期预防措施是否有助于减少应力性骨折的发生。证据等级:III级,预后研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fifth Metatarsal Stress Fractures Are Associated With Increased Bone Density and Altered Alignment on Weightbearing CT.
BACKGROUND Stress fractures of the fifth metatarsal (M5) are common among individuals engaging in repetitive impact activities or patients with preexisting deformities. Compared with patients who have traumatic fractures, those with stress fractures often develop delayed union, nonunions, or recurrence. Risk factors such as hindfoot varus and foot adduction have been implicated. The recent advent of weightbearing CT enables the study of specific bone density and orientation characteristics that have not, to our knowledge, previously been explored. Such tools could detect higher risk patients and help trigger potential preventive measures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES Do patients with an M5 stress fracture present altered three-dimensional orientation and alignment parameters compared with an age- and sex-matched control group? (2) Do the feet and M5s of patients with an M5 stress fracture present different foot ankle offset (FAO) parameters compared with the control group? (3) Do the M5s of patients with an M5 stress fracture present with altered bone density patterns compared with the control group, and is a clinically relevant threshold identifiable? METHODS This institutional review board-approved retrospective case-control study analyzed 15 feet of patients with M5 stress fractures and 15 feet of a control group using weightbearing CT. Between February 2022 and May 2024, a total of 74 patients with available weightbearing CT scans were treated for an M5 fracture. Among those patients, we considered 77% (57) of proximal fractures as potentially eligible. Of those patients, 39% (22 of 57) were included; a further 32% (7 of 22) were later excluded because of metal artifact conflicting with M5 bone density assessment, leaving 68% (15 of 22) for analysis here. Controls were selected from our weightbearing CT archive, matched for age and sex and excluded if any foot disorder or prior intervention was identified. Accordingly, there were seven males and eight females in each group, and five and nine left sides, respectively, in the stress fractures and control groups. The mean ± SD age was 53 ± 13 years for the stress fractures group versus 51 ± 12 years for controls. Mean ± SD BMI was 34.4 ± 10.2 kg/m2 for the stress fractures group and 36.8 ± 8.2 kg/m2 for controls. For the first study question, M5 orientations and baseline foot alignment parameters were evaluated based on Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data sets using weightbearing CT software. For the second study question, weightbearing CT software was used to measure the FAO and assess the spatial relationship of the M5 with the foot tripod. For the third study question, segmentation and bone density measurements, using Hounsfield units (HUs), were performed with commercially available and open-source software. Receiver operating characteristic analysis with the Youden index was performed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the HU M5/HU talus density ratio for identifying stress fractures. RESULTS The stress fractures group exhibited a lower M5 base height at mean ± SD 9 ± 3 mm versus 12 ± 3 mm (p = 0.045), greater ground contact frequency (11 of 15 versus 0 of 15 for the control group; p < 0.001), and an increased median (range) M5/M4 length ratio of 1.06 (0.95 to 1.14) versus 1.01 (0.97 to 1.10) for controls (p = 0.04). Hindfoot varus and foot adduction were associated with stress fractures, as indicated by altered hindfoot alignment and tarsometatarsal angles. The stress fractures group demonstrated a mean 50% increase in the HU M5/HU talus density ratio, at a median (range) of 1.52 (0.9 to 2.3) versus 1.02 (0.97 to 1.1) (p < 0.001). A relative increase by a factor of 1.2 in the HU M5/HU talus density ratio was associated with the stress fractures group with 80% sensitivity and 94% specificity. CONCLUSION Stress fractures of the M5 are known to be associated with hindfoot varus and forefoot adductus. The present study adds that these injuries may also be associated with reduced base height, increased plantarflexion, a longer M5, and higher bone density. Future prospective studies could investigate whether using a threshold of 1.2 for the HU M5/HU talus density ratio to trigger early preventive measures could help decrease the occurrence of stress fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, prognostic study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.90%
发文量
722
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® is a leading peer-reviewed journal devoted to the dissemination of new and important orthopaedic knowledge. CORR® brings readers the latest clinical and basic research, along with columns, commentaries, and interviews with authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信