Diagnostic accuracy of haemophilia early arthropathy detection with ultrasound (HEAD-US): A comparative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study

Background. Repeated haemarthroses affect approximately 90% of patients with severe haemophilia and lead to progressive arthropathy, which is the main cause of morbidity in these patients. Diagnostic imaging can detect even subclinical arthropathy changes and may impact prophylactic treatment. Magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) is generally the gold standard tool for precise evaluation of joints, but it is not easily feasible in regular follow-up of patients with haemophilia. The development of the standardized ultrasound (US) protocol for detection of early changes in haemophilic arthropathy (HEAD-US) opened new perspectives in the use of US in management of these patients. The HEAD-US protocol enables quick evaluation of the six mostly affected joints in a single study. The aim of this prospective study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the HEAD-US protocol for the detection and quantification of haemophilic arthropathy in comparison to the MRI. Patients and methods. The study included 30 patients with severe haemophilia. We evaluated their elbows, ankles and knees (overall 168 joints) by US using the HEAD-US protocol and compared the results with the MRI using the International Prophylaxis Study Group (IPSG) MRI score. Results. The results showed that the overall HEAD-US score correlated very highly with the overall IPSG MRI score (r = 0.92). Correlation was very high for the evaluation of the elbows and knees (r 48 0.95), and slightly lower for the ankles (r 48 0.85). Conclusions. HEAD-US protocol proved to be a quick, reliable and accurate method for the detection and quantification of haemophilic arthropathy

The incidence of fractures in children under two years of age: a systematic review

Background Epidemiological research on fractures in children under the age of two is of great importance to help understand differences between accidental and abusive trauma. Objective This systematic review aimed to evaluate studies reporting on the incidence of fractures in children under two years of age, excluding birth injuries. Secondary outcome measures included fracture location, mechanisms of injury and fracture characteristics. Methods A systematic literature review (1946 to February 7th 2024), including prospective and retrospective cohort studies and cross-sectional cohort studies, was performed. Studies including children from other age groups were included if the actual measures for those aged 0–2 years could be extracted. We also included studies restricted to infants. Annual incidence rates of fractures were extracted and reported as the main result. Critical appraisal of was performed using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. Results Twelve moderate to good quality studies met eligibility criteria, of which seven were based on data from medical records and five were registry studies. Studies investigated different aspects of fractures, making comprehensive synthesis challenging. There was an overall annual fracture incidence rate of 5.3 to 9.5 per 1,000 children from 0–2 years of age; with commonest sites being the radius/ulna (25.2–40.0%), followed by tibia/fibula (17.3–27.6%) and the clavicle (14.6–14.8%) (location based on 3 studies with a total of 407 patients). In infants, the reported incidence ranged between 0.7 to 4.6 per 1,000 (based on 3 studies), with involvement of the clavicle in 22.2% and the distal humerus in 22.2% of cases (based on 1 study). Only a single metaphyseal lesion was reported (proximal humerus of an 11-month-old infant). Fracture mechanisms were detailed in four studies, with fall from chair, bed, table, own height or fall following indoor activities causing 50–60% of fractures. Conclusions There is a paucity of good quality data on fracture incidence in children under the age of two. Larger, prospective and unbiased studies would be helpful in determining normal pattern of injuries, so that differences from abusive trauma may be better understood