Metatarsal Bone Marrow Edema on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Its Correlation to Bone Stress Injuries in Male Collegiate Basketball Players.
MRI
athletes
basketball
injury
stress fractures
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
28
07
2021
accepted:
10
09
2021
entrez:
24
1
2022
pubmed:
25
1
2022
medline:
25
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The presence of bone marrow edema (BME) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used to evaluate for bone stress injuries in athletes. To examine the prevalence of MRI findings, including BME, in a single male collegiate basketball team before and after a single season and to assess its association with clinically symptomatic metatarsal bone stress injuries. Cohort Study; Level of evidence, 3. A total of 16 men on a single collegiate basketball team (mean age, 20.0 ± 1.8 years) underwent 1.5-T MRI focused on both midfeet during the preseason, and 13 underwent repeat MRI during the postseason. MRI findings included the presence of BME and the radiographic classification of the bone stress injury (grades 1-4). Injury surveillance performed by athletic trainers was used to identify metatarsal bone stress injuries over the course of the season. Preseason MRI demonstrated metatarsal BME in 5 of the 16 participants, and postseason MRI demonstrated metatarsal BME in 4 of the 13 participants. All 4 of the participants with postseason BME had MRI findings of BME in the same metatarsals. Compared to those without BME, participants with metatarsal BME had a shorter history of basketball exposure (preseason: 10.4 ± 4.1 vs 14.2 ± 1.9 years, respectively [ Collegiate male basketball players may have a high prevalence of BME, often without associated symptoms. The absence of foot pain or a corresponding diagnosis of a metatarsal bone stress injury in this study suggests that MRI findings of BME in asymptomatic athletes should be interpreted with caution.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The presence of bone marrow edema (BME) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used to evaluate for bone stress injuries in athletes.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To examine the prevalence of MRI findings, including BME, in a single male collegiate basketball team before and after a single season and to assess its association with clinically symptomatic metatarsal bone stress injuries.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cohort Study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 16 men on a single collegiate basketball team (mean age, 20.0 ± 1.8 years) underwent 1.5-T MRI focused on both midfeet during the preseason, and 13 underwent repeat MRI during the postseason. MRI findings included the presence of BME and the radiographic classification of the bone stress injury (grades 1-4). Injury surveillance performed by athletic trainers was used to identify metatarsal bone stress injuries over the course of the season.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Preseason MRI demonstrated metatarsal BME in 5 of the 16 participants, and postseason MRI demonstrated metatarsal BME in 4 of the 13 participants. All 4 of the participants with postseason BME had MRI findings of BME in the same metatarsals. Compared to those without BME, participants with metatarsal BME had a shorter history of basketball exposure (preseason: 10.4 ± 4.1 vs 14.2 ± 1.9 years, respectively [
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Collegiate male basketball players may have a high prevalence of BME, often without associated symptoms. The absence of foot pain or a corresponding diagnosis of a metatarsal bone stress injury in this study suggests that MRI findings of BME in asymptomatic athletes should be interpreted with caution.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35071655
doi: 10.1177/23259671211063505
pii: 10.1177_23259671211063505
pmc: PMC8777350
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671211063505Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: Funding to support this investigation was received from a National Basketball Association–General Electric grant. M.A.B. has received research support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals (contested by the author). AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):483-90
pubmed: 25025463
Sports Health. 2018 Mar/Apr;10(2):169-174
pubmed: 29106811
Am J Sports Med. 1995 Jul-Aug;23(4):472-81
pubmed: 7573660
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Nov-Dec;31(6):959-68
pubmed: 14623664
Clin Sports Med. 1988 Jan;7(1):51-60
pubmed: 3044622
Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Jan;32(1):16-20
pubmed: 21288430
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Oct;44(10):749-65
pubmed: 25103133
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jan;43(1):26-33
pubmed: 25480834
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Sports Med Open. 2018 Jun 4;4(1):23
pubmed: 29869021
Clin Sports Med. 1997 Apr;16(2):291-306
pubmed: 9238311
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011 Aug;165(8):723-8
pubmed: 21464375
J Athl Train. 2017 Oct;52(10):966-975
pubmed: 28937802
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Aug;41(8):1930-41
pubmed: 23825184
Am J Sports Med. 2021 Mar 15;:363546521993807
pubmed: 33720786
Radiology. 1996 Mar;198(3):851-3
pubmed: 8628882
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Sep;183(3):635-8
pubmed: 15333349
Radiology. 1997 Feb;202(2):540-2
pubmed: 9015087