Scintigraphic Findings on Examination of the Multipartite Patella

Collings, Carol L.

doi:10.1097/00003072-199410000-00004

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although bone scintigraphy is a valuable technique to diagnose many orthopedic conditions [7, 15], its role in assessment of pain of bipartite patella is not well established. Several studies have reported scintigraphic findings in bipartite or multipartite patellae [2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 18]. Ogden et al [18] first reported that a technetium bone scan showed increased uptake of radionuclide in the superolateral pole in two cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone scintigraphy in patients with bipartite patella

Oohashi¹,

Koshino

2007

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was performed to assess the diagnostic value of bone scintigraphy to differentiate symptomatic bipartite patella from asymptomatic bipartite patella. Thirty-seven bipartite patellae (15 symptomatic and 22 asymptomatic) were evaluated by bone scintigraphy. Bone scintigraphic activity in bipartite patella was classified into the following four groups. Group A: Eleven bipartite patellae (10 symptomatic and 1 asymptomatic) demonstrated physiological and marked uptake at the epiphysio-metaphysial junction of the distal femur in bone scintiscans. Therefore, high scintigraphic uptake in the bipartite patella was difficult to distinguish from such uptake due to overlap. Group B: Five bipartite patellae (4 symptomatic and 1 asymptomatic) demonstrated both physiologically high scintigraphic uptake at the epiphysio-metaphysial junction of the distal femur and high scintigraphic uptake in the bipartite patella. Group C: Seventeen bipartite patellae (1 symptomatic and 16 asymptomatic) demonstrated abnormally high scintigraphic uptake in the bipartite patella. Group D: Four asymptomatic bipartite patellae did not demonstrate an abnormally high scintigraphic uptake. After excluding Group A, the proportion of positive bone scans in bipartite patella was 84.6% (22 of 26 patellae). Similarly, after excluding Group A, the proportion of positive bone scans in symptomatic bipartite patella was 100% (5 of 5 patellae) and in asymptomatic bipartite patella 81.0% (17 of 21 patellae). Statistical analysis using Fisher's exact test showed no significant differences in the proportion of positive bone scans between both groups (P = 0.5457). In conclusion, abnormally high scintigraphic uptake is frequent findings in both symptomatic and asymptomatic bipartite patella, and bone scintigraphy is not useful to differentiate between them. Therefore, surgical treatment should not be considered based only on scintigraphic findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone scintigraphy in patients with bipartite patella

Oohashi¹,

Koshino

2007

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several authors have reported scintigraphic findings in bipartite or multipartite patellae [4, 7, 14, 15, 23, 26]. Some authors reported that bone scintigraphy was helpful for diagnosing symptomatic bipartite patella because there was increased uptake of technetium‐99 m in the bipartite patellar region in those cases [4, 7, 14, 15]. However, each of these reports was a single‐patient study evaluating only symptomatic patients.…”

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since these two reports were published, bipartite patella has been noticed as a cause of anterior knee pain in adolescents and young athletes. During these nearly three decades, many reports of patella partita have been published [1, 3–9, 11, 14–28, 31, 36–38, 40, 41], and its clinical significance has become more important than was previously recognized. A new classification of developmental anomaly of ossification type patella partita was recently proposed [27], and several imaging studies have reportedly been used to evaluate symptomatic bipartite patella [17, 18, 21, 26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental anomaly of ossification type patella partita

Oohashi

2014

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fourth, several features of the x‐ray films can help to differentiate bipartite patella from patella fractures: the bipartite patella is frequently bilateral; it is usually without soft tissue swelling of the knee joint; it usually consists of a large main bone and a small bone which is usually situated at the superolateral aspect of the patella; the radiolucent line of demarcation is wide, runs downward and lateral, and has a round sclerotic margin, not a fracture line; the opposing bony margins are smooth, dense, and can be seen to be composed of bone cortex; there is no periosteal reaction and bone callus formation; and consolidation will not occur by treatment. Reconstruction CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, and bone scintigraphy can also help us to differentiate bipartite or multipartite patella from patella fracture, and MRI is currently thought to be the most appropriate method applied to evaluate patients with bipartite patella . According to the anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the case, we found a crescent‐shaped defect in the superolateral aspect of the patella on both legs and no consolidation had taken place by 56 days after injury.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Forensic Identification of Bipartite Patella Misdiagnosed as Patella Fracture

Shi

Huang

et al. 2017

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bipartite patella is recognized as a developmental anomaly of ossification. Most of them are asymptomatic and are discovered incidentally. Bipartite patella is sometimes misdiagnosed as a patella fracture, because the x-ray images of both these conditions may appear very similar. In this case, the patient complained of left knee pain after x-ray films revealed a fracture-like line in the left patella. The patient was then diagnosed as having a patella fracture. In China, the injury degree is categorized as serious injury, minor injury, and trivial injury. As the injury degree of patellar fracture is identified as minor injury, the defendant who injured the patient will be sentenced to prison for ≤3 years. However, the defendant objected to this judgment and applied for the second evaluation of injury degree. On the basis of the site of injury, clinical manifestations, and imaging findings, we diagnosed the patient with bipartite patella which belongs to normal anatomic variant. Therefore, the injury degree of the patient was not minor injury.

show abstract

Scintigraphic Findings on Examination of the Multipartite Patella

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Bone scintigraphy in patients with bipartite patella

Bone scintigraphy in patients with bipartite patella

Developmental anomaly of ossification type patella partita

Forensic Identification of Bipartite Patella Misdiagnosed as Patella Fracture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About