Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 469–471 | Cite as

The enigma of stress fractures in the pediatric age: Clarification or confusion through the new imaging modalities

  • G. Horev
  • L. Korenreich
  • N. Ziv
  • M. Grunebaum


Cortical thickening and/or periosteal reaction in long bones of children and adolescents continue to present a diagnostic difficulty for the pediatric radiologist. A history of physical activity points to the possibility of stress fracture, nevertheless bone malignancy or chronic inflammatory changes have to be excluded. The MRI findings in recent cases of stress fractures were confusing. An extensive metadiaphyseal abnormal signal from the medullary cavity was observed. Only the meticulous correlation between the various imaging modalities established the correct diagnosis.

Stress fractures can occur in a normal bone that is subjected to repeated trauma, with the strain being less than that which causes an acute fracture. Localized pain is the presenting symptom [1]. This kind of fracture is encountered in adolescents who are often involved in competitive physical exercise.

The conventional radiographic examination shows the evidence of the fracture repair rather than the fracture itself: localized periosteal reaction and endosteal thickening. A radiolucent cortical fracture-line is usually not demonstrated [2]. The radiologic appearance can be problematic in the pediatric age and necessitates differentiation from osteomyelitis or bone malignancy.

The diagnostic investigation includes multidirectional bone radiographs, Tcm99 polyphosphate bone scientigraphy [3] and computerized tomography [4]. Recently MRI has been added to the diagnostic armamentarium.

This paper presents the experience gained in the diagnosis of pediatric stress fractures which were investigated and followed up by MRI. It was found that this modality did not contribute to the establishment of the final diagnosis of stress fracture.


Stress Fracture Osteomyelitis Polyphosphate Pediatric Radiologist Diagnostic Investigation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Resnick D, Nivayama G (1981) Diagnosis of bone and joint disorders. W.B. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Waisman Y, Varsano I, Grunebaum M, Mimouni M (1987) Stress fractures: a diagnostic problem. Arch Dis Child 62:847PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geslien GE, Thrall JH, Espinosa JK, Older RA (1976) Early detection of stress fractures using Tcm99-polyphosphate. Radiology 121:683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoseum D, Magid Fishman EK, Kuhjda F, Siegelman SS (1986) Computed tomography of stress fractures. J Comput Assit Tomog 10:92–95Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson ES, Katz FN (1969) Stress Fractures: an analysis of 250 consecutive cases. Radiology 92:481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee JK, Yao L (1988) Stress fractures: MR imaging. Radiology 169:217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vogler J, Murphy WA (1988) Bone marrow imaging. Radiology 168:679PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Safford SA, Rosenthal DI, Gebhardt MC, Brady TJ, Scott JA (1986) MRI is stress fractures-case report. AIR 147:553Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehman RK (1988) MR imaging of medullary bone. Radiology 167:867PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yao L, Lee JK (1988) Occult intraosseous fracture: detection with MR imaging. Radiology 167–749Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wismer GT, Rosen BR, Buxton R, Stark DD, Brady TJ (1985) Chemical shift imaging of bone marrow, preliminary experience. AJR 145:1031PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Horev
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Korenreich
    • 1
    • 2
  • N. Ziv
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Grunebaum
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric RadiologyBeilinson Medical CenterPetah TikvaIsrael
  2. 2.Sackler School of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations