Evidence Hub

Tarsal Navicular Bone Stress Injuries: A Multicenter Case Series Investigating Clinical Presentation, Diagnostic Approach, Treatment, and Return to Sport in Adolescent Athletes

Mehta S, Zheng E, Heyworth BE, Rizzone K, Halstead M, Brown N, Stinson Z, Nussbaum ED et al.

The American journal of sports medicine, 2023

110 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tarsal navicular bone stress injuries (BSIs) are considered "high risk" because of prolonged healing times and higher rates of nonunion in adult populations but, to our knowledge, have not been comprehensively examined in adolescent athletes.

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of tarsal navicular BSIs in adolescents.

STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients aged 10 to 19 years with a radiographically diagnosed tarsal navicular BSI was performed at 8 academic centers over a 9-year study period. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), primary sport, physical examination findings, imaging, treatment, surgical technique, return-to-sport time, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS: Among 110 patients (mean age, 14.7 ± 2.7 years; 65% female), common primary sports were cross-country/track and field (29/92 [32%]) and gymnastics/dance (25/92 [27%]). Grade 4 BSIs were identified in 44% (48/110) of patients, with fracture lines present on radiography or magnetic resonance imaging. Nonoperative treatment (mean age, 14.4 ± 2.6 years), consisting of protected weightbearing and either a protective boot (69/88 [78%]) or a cast (19/88 [22%]), was trialed in all patients and was successful in 94 patients (85%). Operative treatment (mean age, 17.1 ± 1.4 years) was ultimately pursued for 16 patients (15%). Patients who required surgery had a higher BMI and a higher percentage of fracture lines present on imaging (nonoperative:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 110 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free