Overview

Definition:
-Classic metaphyseal lesions, often referred to as "corner fractures" or "bucket handle fractures", are specific radiographic findings in pediatric long bones highly suggestive of non-accidental trauma (child abuse)
-They occur at the metaphysis, the wider portion of the bone shaft adjacent to the epiphyseal plate, and represent avulsion of the periosteum and a fragment of trabecular bone during forceful twisting or pulling motion.
Epidemiology:
-Metaphyseal lesions are most common in infants and toddlers aged 6 months to 2 years
-They are a hallmark sign in about 50% of abusive head injuries and are found in a significant proportion of confirmed cases of physical child abuse
-The incidence of identified abusive fractures is difficult to ascertain due to underreporting and diagnostic challenges.
Clinical Significance:
-The identification of classic metaphyseal lesions is critical because they are strongly correlated with inflicted injury, differentiating them from accidental falls or birth trauma
-Prompt recognition can lead to timely intervention, protection of the child, and appropriate legal and social services involvement
-Failure to recognize these signs can result in further harm to the child.

Clinical Presentation

Symptoms:
-Infants and young children may present with irritability
-Crying, especially when the limb is moved
-Lethargy
-Poor feeding
-Fever
-Unexplained bruising or swelling over the affected limb
-Sudden onset of pain or inability to bear weight
-Sometimes, the child may be asymptomatic and the fracture detected incidentally.
Signs:
-Localized tenderness and swelling over the affected bone
-Reduced range of motion in the affected limb
-Signs of systemic illness if associated with other injuries
-In severe cases, neurological deficits may be present due to associated head injury
-Examination may reveal palpable crepitus or deformity.
Diagnostic Criteria:
-There are no formal diagnostic criteria for metaphyseal lesions themselves, but their presence on imaging, particularly in the context of a suspicious history or lack of credible explanation for trauma, constitutes a strong indicator of abuse
-Radiographic interpretation focusing on the characteristic appearance and location is paramount.

Diagnostic Approach

History Taking:
-Detailed history regarding the mechanism of injury is crucial
-Inquire about who was present, the exact circumstances of the fall or injury, and the child's behavior before and after
-Look for inconsistencies in the provided history, vague explanations, or a history that does not correlate with the radiographic findings
-Ask about prior injuries or concerning behaviors from caregivers.
Physical Examination:
-A thorough head-to-toe physical examination is essential
-Palpate all long bones for tenderness, swelling, or deformity
-Assess range of motion of all joints
-Examine the skin for any bruises, lacerations, or burns, noting their location, color, and pattern
-Look for evidence of retinal hemorrhages or other signs of abusive head trauma.
Investigations:
-Skeletal survey (full-body X-rays) is the cornerstone investigation for suspected child abuse, including suspected metaphyseal lesions
-This survey includes anteroposterior (AP) and lateral views of the skull, spine, pelvis, and all extremities
-Specific views focusing on the metaphyses of long bones are critical
-Ultrasound may be used for initial assessment of soft tissue swelling
-CT or MRI may be necessary for more detailed evaluation of complex fractures or associated injuries
-Blood tests like complete blood count (CBC), coagulation profile, and calcium/phosphate levels are important to rule out metabolic bone disease and assess for occult bleeding.
Differential Diagnosis:
-Metabolic bone diseases such as rickets and osteogenesis imperfecta
-Osteomyelitis
-Birth trauma
-Accidental fractures (e.g., toddler's fracture, accidental fall)
-Osteoporosis in children with chronic illness
-Benign bone tumors
-Fragile X syndrome can sometimes present with fractures but typically not classic metaphyseal lesions.

Management

Initial Management:
-Immediate priority is the child's safety and medical stabilization
-The child should be removed from the abusive environment and placed under protective care
-Pain management is essential, often with analgesics
-Any immediate life-threatening injuries must be addressed.
Medical Management:
-There is no specific medical management for the fracture itself, other than pain control
-Management focuses on addressing the consequences of abuse
-Collaboration with child protective services and social workers is paramount
-Psychiatric evaluation of the caregivers may be necessary.
Surgical Management:
-Operative management is indicated for displaced fractures, unstable fractures, or those causing significant pain or functional impairment
-Surgical techniques may include closed reduction and casting, or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates, screws, or intramedullary nails, depending on the fracture pattern and location.
Supportive Care:
-Supportive care includes vigilant monitoring for pain, signs of infection, and complications
-Nutritional support is important, especially for malnourished children
-Physiotherapy and occupational therapy are vital for rehabilitation and restoring limb function post-fracture
-Psychological support for the child and siblings is also crucial.

Complications

Early Complications:
-Malunion or nonunion of the fracture
-Compartment syndrome
-Infection (osteomyelitis)
-Nerve or vascular injury
-Hemorrhage
-Acute pain and distress
-Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).
Late Complications:
-Chronic pain
-Joint stiffness and deformity
-Limb length discrepancies
-Post-traumatic arthritis
-Psychological sequelae, including PTSD and behavioral issues
-Developmental delays
-Re-abuse or neglect.
Prevention Strategies:
-Early identification and reporting of suspected abuse
-Public awareness campaigns on child safety
-Support systems for at-risk families
-Comprehensive medical and social work intervention upon suspicion of abuse
-Consistent and thorough skeletal surveys in at-risk children.

Prognosis

Factors Affecting Prognosis:
-The severity and number of injuries
-The age of the child
-The presence of associated head or internal injuries
-The timeliness and effectiveness of intervention
-The stability of the home environment post-intervention
-The presence of underlying medical conditions that may affect healing.
Outcomes:
-Outcomes vary widely
-Some children may have a good recovery with minimal long-term physical sequelae
-However, many children suffer permanent physical and psychological damage
-The risk of further abuse and fatality remains significant if protective measures are not robust
-Early and comprehensive intervention improves outcomes.
Follow Up:
-Long-term follow-up is essential to monitor for physical complications such as malunion, growth disturbances, and secondary arthritis
-Regular clinical assessment and imaging may be required
-Psychological and developmental follow-up is critical to address the long-term impact of trauma and abuse
-Ongoing assessment of the child's safety and well-being within the family environment is paramount.

Key Points

Exam Focus:
-Classic metaphyseal lesions are highly specific for non-accidental trauma
-They represent avulsion of periosteum and metaphyseal bone
-Most common in infants/toddlers (6 months - 2 years)
-Always consider a skeletal survey in suspected child abuse
-Skeletal survey protocol includes AP and lateral views of all long bones, skull, spine, and pelvis.
Clinical Pearls:
-The history of injury must correlate with the radiographic findings
-A "fall from standing height" is unlikely to cause a metaphyseal lesion
-Inconsistencies in the caregiver's story are a significant red flag
-Even subtle metaphyseal lucencies should be considered abusive until proven otherwise
-Differentiate from osteogenesis imperfecta, rickets, and osteomyelitis.
Common Mistakes:
-Dismissing the injury as accidental without a thorough skeletal survey
-Failing to consider abuse in the differential diagnosis
-Inadequate history taking regarding the mechanism of injury
-Not obtaining adequate imaging (e.g., missing views in a skeletal survey)
-Misinterpreting healing fractures as new injuries or vice versa.