Stress fractures: definition, diagnosis and treatment^☆

ABSTRACT

Stress fractures were first described in Prussian soldiers by Breithaupt in 1855. They occur as the result of repeatedly making the same movement in a specific region, which can lead to fatigue and imbalance between osteoblast and osteoclast activity, thus favoring bone breakage. In addition, when a particular region of the body is used in the wrong way, a stress fracture can occur even without the occurrence of an excessive number of functional cycles. The objective of this study was to review the most relevant literature of recent years in order to add key information regarding this pathological condition, as an updating article on this topic.

Keywords:
Stress fracture/epidemiology; Stress fracture/physiopathology; Stress fracture/diagnosis; Stress fracture/classification; Stress fracture/treatment

RESUMO

A fratura por estresse foi descrita inicialmente em soldados prussianos por Breithaupt em 1855 e ocorre como o resultado de um número repetitivo de movimentos em determinada região que pode levar a fadiga e desbalanço da atuação dos osteoblastos e osteoclastos e favorecer a ruptura óssea. Além disso, quando usamos uma determinada região do corpo de maneira errônea, a fratura por estresse pode ocorrer mesmo sem que ocorra um número excessivo de ciclos funcionais. O objetivo deste estudo é revisar a literatura mais relevante dos últimos anos para agregar as principais informações a respeito dessa patologia em um artigo de atualização do tema.

Palavras chave:
Fraturas por estresse/epidemiologia; Fraturas por estresse/fisiopatologia; Fraturas por estresse/diagnóstico; Fraturas por estresse/classificação; Fraturas por estresse/tratamento

Introduction

Stress fractures were first described in Prussian soldiers by Breithaupt in 1855.^1,2and3 They were named "march fractures" and their characteristics were confirmed 40 years later with the advent of radiography.^1and2 In 1958, Devas made the first report on stress fractures in athletes.^1,2and3

This injury occurs as a result of high numbers of occurrences of cyclical overloading of intensity lower than the maximum bone strength, on non-pathological bone tissue.^4,5and6

These fractures may be the final stage of fatigue or insufficiency of the bone affected.⁶ Fatigue fractures occur after formation and accumulation of microfractures in normal bone trabeculae. On the other hand, fractures resulting from bone insufficiency occur in bone that is mechanically compromised and generally presents low bone mineral density.⁶ In both situations, imbalance between the bone that is formed and remodeled and the bone that it reabsorbed will result in discontinuity of the bone at the site affected.^7and8 The aim here was to present an updating article on this topic and condense the main information obtained through the most important studies published over the last few years.

Epidemiology

Population

Runners, soldiers and dancers are the main victims of stress fractures.^6,9and10

Anatomical region

All the bones of the human body are subject to fracturing caused by stress. This stress is closely related to the daily practice that athletes undertake. The predominance of stress fractures in the lower limbs, over fractures in the upper limbs, reflects the cyclical overloading that is typically exerted on bones that bear the body weight, in comparison with bones that do not have this function.³Stress fractures are mostly commonly diagnosed in the tibia, followed by the metatarsals (especially the second and third metatarsals) and by the fibula.^3and11 Stress fractures in the axial skeleton are infrequent and are mainly located in the ribs, pars interarticularis, lumbar vertebrae and pelvis.^11,12and13

Types of sport

Runners present greatest incidence of stress fractures in long bones such as the tibia, femur and fibula, and also present fractures in the bones of the feet and sacrum.^11and12 Types of sport in which the upper limbs are used, such as Olympic gymnastics,¹⁴tennis, baseball and basketball may result in fractures due to stress. The bone most affected is the ulna, especially in its proximal portion, while the distal extremity of the humerus is also affected.^6,11and13 Stress fractures occur mainly in the ribs in golfers and rowers^11and13 Jumpers, bowlers and dancers present greatest risk of injury to the lumbar spine and pelvis.¹¹

Sex

Among athletes, the difference in the incidence of stress fractures between men and women is minimal. It is believed that the intensity and type of controlled training for each athlete and the physical preparation that already exists diminish the impact of the training program.^9and15In the military population, the incidence of stress fractures among females is greater than among men.^16and17

Physiopathology

Six to eight weeks after a sudden and non-gradual increase in the intensity of an athlete's or new patient's physical activity, this cyclical and repetitive physiological overloading may lead to the appearance of microfractures and may not allow the bone tissue to have sufficient time to undergo remodeling and adapt to the new condition, and thus to repair the microlesion.^{4,5,6,10,18and19} The load applied is considered to be insufficient to cause an acute fracture, but the combination of overloading, repetitive movements and inadequate recovery time make this a chronic injury.¹¹ Elastic deformation occurs initially, and this progresses to plastic deformity until it finally results in microfracturing. If this is not treated, it will evolve to complete fracturing of the bone affected.¹⁰ The bone repair process in stress fractures differs from the process in cases of common acute fractures and only takes place through bone remodeling, i.e.reabsorption of the injured cells and replacement with new bone tissue take place. ¹⁹

Markey also proposed that the muscle mass acts toward dispersing and sharing impact loads on the bone tissue.²⁰Therefore, when fatigue, weakness or muscle unpreparedness occur, this protective action is lost and the risk of bone tissue lesions increases.^16and20

Risk factors

The factors associated with increased risk of development of stress fractures can be divided into extrinsic and intrinsic factors. This makes stress fractures multifactorial and difficult to control.^{8,9,20,21,22and23}Extrinsic factors relate to sports movements, nutritional habits, equipment used and the type of ground.^{8,9,14,20,21,22and23}

Abrupt increases in the intensity and volume of training are often enough for lesions to develop.^6,9,10and11 Equipment such as footwear that has low impact absorption, is worn out (more than six months of use) or is a bad fit for the athlete's foot may cause injuries.^8and23 The quality of the training track may also be a risk factor, when it is uneven, irregular or very rigid.^17and24 Lastly, if the athlete's fitness level is insufficient for the sports movement or functional technique, this may lead to injury, sometimes without the number of repetitions having been very high.^8and25

The intrinsic factors relate to possible anatomical variations, muscle conditions, hormonal states, gender, ethnicity or age.^{8,9,20,21and22}

Many studies have mistakenly considered that only female gender is a risk factor for stress factors to appear.^11,16and26 In reality, hormonal, nutritional, biomechanical and anatomical alterations are the true factors that favor appearance of stress fractures in women.^11and24

Age also cannot be considered to be a risk factor in isolation for stress fractures.^11,23and27 Studies conducted in the United States have attempted to evaluate the incidence of these injuries among white and black athletes, without observing any significant differences.^11and13 In a military population, the incidence among whites was twice as high as among blacks, without any difference between the sexes. This was attributed to bone density and its biomechanics.²⁴

There is an inverse relationship between bone mineral density and the risk of stress fractures.^8,10and28 Inadequate nutritional intake may alter bone metabolism and predispose toward appearance of stress fractures.^8,10and29

Low levels of physical and muscle conditioning are also an important risk factor for the genesis of this problem.^{6,8,10,30and31} Furthermore, rigid pes cavus, discrepancy of the lower limbs, short tibia, genu valgum, increased Q angle, body mass index lower than 21 kg/m² and short stature should also be taken into consideration in analyzing the risk factors for stress fractures.^{6,8,9,21and32}

Some studies have also suggested that stiffness of the feet, alterations to the plantar arch and limitations of dorsiflexion due to shortening of the sural triceps may be risk factors.^8,10and33 Runners whose hindfoot presents eversion, particularly with excessive pronation, and athletes with a pronounced high arch have a risk of developing stress fractures that is up to 40% higher.^{10,21,33and34} Moreover, hyperpronation of the forefoot predisposes toward increased risk of stress fractures in the fibula.³⁵ Stress fractures in the second metatarsal have been correlated with presence of Morton's neuroma, hypermobility of the first metatarsal and a relative increase in the length of the second metatarsal.^20and33Although use of orthoses and footwear that is more appropriate theoretically decreases the incidence of stress fractures, the number of studies in the literature remains insufficient to sustain this theory.^10and34

Other authors have also considered that the following are risk factors: smoking, physical activity of frequency less than three times a week and consumption of more than 10 doses of alcoholic drink per week.⁶

Physical examination

Physical examination of stress fractures is very sensitive but unspecific.^20and36 Patients present increased sensitivity, pain and edema at the lesion location after an abrupt and/or repetitive increase in physical activity with insufficient rest intervals for physiological tissue recovery.⁶ Initially, the pain is reduced and alleviated through rest and this allows unimpaired physical activity. However, if the aggressive movement is maintained, the injury will progress, thus resulting in increased pain and limitation of practicing this movement.^9and20 Information regarding any previous fractures, weight, height, body mass index and its changes over the last 12 months, menstrual and puberty history and nutritional evaluations is important for identifying possible intrinsic risk factors for injury during physical examinations.¹⁰

Clinical tests such as use of therapeutic ultrasound and tuning forks are also useful in diagnostic investigations on stress fractures.³ When used directly on the site of the suspected lesion, they may trigger or worsen the pain because of the great local osteoclastic reabsorption, which results in injury to the periosteum.^3and37 In addition, the skipping rope test (hop test) can be used: this consists of asking the patient to hop on the spot while putting weight on the limb that is under investigation. The test is positive when it triggers strong or incapacitating pain in the region injured.^6and38

Some laboratory tests may be useful in investigating stress fractures: serum levels of calcium, phosphorus, creatinine and 25(OH)D3. Nutritional markers should be requested in the presence of clinical conditions of weight loss and anorexia. Hormonal levels (FSH and estradiol) should be investigated when there is a history of dysmenorrhea.¹⁰

Imaging examinations

Imaging examinations are fundamental for diagnosing, prognosing and following up stress fractures.⁶

Simple radiography (X-ray) is the initial imaging examination because of its ease of access and low cost.^{4,13,36,38,39,40,41and42} However, it has a high false-negative rate, given that the alterations caused by stress fractures only appear on such examinations at a late stage (two to four weeks after the start of the pain), which may delay the diagnosis.^6,14,18and43 Initially, a subtle weak radiolucent area can be observed directly on the bone tissue affected and/or sclerosis, periosteal thickening, cortical changes comprising diminished cortical bone density (gray cortex) and/or appearance of a delicate fracture line. Finally, an attempt by the organism to form a bone callus is observed, with endosteal thickening and sclerosis, which are the commonest findings.^{6,10,14,38and44} The sign known as the dreaded black line occurs in the anterior cortical bone of the tibia and suggests the presence of a fracture with a poor prognosis and a high probability of evolution to a complete fracture because of its location in a region of bone tension and poor vasclarization.⁴⁴

Computed tomography (CT) is used mainly when there is a contraindication against using magnetic resonance imaging.^{43,44,45and46}Chronic and quiescent lesions may be more evident in this examination than on magnetic resonance imaging or bone scintigraphy because they present low bone turnover.⁴⁶Single photon emission CT (SPECT) has been particularly more useful in investigating stress fractures involving the dorsal spine, and specifically in pars interarticularis (spondylolysis).^6,45and46

Nuclear medicine using triple-phase scintigraphy (technetium-99 m) presents significant sensitivity (74-100%) to bone remodeling and shows imaging alterations three to five days after the start of symptoms.^{3,6,41,42and47} The radiopharmaceutical becomes concentrated in the regions affected and detects areas of bone remodeling, microfractures of the trabecular bone, periosteal reaction and formation of bone callus.⁴⁶

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive and specific imaging examination for diagnosing stress fractures. It is recommended by the American College of Radiology as the preferred examination in the absence of radiographic alterations.⁶ The abnormalities caused by the fracture can be identified one to two days after the start of the symptoms,^{6,10,12,38,41,43,46and48}with early detection of edema in the bone tissue and adjacent areas.^10,41and46This examination makes it possible to differentiate medullary damage from cortical, endosteal and periosteal damage allows gradation of the lesions regarding their severity and prognosis.⁶ Intramedullary endosteal edema is one of the first signs of bone remodeling and may continue to be present for up to six months after the fracture has been diagnosed and treated, while the cortical maturation and remodeling take place.^16and48 Medullary edema or signs of bone stress may also be present in asymptomatic physically active patients, without any correlation with increased incidence of stress fractures, especially in the tibia in marathon runners.⁴⁶ The fracture line is less commonly visible.¹⁰ It presents sensitivity slightly greater than or equal to that of scintigraphy, but it is considered to be a more specific examination.^6,38and41

Classification

Fractures can and should be classified so that the prognosis and treatment can be measured and thus give rise to a better result for the patient.

Arendt and Griffiths apud Royer et al.¹¹ used imaging parameters obtained through MRI to divide stress fractures into four stages. The aim of this classification is to define the length of resting time that is needed for a return to sport, according to the patient's current stage. These stages can also be used for reevaluation during follow-up of the lesion.⁷ Lesions treated at stage 1 require an average of 3.3 weeks of resting, while those at stage 4 require 14.3 weeks⁷ (Table 1).

Table 1
Classification of Arendt and Griffiths.

Stages/grades of Arendt and Griffiths for bone injuries due to stress, based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings
Grade of injury due to stress	MRI findings	Duration of resting period needed for cure (weeks)
1	STIR-positive	3
2	STIR and T2-weighted positive images	3–6
3	T1 and T2-positive without definition of cortical rupture	12–16
4	T1 and T2-positive with definition of cortical rupture and visible fracture line	16

Stress fractures can also be classified as high and low-risk fractures. The bone location, the prognosis for consolidation and traits ascertained through imaging examinations are some of the characteristics that define whether there is higher risk that a stress fracture might not evolve satisfactorily during the treatment^6and11 (Table 2 and Table 3).

Table 2
Classification of low-risk stress fractures.

Low-risk stress fractures
Upper limbs	Clavicle, scapula, humerus, olecranon, ulna, radius, scaphoid, metacarpals
Lower limbs	Femoral diaphysis, tibial diaphysis, fibula, calcaneus, metatarsal diaphyses
Thorax	Ribs
Dorsal spine	Pars interarticularis, sacrum
Pelvis	Ischiopubic rami

Table 3
Classification of high-risk stress fractures.

High-risk stress fractures
Femoral neck (superolateral)
Anterior cortical bone of the tibia
Medial malleolus
Navicular bone
Base of the second metatarsal
Talus
Patella
Sesamoids (hallux)
Fifth metatarsal

Fredericson proposed a stress fracture classification through using the alterations seen on MRI. The progressive stages of lesion severity are assessed according to periosteal involvement, followed by medullary involvement and going as far as the point at which the cortical bone also becomes compromised^10and41 (Table 4).

Table 4
Fredericson classification.

MRI findings according to Fredericson
Lesion stage
0	Normal
1	Periosteal edema
2	Periosteal and medullary edema on T2-weighted images
3	Periosteal and medullary edema on T1 and T2-weighted images
4	Periosteal and medullary edema with visible fracture line

Treatment

In order to adequately treat stress fractures, it is essential to identify risk factors that lead to disease. Treatments for stress fractures are based on prevention of new episodes and on recovery of the injured area.^6,10and20

Prevention of new episodes is achieved through modifying activities, correcting sports movements, changing sports equipment, changing training locations that might be favoring bone overloading, changing nutritional habits, recognizing hormonal, anatomical and muscle strength alterations and recognizing low cardiomuscular conditioning.²⁰ The ideal type of footwear for each type of sports practice is the external factor that has been studied most with regard to the genesis of stress fractures.²⁰ Some studies have shown that there is lower incidence of injuries when running on asphalt is replaced by running on softer surfaces, such as athletics tracks. Nonetheless, other authors have reported in their studies that there was no relationship between these factors.²⁰ Voloshin⁴⁹ believed that there was interference between the different shock-absorbing surfaces: the stress on the bone tissue is not due solely to the reaction forces from the ground. The combined forces generated by muscle action through the athlete's movement and his adaptation to the training surface may also be considered to be risk factors for a given type of injury.^20and49

The treatments for these injuries comprise diminution of the overloading on the site affected, medication for pain control and physiotherapeutic rehabilitation.^6,10and20

Analgesics are used for pain relief.⁶ Anti-inflammatory drugs, if used, should be prescribed cautiously and only for short periods. Studies on animals have demonstrated that there may be negative interference in the bone healing process.⁶ However, reviews of the literature conducted more recently have reported that there is no conclusive evidence regarding this negative action.^50,51and52

The time taken for fracture consolidation is generally between four and 12 weeks when the fractures are low-risk.⁶ For the metatarsals, a time of three to six weeks is expected, while for the posteromedial region of the tibial diaphysis, the femur and the pelvis, six to 12 weeks is expected.^10and11 The patient should be reexamined every two to three weeks, to monitor the changes to the symptoms and pain during resting and rehabilitation periods.^{6,53,54,55and56} IN order to maintain flexibility, strength and cardiovascular physical conditioning during the resting period, the patient needs to be engaged in a physiotherapy program^6,53and54 and a controlled exercise program.⁵⁷

Immobilization is only rarely used for treating stress fractures because of its deleterious effects on muscles, tendons, ligaments and joints.⁵ However, there are some specific types of fracture for which immobilization is fundamental for obtaining appropriate conditions for a cure: this is the case for the navicular bone, sesamoids, patella and posteromedial region of the tibia.⁵

High-risk fractures commonly evolve to non-consolidation of the bone and surgical intervention by an orthopedist becomes necessary.⁶ Stress fractures of the lateral cortical bone (due to tension) at the femoral neck is associated with catastrophic results, such as complete displacement of the femoral head and osteonecrosis, when this is not treated surgically.^20and53 Fractures of the anterior cortical bone of the middle third of the tibial diaphysis are another type that, if not treated surgically, mostly presents an extremely poor prognosis.²⁰ Fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal and of the navicular bone can also be cited as types that commonly require surgical intervention in order to achieve a satisfactory result from their treatment.²⁰

New types of therapy

Some new types of therapy for stress fractures are being studied with the aim of achieving faster consolidation and an earlier return to physical activities. These can be divided into biological and physical methods.⁵⁰

Oxygen supplementation therapy (hyperbaric oxygen therapy)

In vitro studies have demonstrated that administration of 100% oxygen is capable of stimulating osteoblasts and consequently bone formation.⁵⁰ However, there is still no consensus in the literature regarding its benefits for treating stress fractures. ^50and54

Bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates suppress bone reabsorption and inactivate osteoclasts through their bonding with calcium phosphate crystals.^20and50 Their high cost and various side effects may be the deciding factor with regard to choosing and attempting to use this therapeutic method.^50and55 There is not yet any scientific basis for their prophylactic use.^50and56

Growth factors and growth factor-rich preparations

Growth factors are applied directly to diseased tissues with the aim of accelerating and promoting their repair. The preliminary results from muscles, tendons and ligaments have been encouraging.^50and57 There are only a few studies on treating stress fractures. Some of them have reported that when these factors are used during surgical treatment of high-risk fractures, they may accelerate and improve the recovery.⁵⁰

Bone morphogenic proteins

Bone morphogenic proteins contain bioactive factors that are responsible for inducing bone matrix activity with an osteoinductive function.⁵⁰Their primary activity is in relation to differentiation of mesenchymal cells into bone and cartilage tissue-forming cells, through direct and osteochondral ossification. They have an important function in repairing bone lesions. Studies on animals have demonstrated acceleration of the injury cure process in cases of traumatic fractures, but little can be concluded regarding their use in stress fractures.⁵⁰

Recombinant parathyroid hormone

Parathormone acts toward regulating serum calcium levels through gastrointestinal absorption, calcium and phosphorus reabsorption in the kidney, and calcium release from the skeletal tissue.⁵⁰ Although this initially promotes stimulation of osteoclasts through regular administration, when it is done intermittently in a controlled manner, it gives rise to anabolic stimulation of osteoblasts and results in formation of bone with increased strength and density, followed by remodeling.⁵⁰ Studies have demonstrated that this hormone stimulates bone repair through both endochondral and membranous mechanisms.⁵⁰

Low-intensity pulsatile ultrasonography

High-frequency sound waves that are above the audible limit of human beings interact with bone tissue and the adjacent soft tissues and generate microstress and tension that are capable of stimulating consolidation.^6,13and50 However, their exact mechanism of action remains unknown.¹⁹ Some studies have demonstrated its efficacy in treating stress fractures.^50and58 Other studies have completely supported its use for treating these fractures.⁶

Application of magnetic fields

Magnetic fields can be applied by means of a direct current at the focus of the fracture through surgical placement of electrodes, use of an electrical capacitation field device or use of electromagnetic field pulses.⁵⁰ There is still no concrete evidence regarding its use in stress fractures.^20and50

Criteria for return to sport

The time taken from diagnosis to cure and until the return to sport depends on multiple factors such as the injury site, sports activity, severity of the injury and possibility of correcting risk factors that are intrinsic to the patient.²⁰ Low-risk stress fractures and non-surgical treatment usually make it possible for the patient to return to his activities four to 17 weeks after the injury.⁶

The criteria that can be used for allowing an athlete to return to his practice may include: total absence of pain at the site affected, especially during sports movements; absence of symptoms during pain provocation tests at the injury site; absence of abnormalities in imaging examinations; and, above all, comprehension by the patient, trainers and technical team of the sport regarding the risk factors and conditions that led to the injury, so that corrections can be made so as to prevent recurrence and reappearance of injuries.¹⁰

The gradual definitive return to sports activity should be started after the patient has been free from pain for 10-14 days, with 10% increases in training intensity per week.^20and50 Formation of a bone callus and obliteration of the fracture line on simple radiographs and, especially, on computed tomography scans are the factors that determine whether the cure process for the stress fracture has been adequate.⁵⁰

Prevention

Although several methods for preventing stress fractures have been proposed, only some of them present proven validity that can justify their recommendations.⁶ The possible risk factors that contribute to appearance of these fractures need to be carefully studied, modified and followed up.^6and10 Constant control and modification of physical activity, with adequate recovery time, are extremely important.^6and10 It is considered that daily intake of 2000 mg of calcium and 800 IU of vitamin D may be protection factors.^6and9 The kinematics and biomechanical factors predisposing toward such fractures need to be monitored and corrected, through correct understanding of the sports movements, equipment, orthoses, training surface and all the other factors that may be involved in sports practice.^6,10and50 Some studies have investigated prophylactic use of bisphosphonates for preventing stress fractures, but there is still no evidence regarding its benefits in prevention of this type of injury.⁶

Complications

The main complications occur in cases of high-risk stress fractures. Inappropriate management may cause progression of the fracture to a complete and displaced fracture line and thus give rise to delayed consolidation, avascular necrosis and pseudarthrosis.^6and20Furthermore, bisphosphonates used in treating stress fractures may weaken some bone regions when used over the long term and may predispose toward appearance of fractures due to insufficiency and a potential teratogenic effect among pregnant patients.⁶

References

• ¹ Breithaupt MD. Zur pathologie des menschlichen fusses. To the pathology of the human foot. Med Zeitung. 1855;24:169.
• ² Devas MB. Stress fractures of the tibia in athletes of 'shin soreness. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1958;40(2):227-39.
• ³ Schneiders AG, Sullivan SJ, Hendrick PA, Hones BDGM, Mcmaster AR, Sugden BA, et al. The ability of clinical tests to diagnose stress fractures: a systematic review and meta- analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(9):760-71.
• ⁴ Fayad LM, Kamel IR, Kawamoto S, Bluemke DA, Frassica FJ, Fishman EK. Distinguishing stress fractures from pathologic fractures: a multimodality approach. Skelet Radiol. 2005;34(5):245-59.
• ⁵ Niva MH, Mattila VM, Kiuru MJ, Pihlajamäki HK. Bone stress injuries are common in female military trainees: a preliminary study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(11):2962-9.
• ⁶ Carmont RC, Mei-Dan O, Bennell LK. Stress fracture management: current classification and new healing modalities. Oper Tech Sports Med. 2009;17:81-9.
• ⁷ Patel DS, Roth M, Kapil N. Stress fractures: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Am Fam Physician. 2011;83(1):39-46.
• ⁸ Evans RK, Antczak AJ, Lester M, Yanovich R, Israeli E, Moran DS. Effects of a 4-month recruit training program on markers of bone metabolism. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40 11 Suppl.:S660-70.
• ⁹ Cosman F, Ruffing J, Zion M, Uhorchak J, Ralston S, Tendy S, et al. Determinants of stress fractures risk in United States Military Academy cadets. Bone. 2013;55(2):359-66.
• ¹⁰ Bennell KL, Malcolm SA, Thomas SA, Wark JD, Brukner PD. The incidence and distribution of stress fractures in competitive track and field athletes. A twelve-month prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(2):211-7.
• ¹¹ Royer M, Thomas T, Cesini J, Legrand E. Stress fractures in 2011: practical approach. Joint Bone Spine. 2012;79 Suppl. 2:S86-90.
• ¹² Snyder RA, Koester MC, Dunn WR. Epidemiology of stress fractures. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(1):37-52.
• ¹³ Iwamoto J, Takeda T. Stress fractures in athletes: review of 196 cases. J Orthop Sci. 2003;8(3):273-8.
• ¹⁴ Daffner RH, Pavlov H. Stress fractures: current concepts. Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(2):245-52.
• ¹⁵ Johnson AW, Weiss CB Jr, Wheeler DL. Stress fractures of the femoral shaft in athletes - more common than expected: a new clinical test. Am J Sports Med. 1994;22(2):248-56.
• ¹⁶ Jones BH, Bovee MW, Harris JM, Cowan DN. Intrinsic risk factors for exercise- related injuries among male and female army trainees. Am J Sports Med. 1993;21(5):705-10.
• ¹⁷ Pester S, Smith PC. Stress fractures in the lower extremities of soldiers in basic training. Orthop Rev. 1992;21(03): 297-303.
• ¹⁸ Bolin D, Kemper A, Brolinson G. Current concepts in the evaluation and management of stress fractures. Curr Rep Sport Med. 2005;4(6):295-300.
• ¹⁹ Mori S, Burr DB. Increasing intracortical remodelling following fatigue damage. Bone. 1993;14(2):103-9.
• ²⁰ Raasch WG, Hergan DJ. Treatment of stress fractures: the fundamentals. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(1):29-36.
• ²¹ Korpelainen R, Orava S, Karpakka J, Siira P, Hulkko A. Risk factors for recurrent stress fracture in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(3):304-10.
• ²² Joy EA, Campbell D. Stress fractures in the female athlete. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2005;4(6):323-8.
• ²³ Gardner LI Jr, Dziados JE, Jones BH, Brundage JF, Harris JM, Sullivan R, et al. Prevention of lower extremity stress fractures: a controlled trial of a shock absorbent insole. Am J Public Health. 1988;78(12):1563-7.
• ²⁴ Milgrom C, Finestone A, Levi Y, Simkin A, Ekenman I, Mendelson S, et al. Do high impact exercises produce higher tibial strains than running? Br J Sports Med. 2000;34(3):195-9.
• ²⁵ Patel RD. Stress fractures: diagnosis and management in the primary care settings. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2010;81:9-27.
• ²⁶ Shaffer RA, Rauh MJ, Brodine SK, Trone DW, Macera CA. Predictors of stress fracture susceptibility in young female recruits. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(1):108-15.
• ²⁷ Milgrom C, Finestone A, Shlamkovitch N, Rand N, Lev B, Simkin A, et al. Youth is a risk factor for stress fracture: a study of 783 infantry recruits. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(1):20-2.
• ²⁸ Valimaki VV, Alfthan H, Lehmuskallio E, Loyttyniemi E, Sahi T, Suominen H, et al. Risk factors for clinical stress fractures in male military recruits: a prospective cohort study. Bone. 2005;37(2):267-73.
• ²⁹ Myburg KH, Hutchins J, Fataar AB, Hough SF, Noakes TD. Low bone density is an etiologic factor or stress fractures in athletes. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(10):754-9.
• ³⁰ Nieves JW, Melsop K, Curtis M. Nutritional factors that influence change in bone density and stress fracture risk among young female cross- country runners. PMR. 2010;2(8):740-50.
• ³¹ Popp KL, Hughes JM, Smock AJ, Novotny SA, Stovitz SD, Koehler SM, et al. Bone geometry, strength, and muscle size in runners with a history of stress fracture. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(12):2145-50.
• ³² Giladi M, Milgrom C, Simkin A, Danon Y. Stress fractures: identifiable risk factors. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19(6):647-52.
• ³³ Manioli A 2nd, Graham B. The subtle cavus foot: the under pronator: a review. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(3):256-63.
• ³⁴ Pohl MB, Mullineaux DR, Milner CE, Hamill J, Davis IS. Biomechanical predictors of retrospective tibial stress fractures in runners. J Biochem. 2008;41(6):1160-5.
• ³⁵ Maitra RS, Johnson DL. Stress fractures. Clinical history and physical examination. Clin Sports Med. 1997;16(2): 259-74.
• ³⁶ Fredericson M, Wun C. Differential diagnosis of leg pain in the athlete. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003;93(4):321-4.
• ³⁷ Romani WA, Perrin DH, Dussault RG, Ball DW, Kahler DM. Identification of tibial stress fractures using therapeutic continuous ultrasound. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2000;30(8):444-52.
• ³⁸ Ishibashi Y, Okamura Y, Otsuka H, Nishizawa K, Sasaki T, Toh S. Comparison of scintigraphy and magnetic resonance imaging for stress injuries of bone. Clin J Sport Med. 2002;12(2):79-84.
• ³⁹ Sterling JC, Edelstein DW, Calvo RD, Webb R. Stress fractures in the athlete. Diagnosis and management. Sports Med. 1992;14(5):336-46.
• ⁴⁰ Bennell K, Brukner P. Preventing and managing stress fractures in athletes. Phys Ther Sport. 2005;6:171-80.
• ⁴¹ Fredericson M, Bergman AG, Hoffman KL, Dillingham MS. Tibial stress reaction in runners. Correlation of clinical symptoms and scintigraphy with a new magnetic resonance imaging grading system. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(4): 472-81.
• ⁴² Strauch WB, Slomiany WP. Evaluating shin pain in active patients. J Musculoskelet Med. 2008;25:138-48.
• ⁴³ Shin AY, Morin WD, Gorman JD, Jones SB, Lapinski AS. The superiority of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating the cause of hip pain in endurance athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(2):168-76.
• ⁴⁴ Dixon S, Newton J, Teh J. Stress fractures in the young athlete: a pictorial review. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2011;40(1): 29-44.
• ⁴⁵ Zukotynski K, Curtis C, Grant FD, Micheli L, Treves ST. The value of SPECT in the detection of stress injury to the pars interarticularis in patients with low back pain. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:13.
• ⁴⁶ Sofka CM. Imaging of stress fractures. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(1):53-62.
• ⁴⁷ Brukner P, Bennell K. Stress fractures in female athletes. Diagnosis, management and rehabilitation. Sports Med. 1997;24(6):419-29.
• ⁴⁸ Fredericson M, Jennings F, Beaulieu C, Matheson GO. Stress fractures in athletes. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;17(5):309-25.
• ⁴⁹ Voloshin KW. Dynamic loading during running on various surfaces. Human Mov Sci. 1992;11:675-89.
• ⁵⁰ Mehallo CJ, Drezner JA, Bytomski JR. Practical management: non steroidal anti- inflammatory drug (NSAID) use in athletic injuries. Clin J Sport Med. 2006;16:170-4.
• ⁵¹ Wheeler P, Batt ME. Do non- steroidal anti- inflammatory drugs adversely affect stress fracture healing? A short review. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(2):65-9.
• ⁵² Burns AS, Lauder TD. Deep water running: an effective non weight bearing exercise for the maintenance of land based running performance. Mil Med. 2001;166(3):253-8.
• ⁵³ Johansson C, Ekenman I, Tornkvist H, Eriksson E. Stress fractures of the femoral neck in athletes: the consequence of a delay in diagnosis. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(5):524-8.
• ⁵⁴ Bennet MH, Stanford R, Turner R. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for promoting fracture healing and treating fracture non union. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;25(1): CD004712.
• ⁵⁵ Shima Y, Engebretsen L, Iwasa J, Kitaoka K, Tomita K. Use ofbisphosphonates for the treatment of stress fractures inathletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.2009;17(5):542-50.
• ⁵⁶ Ekenman I. Do not use bisphosphonates without scientificevidence, neither in the treatment nor prophylactic, in thetreatment of stress fractures. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc. 2009;17(5):433-4.
• ⁵⁷ Hammond JW, Hinton RY, Curl LA, Muriel JM, Lovering RM.Use of autologous plateletrich plasma to treat muscle straininjuries. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(6):1135-42.
• ⁵⁸ Heckman JD, Ryaby JP, McCabe J, Frey JJ, Kilcoyne RF.Acceleration of tibial fracture healing by noninvasivelow-intensity pulsed ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1994;76(1):26-34.

• ☆
  Work performed at the Sports Traumatology Center, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  jan-feb 2016

History

• Received
  05 Jan 2015
• Accepted
  05 Feb 2015