The distal tibial classic metaphyseal lesion: medial versus lateral cortical injury
The distal tibia is a common location for the classic metaphyseal lesion (CML). Prior radiologic-pathologic studies have suggested a tendency for medial, as opposed to lateral, cortical injury with the CML, but there has been no formal study of the geographic distribution of this strong indicator of abuse.
This study compares medial versus lateral cortical involvement of distal tibial CMLs in a clinical cohort of infants with suspected abuse.
Materials and methods
Reports of 1,020 skeletal surveys performed for suspected abuse (July 2005-June 2016) were reviewed. Twenty-six distal tibial CMLs (14 unilateral, 6 bilateral) with anteroposterior (AP) and lateral projections on the initial skeletal survey and at least an AP view on the follow-up survey were identified in 20 infants. Two blinded pediatric radiologists determined if the medial and/or lateral margins of the distal tibial metaphysis were involved by the CML.
Average interreader absolute agreement and kappa scores were 0.69-0.90 and 0.45-0.72, respectively. Average intrareader absolute agreement and kappa scores were 0.65-0.88 and 0.44-0.57, respectively. Analyses showed that the distal tibial CML almost always involved the medial cortical margin (reader 1=89%, reader 2=88%, pooled=89%) and the fracture infrequently involved the lateral cortical margin (reader 1=12%, reader 2=38%, pooled=26%). The percentage point difference between fracture involvement in medial and lateral margins was statistically significant from zero (P<0.001).
The distal tibial CML is most often encountered medially; lateral involvement is uncommon. This observation should help guide the radiologic diagnosis and could have implications for understanding the biomechanics of this distinctive injury.
KeywordsChild abuse Classic metaphyseal lesion Fracture Infants Radiography Skeletal survey Tibia
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 2.Strouse PJ, Boal DKB (2013) Child abuse. In: Coley BD (ed) Caffey’s pediatric diagnostic imaging. Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 1587–1598Google Scholar
- 3.Flaherty EG, Perez-Rossello JM, Levine MA et al (2014) American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on child abuse and neglect; section on radiology, American Academy of Pediatrics; section on endocrinology, American Academy of Pediatrics; section on Orthopaedics, American Academy of Pediatrics; Society of Pediatric Radiology. Evaluating children with fractures for child physical abuse. Pediatrics 133:e477–e489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Silverman F (1953) The roentgen manifestations of unrecognized skeletal trauma in infants. AJR Am J Roentgenol 69:413–427Google Scholar
- 12.American College of Radiology (2006) ACR practice guideline for skeletal surveys in children (res. 47, 17, 35). In: American College of Radiology. ACR standards. American College of Radiology, Reston, pp 203–207Google Scholar
- 13.SAS Institute Inc (2015) SAS/STAT® 14.1 User Guide. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
- 16.Ruess L, O’Connor SC, Quinn WJ et al (2003) An animal model for the classic metaphyseal lesion of child abuse. Pediatr Radiol 33:S112Google Scholar