Imaging

Two adequate views of the lower cervical vertebrae are necessary to confirm the 3-dimensional location of any hardware placed during cervical spine fusion. Visualizing the lower cervical vertebrae in 2 planes intraoperatively is often a challenge because the shoulders obstruct the lateral view.¹ Techniques have been described to improve lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.^2,3 These techniques have their inadequacies, including an association with peripheral nerve injury and brachial plexopathy.⁴ In patients with stout necks, these methods may still be insufficient to achieve adequate visualization of the lower cervical vertebrae.

Invasive techniques to improve visualization have also been described. In 1 study, exposure had to be extended cephalad to allow for manual counting of cervical vertebrae when the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae had to be identified in a morbidly obese patient.⁵ More invasive spine procedures are associated with higher rates of complications, increased blood loss, more soft-tissue trauma, and longer hospital stays.⁶ We present a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral as a variation of the lateral radiograph that improves visualization of the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae. The authors have obtained the patients’ informed written consent for print and electronic publication of these case reports.

Technique

We used either the Smith-Robinson or Cloward approach to the anterior spine. Both techniques use the avascular plane between the medially located esophagus and trachea and the lateral sternocleidomastoid and carotid sheath to approach the anterior cervical spine. Once adequate exposure was achieved, standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained to confirm the correct vertebral level. Gentle caudal traction was applied to the patient’s wrist straps, and when visualization continued to be compromised, a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral was obtained (Figure 1).

Case Series

Case 1

A 54-year-old man with a body mass index (BMI) of 50 presented with neck and bilateral arm pain, with left greater than right radicular symptoms in the C6 and C7 distribution. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed disc herniations at C5-C6 and C6-C7 with spinal cord signal changes, and he underwent a C5-C6 and C6-C7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Initial localization was determined using a lateral radiograph and vertebral needle. During hardware placement, anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopic radiographs confirmed adequate placement of the superior screw, but visualization of the inferior portion of the plate and inferior screw was challenging (Figure 2). Our oblique 30º–30º view provided better visualization of the plate and screws in the lower cervical vertebrae than lateral imaging, and allowed confirmation that the hardware was positioned correctly (Figure 3). It took 1 attempt to achieve adequate visualization with the 30º–30º view.

Postoperatively, the patient’s radiculopathy and motor weakness improved. Radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement, and he was discharged on postoperative day 1 (Figure 4). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, anatomically aligned facet joints, and no hardware failure. The patient’s Neck Disability Index was 31/50 preoperatively and 26/50 at this visit.

Case 2

A 51-year-old man with a BMI of 29 presented with a long-standing history of neck pain and bilateral arm pain left greater than right in the C6 and C7 dermomyotome. MRI showed a broad-based disc herniation with foraminal narrowing at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and the patient underwent a 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This patient had pronounced neck musculature, and a deeper than normal incision was required.

Intraoperative lateral fluoroscopy was obtained to confirm the C5-C6 and C6-C7 level prior to discectomy. The musculature of the patient’s neck and shoulder made visualization of the C6-C7 disc space difficult on the lateral radiograph (Figure 5). One attempt was required to obtain the 30º–30º oblique view, which was used to ensure correct placement of the screws and plate (Figure 6).

Postoperatively, the patient’s pain had improved, and radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement. He was discharged 1 day after surgery (Figure 7). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, stable disc spaces, and anatomically aligned facet joints. His Neck Disability Index was 34/50 preoperatively and 32/50 at 2-week follow-up.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to describe an alternative to the lateral radiograph for imaging the cervical spine in patients with challenging anatomy or in procedures involving hardware placement at the lower cervical vertebrae. Techniques have been developed to assist with improved lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.2,3 However, visualization in 2 planes continues to be a challenge in a subset of patients. It is particularly difficult to obtain adequate lateral radiographs of the cervical spine in patients with stout necks.³ In patients with stout necks, there is more obstruction of the radiography path through the cervical spine. This leads to imaging that is unclear or may fail to show the mid- to lower cervical spine. The extent to which one should rely on the 30º–30º oblique technique for adequate visualization of the cervical spine depends on the anatomy of a particular patient. Historically, it is more challenging to obtain satisfactory lateral radiographs in patients with stout necks,³ and these patients have benefited the most from using the 30º–30º degree oblique view.

Lack of visualization can lead to aborted surgeries or, potentially, surgery at the wrong level.³ A 2008 American Academy of Neurological Surgeons survey indicated that 50% of spine surgeons had performed a wrong-level surgery at least once in their career, and the cervical spine accounted for 21% of all incorrect-level spine surgeries.⁷ Intraoperative factors reported during cases of wrong-level spinal surgeries included misinterpretation of intraoperative imaging, no intraoperative imaging, and unusual anatomy or physical characteristics.⁸ Such complications can lead to revision surgery and other significant morbidities for the patient.

In most patients, fluoroscopy allows confirmation of the correct level before disc incision.³ However, operating at a lower cervical level in a patient with a short neck or prominent shoulders poses a significant problem.³ A case report from Singh and colleagues⁹ described a modified intraoperative fluoroscopic view for spinal level localization at cervicothoracic levels. Their method focuses on identifying the bony lamina and using them as landmarks to count spinal levels, whereas our 30º–30º oblique image is useful for confirmation of adequate hardware placement during anterior cervical spinal fusions. Often, the initial localization of cervical vertebral levels can be achieved with a standard lateral radiograph. We recognized the utility of the 30º–30º oblique view when we were attempting to visualize the inferior aspect of the plate and inferior screw placement.

In patients with stout necks, a lateral radiograph may show only visualization down to C4 or C5.³ Even with applying traction to the arms or taping the shoulders down, it can be impossible to visualize C6, C7, or T1 because the shoulder bones and muscles obstruct the image.³ Using a 30º–30º oblique view, we were able to obtain adequate visualization and assess the accurate placement of hardware.

Conclusion

A 30º oblique view from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral radiograph can be used intraoperatively in patients with challenging anatomy to identify placement of hardware at the correct vertebral level in the lower cervical spine. It is a noninvasive technique that can help reduce the risk of wrong-site surgeries without prolonging operation time. This technique describes an alternative to the lateral radiograph and provides a solution to the difficult problem of intraoperative imaging of the mid- to lower cervical spine in 2 adequate planes.

Two adequate views of the lower cervical vertebrae are necessary to confirm the 3-dimensional location of any hardware placed during cervical spine fusion. Visualizing the lower cervical vertebrae in 2 planes intraoperatively is often a challenge because the shoulders obstruct the lateral view.¹ Techniques have been described to improve lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.^2,3 These techniques have their inadequacies, including an association with peripheral nerve injury and brachial plexopathy.⁴ In patients with stout necks, these methods may still be insufficient to achieve adequate visualization of the lower cervical vertebrae.

Invasive techniques to improve visualization have also been described. In 1 study, exposure had to be extended cephalad to allow for manual counting of cervical vertebrae when the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae had to be identified in a morbidly obese patient.⁵ More invasive spine procedures are associated with higher rates of complications, increased blood loss, more soft-tissue trauma, and longer hospital stays.⁶ We present a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral as a variation of the lateral radiograph that improves visualization of the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae. The authors have obtained the patients’ informed written consent for print and electronic publication of these case reports.

Technique

We used either the Smith-Robinson or Cloward approach to the anterior spine. Both techniques use the avascular plane between the medially located esophagus and trachea and the lateral sternocleidomastoid and carotid sheath to approach the anterior cervical spine. Once adequate exposure was achieved, standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained to confirm the correct vertebral level. Gentle caudal traction was applied to the patient’s wrist straps, and when visualization continued to be compromised, a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral was obtained (Figure 1).

Case Series

Case 1

A 54-year-old man with a body mass index (BMI) of 50 presented with neck and bilateral arm pain, with left greater than right radicular symptoms in the C6 and C7 distribution. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed disc herniations at C5-C6 and C6-C7 with spinal cord signal changes, and he underwent a C5-C6 and C6-C7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Initial localization was determined using a lateral radiograph and vertebral needle. During hardware placement, anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopic radiographs confirmed adequate placement of the superior screw, but visualization of the inferior portion of the plate and inferior screw was challenging (Figure 2). Our oblique 30º–30º view provided better visualization of the plate and screws in the lower cervical vertebrae than lateral imaging, and allowed confirmation that the hardware was positioned correctly (Figure 3). It took 1 attempt to achieve adequate visualization with the 30º–30º view.

Postoperatively, the patient’s radiculopathy and motor weakness improved. Radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement, and he was discharged on postoperative day 1 (Figure 4). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, anatomically aligned facet joints, and no hardware failure. The patient’s Neck Disability Index was 31/50 preoperatively and 26/50 at this visit.

Case 2

A 51-year-old man with a BMI of 29 presented with a long-standing history of neck pain and bilateral arm pain left greater than right in the C6 and C7 dermomyotome. MRI showed a broad-based disc herniation with foraminal narrowing at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and the patient underwent a 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This patient had pronounced neck musculature, and a deeper than normal incision was required.

Intraoperative lateral fluoroscopy was obtained to confirm the C5-C6 and C6-C7 level prior to discectomy. The musculature of the patient’s neck and shoulder made visualization of the C6-C7 disc space difficult on the lateral radiograph (Figure 5). One attempt was required to obtain the 30º–30º oblique view, which was used to ensure correct placement of the screws and plate (Figure 6).

Postoperatively, the patient’s pain had improved, and radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement. He was discharged 1 day after surgery (Figure 7). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, stable disc spaces, and anatomically aligned facet joints. His Neck Disability Index was 34/50 preoperatively and 32/50 at 2-week follow-up.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to describe an alternative to the lateral radiograph for imaging the cervical spine in patients with challenging anatomy or in procedures involving hardware placement at the lower cervical vertebrae. Techniques have been developed to assist with improved lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.2,3 However, visualization in 2 planes continues to be a challenge in a subset of patients. It is particularly difficult to obtain adequate lateral radiographs of the cervical spine in patients with stout necks.³ In patients with stout necks, there is more obstruction of the radiography path through the cervical spine. This leads to imaging that is unclear or may fail to show the mid- to lower cervical spine. The extent to which one should rely on the 30º–30º oblique technique for adequate visualization of the cervical spine depends on the anatomy of a particular patient. Historically, it is more challenging to obtain satisfactory lateral radiographs in patients with stout necks,³ and these patients have benefited the most from using the 30º–30º degree oblique view.

Lack of visualization can lead to aborted surgeries or, potentially, surgery at the wrong level.³ A 2008 American Academy of Neurological Surgeons survey indicated that 50% of spine surgeons had performed a wrong-level surgery at least once in their career, and the cervical spine accounted for 21% of all incorrect-level spine surgeries.⁷ Intraoperative factors reported during cases of wrong-level spinal surgeries included misinterpretation of intraoperative imaging, no intraoperative imaging, and unusual anatomy or physical characteristics.⁸ Such complications can lead to revision surgery and other significant morbidities for the patient.

In most patients, fluoroscopy allows confirmation of the correct level before disc incision.³ However, operating at a lower cervical level in a patient with a short neck or prominent shoulders poses a significant problem.³ A case report from Singh and colleagues⁹ described a modified intraoperative fluoroscopic view for spinal level localization at cervicothoracic levels. Their method focuses on identifying the bony lamina and using them as landmarks to count spinal levels, whereas our 30º–30º oblique image is useful for confirmation of adequate hardware placement during anterior cervical spinal fusions. Often, the initial localization of cervical vertebral levels can be achieved with a standard lateral radiograph. We recognized the utility of the 30º–30º oblique view when we were attempting to visualize the inferior aspect of the plate and inferior screw placement.

In patients with stout necks, a lateral radiograph may show only visualization down to C4 or C5.³ Even with applying traction to the arms or taping the shoulders down, it can be impossible to visualize C6, C7, or T1 because the shoulder bones and muscles obstruct the image.³ Using a 30º–30º oblique view, we were able to obtain adequate visualization and assess the accurate placement of hardware.

Conclusion

A 30º oblique view from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral radiograph can be used intraoperatively in patients with challenging anatomy to identify placement of hardware at the correct vertebral level in the lower cervical spine. It is a noninvasive technique that can help reduce the risk of wrong-site surgeries without prolonging operation time. This technique describes an alternative to the lateral radiograph and provides a solution to the difficult problem of intraoperative imaging of the mid- to lower cervical spine in 2 adequate planes.

Two adequate views of the lower cervical vertebrae are necessary to confirm the 3-dimensional location of any hardware placed during cervical spine fusion. Visualizing the lower cervical vertebrae in 2 planes intraoperatively is often a challenge because the shoulders obstruct the lateral view.¹ Techniques have been described to improve lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.^2,3 These techniques have their inadequacies, including an association with peripheral nerve injury and brachial plexopathy.⁴ In patients with stout necks, these methods may still be insufficient to achieve adequate visualization of the lower cervical vertebrae.

Invasive techniques to improve visualization have also been described. In 1 study, exposure had to be extended cephalad to allow for manual counting of cervical vertebrae when the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae had to be identified in a morbidly obese patient.⁵ More invasive spine procedures are associated with higher rates of complications, increased blood loss, more soft-tissue trauma, and longer hospital stays.⁶ We present a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral as a variation of the lateral radiograph that improves visualization of the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae. The authors have obtained the patients’ informed written consent for print and electronic publication of these case reports.

Technique

We used either the Smith-Robinson or Cloward approach to the anterior spine. Both techniques use the avascular plane between the medially located esophagus and trachea and the lateral sternocleidomastoid and carotid sheath to approach the anterior cervical spine. Once adequate exposure was achieved, standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained to confirm the correct vertebral level. Gentle caudal traction was applied to the patient’s wrist straps, and when visualization continued to be compromised, a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral was obtained (Figure 1).

Case Series

Case 1

A 54-year-old man with a body mass index (BMI) of 50 presented with neck and bilateral arm pain, with left greater than right radicular symptoms in the C6 and C7 distribution. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed disc herniations at C5-C6 and C6-C7 with spinal cord signal changes, and he underwent a C5-C6 and C6-C7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Initial localization was determined using a lateral radiograph and vertebral needle. During hardware placement, anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopic radiographs confirmed adequate placement of the superior screw, but visualization of the inferior portion of the plate and inferior screw was challenging (Figure 2). Our oblique 30º–30º view provided better visualization of the plate and screws in the lower cervical vertebrae than lateral imaging, and allowed confirmation that the hardware was positioned correctly (Figure 3). It took 1 attempt to achieve adequate visualization with the 30º–30º view.

Postoperatively, the patient’s radiculopathy and motor weakness improved. Radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement, and he was discharged on postoperative day 1 (Figure 4). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, anatomically aligned facet joints, and no hardware failure. The patient’s Neck Disability Index was 31/50 preoperatively and 26/50 at this visit.

Case 2

A 51-year-old man with a BMI of 29 presented with a long-standing history of neck pain and bilateral arm pain left greater than right in the C6 and C7 dermomyotome. MRI showed a broad-based disc herniation with foraminal narrowing at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and the patient underwent a 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This patient had pronounced neck musculature, and a deeper than normal incision was required.

Intraoperative lateral fluoroscopy was obtained to confirm the C5-C6 and C6-C7 level prior to discectomy. The musculature of the patient’s neck and shoulder made visualization of the C6-C7 disc space difficult on the lateral radiograph (Figure 5). One attempt was required to obtain the 30º–30º oblique view, which was used to ensure correct placement of the screws and plate (Figure 6).

Postoperatively, the patient’s pain had improved, and radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement. He was discharged 1 day after surgery (Figure 7). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, stable disc spaces, and anatomically aligned facet joints. His Neck Disability Index was 34/50 preoperatively and 32/50 at 2-week follow-up.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to describe an alternative to the lateral radiograph for imaging the cervical spine in patients with challenging anatomy or in procedures involving hardware placement at the lower cervical vertebrae. Techniques have been developed to assist with improved lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.2,3 However, visualization in 2 planes continues to be a challenge in a subset of patients. It is particularly difficult to obtain adequate lateral radiographs of the cervical spine in patients with stout necks.³ In patients with stout necks, there is more obstruction of the radiography path through the cervical spine. This leads to imaging that is unclear or may fail to show the mid- to lower cervical spine. The extent to which one should rely on the 30º–30º oblique technique for adequate visualization of the cervical spine depends on the anatomy of a particular patient. Historically, it is more challenging to obtain satisfactory lateral radiographs in patients with stout necks,³ and these patients have benefited the most from using the 30º–30º degree oblique view.

Lack of visualization can lead to aborted surgeries or, potentially, surgery at the wrong level.³ A 2008 American Academy of Neurological Surgeons survey indicated that 50% of spine surgeons had performed a wrong-level surgery at least once in their career, and the cervical spine accounted for 21% of all incorrect-level spine surgeries.⁷ Intraoperative factors reported during cases of wrong-level spinal surgeries included misinterpretation of intraoperative imaging, no intraoperative imaging, and unusual anatomy or physical characteristics.⁸ Such complications can lead to revision surgery and other significant morbidities for the patient.

In most patients, fluoroscopy allows confirmation of the correct level before disc incision.³ However, operating at a lower cervical level in a patient with a short neck or prominent shoulders poses a significant problem.³ A case report from Singh and colleagues⁹ described a modified intraoperative fluoroscopic view for spinal level localization at cervicothoracic levels. Their method focuses on identifying the bony lamina and using them as landmarks to count spinal levels, whereas our 30º–30º oblique image is useful for confirmation of adequate hardware placement during anterior cervical spinal fusions. Often, the initial localization of cervical vertebral levels can be achieved with a standard lateral radiograph. We recognized the utility of the 30º–30º oblique view when we were attempting to visualize the inferior aspect of the plate and inferior screw placement.

In patients with stout necks, a lateral radiograph may show only visualization down to C4 or C5.³ Even with applying traction to the arms or taping the shoulders down, it can be impossible to visualize C6, C7, or T1 because the shoulder bones and muscles obstruct the image.³ Using a 30º–30º oblique view, we were able to obtain adequate visualization and assess the accurate placement of hardware.

Conclusion

A 30º oblique view from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral radiograph can be used intraoperatively in patients with challenging anatomy to identify placement of hardware at the correct vertebral level in the lower cervical spine. It is a noninvasive technique that can help reduce the risk of wrong-site surgeries without prolonging operation time. This technique describes an alternative to the lateral radiograph and provides a solution to the difficult problem of intraoperative imaging of the mid- to lower cervical spine in 2 adequate planes.

The widespread use of eponyms and acronyms to describe labroligamentous findings in the shoulder has made interpretation of shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports challenging. We review and discuss the appearance of these lesions on shoulder MRI to help the orthopedic surgeon understand these entities as imaging findings.

Glenolabral articular disruption (GLAD) occurs secondary to impaction of the humeral head on the glenoid articular cartilage. There is a resultant defect in the glenoid articular cartilage, which extends to the glenoid labrum. A GLAD lesion is diagnosed only if the glenohumeral ligament and scapular periosteum remain intact¹ (Figure 1).

Complete detachment of the anteroinferior labrum with tearing of the anterior glenoid periosteum represents a Bankart lesion. Cartilaginous Bankart lesions are caused by an anterior glenohumeral dislocation with resultant avulsion of the anteroinferior labrum and disruption of the scapular periosteum because of acute traction on the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament (Figure 2). Anterior instability, caused by disruption of the anterior labroligamentous complex, results. Osseous Bankart lesions occur when the anterior displaced humeral head impacts the anterior inferior glenoid rim, causing a fracture (Figure 3). This loss of the glenoid articular surface area can result in glenohumeral instability. Posterior shoulder dislocations can result in corresponding findings in the posterior inferior glenoid labrum (reverse Bankart lesion) and anterior medial humeral head (reverse Hill-Sachs lesion) (Figure 2).

A variant of the Bankart lesion is the anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion (ALPSA). This refers to a medially displaced tear of the anterior labrum with intact periosteal stripping along the medial glenoid²with medial rotation and inferior displacement of the anterior inferior labrum along the scapular neck. An ALPSA lesion can heal via the intact periosteal blood supply. If not repaired, anterior instability will result because of malposition of the labrum, causing a patulous anterior capsule.³ When a corresponding lesion occurs in the posterior labrum because of a posterior dislocation, it is called a posterior labrocapsular periosteal sleeve avulsion (POLPSA) (Figure 4).

Another variant of the Bankart lesion is the Perthes lesion, which is a nondisplaced tear of the anteroinferior labrum with periosteal stripping. This differs from the ALPSA because the detached labrum and periosteum are held in anatomic position, possibly making the lesion difficult to detect on magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).³ Obtaining images in the abduction external rotation (ABER) position exerts traction on the anterior inferior joint capsule and may make the Perthes lesion more conspicuous.⁴ When this occurs in the posterior labrum, it is called a reverse Perthes lesion (Figure 5).

In a patient with anterior glenohumeral instability without a Bankart lesion, pathology of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament (IGHL) at its humeral attachment must be suspected. Humeral avulsion of the IGHL (HAGL) or its variants can be overlooked on arthroscopy. HAGL is diagnosed on MRA when the normally U-shaped IGHL takes on a J-shape, and joint fluid extravasates across the torn humeral attachment (Figure 6). If there is an avulsed bony fragment from the medial humeral neck, the lesion is termed a bony HAGL (BHAGL). In addition to the findings of a HAGL, a BHAGL shows the osseous fragment and donor site on MRI. Since a BHAGL is a bony avulsion, it can even be suggested on radiography if a bony fragment is seen adjacent to the medial humeral neck.⁵ These lesions are highly associated with other shoulder injuries, particularly Hill-Sachs deformities and subscapularis tendon tears, and it is imperative, therefore, to search for additional injuries if a HAGL-type injury is seen.⁶

A more uncommon type of HAGL can occur in the setting of posterior capsulolabral injury. A posterior-band IGHL avulsion from the humerus (PHAGL) has similar imaging findings to a HAGL, except that it involves the posterior band of the IGHL. PHAGLs are usually not associated with an acute injury and are thought to be related to repetitive microtrauma, perhaps since the posterior band of the IGHL is the thinnest portion of the IGHL complex.⁷

A Kim lesion is an arthroscopic finding described in patients with posterior instability as a superficial defect at the undersurface of the posterior labrum and adjacent glenoid cartilage without detachment or extension to the chondrolabral junction.⁸ It is, by its nature, a concealed finding on routine MRI but can be more conspicuous in FADIR (flexed, adducted, internally rotated) positioning on MRA, which exerts traction on the posterior joint capsule, allowing intra-articular contrast to fill the tear (Figure 7).

This list describes several of the most commonly encountered acronyms in shoulder MRI. A review of SLAP (superior labrum anterior to posterior) lesions was described in a previous article in the journal’s Imaging Series.⁹ A thorough understanding of these lesions is helpful in interpreting reports and determining the appropriate treatment for patients with shoulder injuries.

The widespread use of eponyms and acronyms to describe labroligamentous findings in the shoulder has made interpretation of shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports challenging. We review and discuss the appearance of these lesions on shoulder MRI to help the orthopedic surgeon understand these entities as imaging findings.

Glenolabral articular disruption (GLAD) occurs secondary to impaction of the humeral head on the glenoid articular cartilage. There is a resultant defect in the glenoid articular cartilage, which extends to the glenoid labrum. A GLAD lesion is diagnosed only if the glenohumeral ligament and scapular periosteum remain intact¹ (Figure 1).

Complete detachment of the anteroinferior labrum with tearing of the anterior glenoid periosteum represents a Bankart lesion. Cartilaginous Bankart lesions are caused by an anterior glenohumeral dislocation with resultant avulsion of the anteroinferior labrum and disruption of the scapular periosteum because of acute traction on the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament (Figure 2). Anterior instability, caused by disruption of the anterior labroligamentous complex, results. Osseous Bankart lesions occur when the anterior displaced humeral head impacts the anterior inferior glenoid rim, causing a fracture (Figure 3). This loss of the glenoid articular surface area can result in glenohumeral instability. Posterior shoulder dislocations can result in corresponding findings in the posterior inferior glenoid labrum (reverse Bankart lesion) and anterior medial humeral head (reverse Hill-Sachs lesion) (Figure 2).

A variant of the Bankart lesion is the anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion (ALPSA). This refers to a medially displaced tear of the anterior labrum with intact periosteal stripping along the medial glenoid²with medial rotation and inferior displacement of the anterior inferior labrum along the scapular neck. An ALPSA lesion can heal via the intact periosteal blood supply. If not repaired, anterior instability will result because of malposition of the labrum, causing a patulous anterior capsule.³ When a corresponding lesion occurs in the posterior labrum because of a posterior dislocation, it is called a posterior labrocapsular periosteal sleeve avulsion (POLPSA) (Figure 4).

Another variant of the Bankart lesion is the Perthes lesion, which is a nondisplaced tear of the anteroinferior labrum with periosteal stripping. This differs from the ALPSA because the detached labrum and periosteum are held in anatomic position, possibly making the lesion difficult to detect on magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).³ Obtaining images in the abduction external rotation (ABER) position exerts traction on the anterior inferior joint capsule and may make the Perthes lesion more conspicuous.⁴ When this occurs in the posterior labrum, it is called a reverse Perthes lesion (Figure 5).

In a patient with anterior glenohumeral instability without a Bankart lesion, pathology of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament (IGHL) at its humeral attachment must be suspected. Humeral avulsion of the IGHL (HAGL) or its variants can be overlooked on arthroscopy. HAGL is diagnosed on MRA when the normally U-shaped IGHL takes on a J-shape, and joint fluid extravasates across the torn humeral attachment (Figure 6). If there is an avulsed bony fragment from the medial humeral neck, the lesion is termed a bony HAGL (BHAGL). In addition to the findings of a HAGL, a BHAGL shows the osseous fragment and donor site on MRI. Since a BHAGL is a bony avulsion, it can even be suggested on radiography if a bony fragment is seen adjacent to the medial humeral neck.⁵ These lesions are highly associated with other shoulder injuries, particularly Hill-Sachs deformities and subscapularis tendon tears, and it is imperative, therefore, to search for additional injuries if a HAGL-type injury is seen.⁶

A more uncommon type of HAGL can occur in the setting of posterior capsulolabral injury. A posterior-band IGHL avulsion from the humerus (PHAGL) has similar imaging findings to a HAGL, except that it involves the posterior band of the IGHL. PHAGLs are usually not associated with an acute injury and are thought to be related to repetitive microtrauma, perhaps since the posterior band of the IGHL is the thinnest portion of the IGHL complex.⁷

A Kim lesion is an arthroscopic finding described in patients with posterior instability as a superficial defect at the undersurface of the posterior labrum and adjacent glenoid cartilage without detachment or extension to the chondrolabral junction.⁸ It is, by its nature, a concealed finding on routine MRI but can be more conspicuous in FADIR (flexed, adducted, internally rotated) positioning on MRA, which exerts traction on the posterior joint capsule, allowing intra-articular contrast to fill the tear (Figure 7).

This list describes several of the most commonly encountered acronyms in shoulder MRI. A review of SLAP (superior labrum anterior to posterior) lesions was described in a previous article in the journal’s Imaging Series.⁹ A thorough understanding of these lesions is helpful in interpreting reports and determining the appropriate treatment for patients with shoulder injuries.

The widespread use of eponyms and acronyms to describe labroligamentous findings in the shoulder has made interpretation of shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports challenging. We review and discuss the appearance of these lesions on shoulder MRI to help the orthopedic surgeon understand these entities as imaging findings.

Glenolabral articular disruption (GLAD) occurs secondary to impaction of the humeral head on the glenoid articular cartilage. There is a resultant defect in the glenoid articular cartilage, which extends to the glenoid labrum. A GLAD lesion is diagnosed only if the glenohumeral ligament and scapular periosteum remain intact¹ (Figure 1).

Complete detachment of the anteroinferior labrum with tearing of the anterior glenoid periosteum represents a Bankart lesion. Cartilaginous Bankart lesions are caused by an anterior glenohumeral dislocation with resultant avulsion of the anteroinferior labrum and disruption of the scapular periosteum because of acute traction on the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament (Figure 2). Anterior instability, caused by disruption of the anterior labroligamentous complex, results. Osseous Bankart lesions occur when the anterior displaced humeral head impacts the anterior inferior glenoid rim, causing a fracture (Figure 3). This loss of the glenoid articular surface area can result in glenohumeral instability. Posterior shoulder dislocations can result in corresponding findings in the posterior inferior glenoid labrum (reverse Bankart lesion) and anterior medial humeral head (reverse Hill-Sachs lesion) (Figure 2).

A variant of the Bankart lesion is the anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion (ALPSA). This refers to a medially displaced tear of the anterior labrum with intact periosteal stripping along the medial glenoid²with medial rotation and inferior displacement of the anterior inferior labrum along the scapular neck. An ALPSA lesion can heal via the intact periosteal blood supply. If not repaired, anterior instability will result because of malposition of the labrum, causing a patulous anterior capsule.³ When a corresponding lesion occurs in the posterior labrum because of a posterior dislocation, it is called a posterior labrocapsular periosteal sleeve avulsion (POLPSA) (Figure 4).

Another variant of the Bankart lesion is the Perthes lesion, which is a nondisplaced tear of the anteroinferior labrum with periosteal stripping. This differs from the ALPSA because the detached labrum and periosteum are held in anatomic position, possibly making the lesion difficult to detect on magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).³ Obtaining images in the abduction external rotation (ABER) position exerts traction on the anterior inferior joint capsule and may make the Perthes lesion more conspicuous.⁴ When this occurs in the posterior labrum, it is called a reverse Perthes lesion (Figure 5).

In a patient with anterior glenohumeral instability without a Bankart lesion, pathology of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament (IGHL) at its humeral attachment must be suspected. Humeral avulsion of the IGHL (HAGL) or its variants can be overlooked on arthroscopy. HAGL is diagnosed on MRA when the normally U-shaped IGHL takes on a J-shape, and joint fluid extravasates across the torn humeral attachment (Figure 6). If there is an avulsed bony fragment from the medial humeral neck, the lesion is termed a bony HAGL (BHAGL). In addition to the findings of a HAGL, a BHAGL shows the osseous fragment and donor site on MRI. Since a BHAGL is a bony avulsion, it can even be suggested on radiography if a bony fragment is seen adjacent to the medial humeral neck.⁵ These lesions are highly associated with other shoulder injuries, particularly Hill-Sachs deformities and subscapularis tendon tears, and it is imperative, therefore, to search for additional injuries if a HAGL-type injury is seen.⁶

A more uncommon type of HAGL can occur in the setting of posterior capsulolabral injury. A posterior-band IGHL avulsion from the humerus (PHAGL) has similar imaging findings to a HAGL, except that it involves the posterior band of the IGHL. PHAGLs are usually not associated with an acute injury and are thought to be related to repetitive microtrauma, perhaps since the posterior band of the IGHL is the thinnest portion of the IGHL complex.⁷

A Kim lesion is an arthroscopic finding described in patients with posterior instability as a superficial defect at the undersurface of the posterior labrum and adjacent glenoid cartilage without detachment or extension to the chondrolabral junction.⁸ It is, by its nature, a concealed finding on routine MRI but can be more conspicuous in FADIR (flexed, adducted, internally rotated) positioning on MRA, which exerts traction on the posterior joint capsule, allowing intra-articular contrast to fill the tear (Figure 7).

This list describes several of the most commonly encountered acronyms in shoulder MRI. A review of SLAP (superior labrum anterior to posterior) lesions was described in a previous article in the journal’s Imaging Series.⁹ A thorough understanding of these lesions is helpful in interpreting reports and determining the appropriate treatment for patients with shoulder injuries.

Primary care physicians are playing a bigger role in evaluating the incidental finding of interstitial lung diseases since the recent publication of guidelines recommending computed tomography (CT) to screen for lung cancer.

In August 2011, the National Cancer Institute published its findings from the National Lung Screening Trial, which demonstrated a 20% reduction in mortality from lung cancer in patients at high risk screened with low-dose CT.¹ Based on these results, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT in adults ages 55 to 74 who have a 30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.² In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force published similar guidelines but increased the age range to include high-risk patients ages 55 to 80.³

Bach et al⁴ estimated that, in 2010 in the United States, 8.6 million people met the criteria used in the National Lung Screening Trial for low-dose CT screening. These are the same criteria as in the multisociety recommendations cited above.² With such large numbers of patients eligible for CT screening, internists and other primary care physicians are undoubtedly encountering the incidental discovery of nonmalignant pulmonary diseases such as interstitial lung disease.

This article reviews the radiographic characteristics of the most common interstitial lung diseases the internist may encounter on screening CT in long-term smokers.

Referral to a specialist has been associated with lower rates of morbidity and death,⁵ and a diagnosis of interstitial lung disease should be confirmed by a pulmonologist and a radiologist specializing in differentiating the subtypes. But the primary care physician now plays a critical role in recognizing the need for further evaluation.

HOW COMMON IS INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE IN SMOKERS?

Several studies have published data on the prevalence of interstitial lung disease in patients undergoing low-dose CT for lung cancer screening.

A trial at Mayo Clinic in current and former smokers identified “diffuse lung disease” in 9 (0.9%) of 1,049 participants.⁶

A trial in Ireland identified idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in 6 (1.3%) of 449 current smokers who underwent low-dose CT screening for lung cancer.⁷

Sverzellati et al⁸ evaluated 692 participants in the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection CT screening study and reported a respiratory bronchiolitis pattern in 109 (15.7%), a usual interstitial pneumonia pattern in 2 (0.3%), and other patterns of chronic interstitial pneumonia in 26 (3.8%).

The National Lung Screening Trial reported that the frequency of “clinically significant” incidental findings (including pulmonary fibrosis) in all participants was 7.5%.¹ A retrospective analysis of 884 participants at a single site in this trial identified interstitial lung abnormalities in 86 participants (9.7%).⁹ These abnormalities were further categorized as nonfibrotic in 52 (5.9%) of 884, fibrotic in 19 (2.1%) of 884, and mixed fibrotic and nonfibrotic in 15 (1.7%) of 884.

Follow-up CT at 2 years in this trial demonstrated improvement in 50% and progression in 11% of patients who had nonfibrotic abnormalities, while fibrotic abnormalities improved in no cases and progressed in 37%. Interstitial lung abnormalities were more common in those who currently smoked and in those with more pack-years of cigarette smoking.⁹

In sum, these trials suggest that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can detect the most common forms of interstitial lung disease in this at-risk population and can characterize them as fibrotic or nonfibrotic, a distinction important for prognosis and subsequent management.

NONFIBROTIC VS FIBROTIC DISEASE

It is important to distinguish between nonfibrotic and fibrotic interstitial lung disease, as fibrotic disease carries a worse prognosis and is treated differently.

Features of nonfibrotic interstitial lung disease:

• Ground-glass opacities
• Nodules
• Mosaic attenuation or consolidation.

Features of fibrotic interstitial lung disease:

• Combination of ground-glass opacities and reticulation
• Reticulation by itself
• Traction bronchiectasis
• Honeycombing
• Loss of lung volume.

NONFIBROTIC INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASES

Given the strong likelihood that a patient undergoing screening CT is either a current or former smoker, physicians may encounter, in addition to emphysema and lung cancer, the following smoking-related interstitial lung diseases, which are primarily nonfibrotic and which frequently coexist (Table 1):

• Respiratory bronchiolitis
• Respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease
• Desquamative interstitial pneumonia
• Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis.

Respiratory bronchiolitis

Respiratory bronchiolitis occurs mostly in smokers and does not necessarily lead to respiratory symptoms in all patients.¹⁰ It cannot always be identified radiographically but occasionally appears as predominantly upper-lobe, patchy ground-glass opacities or ill-defined centrilobular nodules without evidence of fibrosis (Figure 1).

Respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease

In rare cases, respiratory bronchiolitis leads to peribronchial fibrosis invading the alveolar walls, which is then classified as respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease.¹¹ The CT findings in respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease are upper-lobe-predominant centrilobular ground-glass nodules, patchy ground-glass opacities, and bronchial wall thickening (Figure 2).¹⁰ Occasionally, mild reticulation is noted without honeycombing. Mild air trapping can be seen in the lower lobes, with centrilobular emphysema in the upper lobes.¹²

The only successful therapy for respiratory bronchiolitis and respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease is smoking cessation. Finding either of these diseases should prompt aggressive counseling by the internist and consideration of referral to a specialist in interstitial lung disease.

Desquamative interstitial pneumonia

Although pathologically different from respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease, desquamative interstitial pneumonia has a similar clinical and radiographic presentation. Because their features significantly overlap, they are considered a pathomorphologic continuum, representing degrees of severity of the same disease process caused by prolonged tobacco inhalation.^10,13

Widespread ground-glass opacities are the predominant CT finding. These are bilateral and symmetric in distribution in 86%, basal and peripheral in 60%, patchy in 20%, and diffuse in 20% (Figure 3).¹⁴ Other frequent findings are mild reticulation with traction bronchiectasis and coexistent emphysema (Figure 4).¹⁵ The small peripheral cystic spaces noted in this disease most likely represent dilated bronchioles and alveolar ducts rather than honeycombing.¹⁶

No additional treatment beyond elimination of smoking has been proven effective for desquamative interstitial pneumonia, and patients who manage to quit smoking generally have a favorable prognosis.^17,18

Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis

The combination of upper-lobe-predominant cysts and nodules in a young heavy smoker are diagnostic of pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis. The cysts are bizarrely shaped, thin- or thick-walled, and nonuniform in size (Figure 5). The irregular cavitary nodules are centrilobular. The disease characteristically spares the costophrenic angles.

Spontaneous pneumothorax is the initial clinical presentation in 15% of patients.¹⁶ In the early stages of the disease (nodule-predominant disease without cysts), infection and metastatic disease need to be excluded (Figure 6). In the later stages, the cysts become coalescent, making the distinction between this disease and “burned-out” lymphangioleiomyomatosis or severe emphysema extremely difficult (Figure 7).¹⁷ Smoking cessation and corticosteroids are the mainstay of medical therapy for pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis, and about 50% of patients who quit smoking and receive corticosteroids demonstrate partial or complete clearing of the radiographic abnormalities and symptoms (Figure 8).

FIBROTIC INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASES

If CT identifies a diffuse fibrotic pattern, the two most common possibilities (Table 2) are:

• Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia
• Usual interstitial pneumonia.

As noted above, these carry a worse prognosis than the nonfibrotic interstitial lung diseases.

Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia

While most frequently idiopathic, the nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern can often be seen in connective tissue diseases. It has also been associated with chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, drug toxicity, and slowly resolving diffuse alveolar damage.¹⁹ Although it is not the only pathologic pattern in interstitial lung disease associated with connective tissue disease, it is the most common pattern in systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis-polymyositis, and mixed connective tissue disease.²⁰

The parenchymal changes are typically subpleural and symmetric in distribution (Figure 9). In about one-third of cases, there is a peribronchovascular distribution of the abnormalities (Figure 10).

Ground-glass opacities are the dominant imaging findings, seen in 80% of cases.¹⁸ In advanced disease (also referred to as fibrotic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia), patients have accompanying fine or coarse reticular opacities, traction bronchiectasis, and consolidation (Figure 11). Honeycombing is seen in 1% to 5% of patients.²¹

The most specific sign of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is sparing of the immediate subpleural lung, apparent in 30% to 50% of patients (Figure 12).²² Subpleural sparing with a peribronchovascular distribution of abnormalities, absence of lobular areas with decreased attenuation, and lack of honeycombing are imaging features that increase the diagnostic confidence of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (Table 3).²³ Clinically, compared with those who have usual interstitial pneumonia (see below), patients are younger and more of them are female. These patients also present with extrapulmonary manifestations such as joint involvement, rash, and Raynaud phenomenon. Therefore, these associated symptoms on presentation can help distinguish nonspecific interstitial pneumonia or usual interstitial pneumonia related to connective tissue disease from the idiopathic forms.

The first step in managing nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is to remove all potential exposure to inhaled substances or to drugs. Although immunosuppressive therapy has never been studied in a randomized controlled trial in this disease, numerous reports suggest that patients may respond to prednisone and to steroid-sparing immunosuppressants.²⁴

In several studies, survival rates in nonspecific interstitial pneumonia were significantly greater than in usual interstitial pneumonia independent of the treatment strategy. In long-term follow-up of patients with idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia treated with immunosuppressive therapy, two-thirds remained stable or improved.^25–27

Although most connective tissue diseases cause a lung pattern of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, some (eg, rheumatoid arthritis) may present with a pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia. In these cases and in those of advanced fibrotic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, the prognosis is worse, as the disease is less responsive to immunosuppressive therapy.²⁰

Usual interstitial pneumonia

Usual interstitial pneumonia is the most severe form of lung fibrosis. Most cases are idio­pathic and are termed idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Other causes of the usual interstitial pneumonia pattern include domestic and occupational environmental exposures, connective tissue disease, and drug toxicity.²⁸ An epidemiologic association between smoking and usual interstitial pneumonia is well documented.²⁸

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis typically affects men ages 50 to 70. Because its risk factors coincide with those of lung cancer, there is a high likelihood of detecting idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis early in this screening population. It has an especially poor prognosis, with a mean survival of 2 to 5 years from the time of diagnosis.¹⁸

The distribution of disease in usual interstitial pneumonia is characteristically subpleural and basal. CT features include coarse subpleural reticulation and honeycombing combined with traction bronchiectasis or bronchiolectasis and architectural distortion (Figure 13).¹⁸ Honeycombing is the most specific and key diagnostic CT finding for establishing a definitive diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia.²⁹ However, ground-glass opacities are present in most patients, typically in the region of interstitial fibrosis, and are always less extensive than the reticulation.³⁰ The findings demonstrate morphologic heterogeneity, with areas of fibrosis adjacent to areas of normal lung (Figure 14).

In addition to the aforementioned imaging features, the 2011 American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society joint guidelines for the CT diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia patterns require the absence of atypical features that suggest an alternative diagnosis, including those seen in nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, such as an upper, midlung, or peribronchovascular distribution and extensive ground-glass attenuation.²⁸ Mild mediastinal lymphadenopathy (usually < 1.5 cm in the short axis) is common in usual interstitial pneumonia.³¹

Because other chronic interstitial pneumonias that may resemble usual interstitial pneumonia have a more favorable course and may respond to immunosuppressive therapy, establishing an early and accurate diagnosis is of the utmost importance.⁵ Additionally, the emergence of possible new therapies for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis makes early referral to a specialist paramount in these cases. Recent studies have demonstrated significant slowing of the progression of disease in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with both pirfenidone and nintedanib.^32,33

DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT

The diagnosis of these nonfibrotic and fibrotic lung diseases is complex. In all cases in which interstitial lung disease is detected on screening CT for lung cancer, the internist should strongly consider further evaluation with dedicated high-resolution CT and early referral to a specialist (Figure 15).

Because smoking cessation is the only recommended treatment for nonfibrotic smoking-related interstitial lung diseases, particular emphasis on smoking cessation counseling is essential.

Referral for bronchoscopy with transbronchial lung biopsy is generally not helpful in the diagnosis of the interstitial lung diseases discussed in this article unless there is a need to rule out infection or neoplasm.³⁴ Referral for surgical lung biopsy may be indicated in some cases of suspected pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis, desquamative interstitial pneumonia, nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, or usual interstitial pneumonia if the diagnosis is uncertain (Tables 1 and 2).³⁵

The American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines suggest a multidisciplinary team approach that includes a pathologist, radiologist, and clinician.³⁵ This approach more readily determines the correct diagnosis and relies less on invasive methods such as surgical biopsy and more on noninvasive methods such as radiology and clinical history. Overall, this will promote earlier access to appropriate therapies, clinical trial enrollment, and in more severe cases, lung transplant.

Currently, 23% of all lung transplants worldwide are performed in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Other forms of pulmonary fibrosis account for 3% to 4% of lung transplants performed.³⁶

Evidence suggests that early referral reduces rates of morbidity and death in these patients. The results of a single-center study³⁷ of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated that a longer delay from the onset of symptoms to evaluation by a specialist at a tertiary care referral center was associated with a higher rate of death from this disease independent of disease severity. Those with the longest delay in referral had a multivariable-adjusted death rate 3.4 times higher than those with the shortest delay.^5,37

In summary, with implementation of the new lung cancer screening guidelines, primary care physicians are more often encountering the incidental finding of interstitial lung disease in their patients. Prompt diagnosis of interstitial lung disease helps ensure that patients receive appropriate care and early consideration for clinical trials and lung transplant.

Primary care physicians play a critical role in the initial identification of key characteristics of the interstitial abnormality—namely, whether the pattern is nonfibrotic or fibrotic—and in the correlation of the history and physical findings to expedite the diagnosis. Subsequently, ordering high-resolution CT for more detailed characterization and prompt referral to a specialist in interstitial lung disease allow for a more rapid and accurate diagnosis, specialized therapy, and supportive care.

Primary care physicians are playing a bigger role in evaluating the incidental finding of interstitial lung diseases since the recent publication of guidelines recommending computed tomography (CT) to screen for lung cancer.

In August 2011, the National Cancer Institute published its findings from the National Lung Screening Trial, which demonstrated a 20% reduction in mortality from lung cancer in patients at high risk screened with low-dose CT.¹ Based on these results, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT in adults ages 55 to 74 who have a 30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.² In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force published similar guidelines but increased the age range to include high-risk patients ages 55 to 80.³

Bach et al⁴ estimated that, in 2010 in the United States, 8.6 million people met the criteria used in the National Lung Screening Trial for low-dose CT screening. These are the same criteria as in the multisociety recommendations cited above.² With such large numbers of patients eligible for CT screening, internists and other primary care physicians are undoubtedly encountering the incidental discovery of nonmalignant pulmonary diseases such as interstitial lung disease.

This article reviews the radiographic characteristics of the most common interstitial lung diseases the internist may encounter on screening CT in long-term smokers.

Referral to a specialist has been associated with lower rates of morbidity and death,⁵ and a diagnosis of interstitial lung disease should be confirmed by a pulmonologist and a radiologist specializing in differentiating the subtypes. But the primary care physician now plays a critical role in recognizing the need for further evaluation.

HOW COMMON IS INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE IN SMOKERS?

Several studies have published data on the prevalence of interstitial lung disease in patients undergoing low-dose CT for lung cancer screening.

A trial at Mayo Clinic in current and former smokers identified “diffuse lung disease” in 9 (0.9%) of 1,049 participants.⁶

A trial in Ireland identified idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in 6 (1.3%) of 449 current smokers who underwent low-dose CT screening for lung cancer.⁷

Sverzellati et al⁸ evaluated 692 participants in the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection CT screening study and reported a respiratory bronchiolitis pattern in 109 (15.7%), a usual interstitial pneumonia pattern in 2 (0.3%), and other patterns of chronic interstitial pneumonia in 26 (3.8%).

The National Lung Screening Trial reported that the frequency of “clinically significant” incidental findings (including pulmonary fibrosis) in all participants was 7.5%.¹ A retrospective analysis of 884 participants at a single site in this trial identified interstitial lung abnormalities in 86 participants (9.7%).⁹ These abnormalities were further categorized as nonfibrotic in 52 (5.9%) of 884, fibrotic in 19 (2.1%) of 884, and mixed fibrotic and nonfibrotic in 15 (1.7%) of 884.

Follow-up CT at 2 years in this trial demonstrated improvement in 50% and progression in 11% of patients who had nonfibrotic abnormalities, while fibrotic abnormalities improved in no cases and progressed in 37%. Interstitial lung abnormalities were more common in those who currently smoked and in those with more pack-years of cigarette smoking.⁹

In sum, these trials suggest that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can detect the most common forms of interstitial lung disease in this at-risk population and can characterize them as fibrotic or nonfibrotic, a distinction important for prognosis and subsequent management.

NONFIBROTIC VS FIBROTIC DISEASE

It is important to distinguish between nonfibrotic and fibrotic interstitial lung disease, as fibrotic disease carries a worse prognosis and is treated differently.

Features of nonfibrotic interstitial lung disease:

• Ground-glass opacities
• Nodules
• Mosaic attenuation or consolidation.

Features of fibrotic interstitial lung disease:

• Combination of ground-glass opacities and reticulation
• Reticulation by itself
• Traction bronchiectasis
• Honeycombing
• Loss of lung volume.

NONFIBROTIC INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASES

Given the strong likelihood that a patient undergoing screening CT is either a current or former smoker, physicians may encounter, in addition to emphysema and lung cancer, the following smoking-related interstitial lung diseases, which are primarily nonfibrotic and which frequently coexist (Table 1):

• Respiratory bronchiolitis
• Respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease
• Desquamative interstitial pneumonia
• Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis.

Respiratory bronchiolitis

Respiratory bronchiolitis occurs mostly in smokers and does not necessarily lead to respiratory symptoms in all patients.¹⁰ It cannot always be identified radiographically but occasionally appears as predominantly upper-lobe, patchy ground-glass opacities or ill-defined centrilobular nodules without evidence of fibrosis (Figure 1).

Respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease

In rare cases, respiratory bronchiolitis leads to peribronchial fibrosis invading the alveolar walls, which is then classified as respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease.¹¹ The CT findings in respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease are upper-lobe-predominant centrilobular ground-glass nodules, patchy ground-glass opacities, and bronchial wall thickening (Figure 2).¹⁰ Occasionally, mild reticulation is noted without honeycombing. Mild air trapping can be seen in the lower lobes, with centrilobular emphysema in the upper lobes.¹²

The only successful therapy for respiratory bronchiolitis and respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease is smoking cessation. Finding either of these diseases should prompt aggressive counseling by the internist and consideration of referral to a specialist in interstitial lung disease.

Desquamative interstitial pneumonia

Although pathologically different from respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease, desquamative interstitial pneumonia has a similar clinical and radiographic presentation. Because their features significantly overlap, they are considered a pathomorphologic continuum, representing degrees of severity of the same disease process caused by prolonged tobacco inhalation.^10,13

Widespread ground-glass opacities are the predominant CT finding. These are bilateral and symmetric in distribution in 86%, basal and peripheral in 60%, patchy in 20%, and diffuse in 20% (Figure 3).¹⁴ Other frequent findings are mild reticulation with traction bronchiectasis and coexistent emphysema (Figure 4).¹⁵ The small peripheral cystic spaces noted in this disease most likely represent dilated bronchioles and alveolar ducts rather than honeycombing.¹⁶

No additional treatment beyond elimination of smoking has been proven effective for desquamative interstitial pneumonia, and patients who manage to quit smoking generally have a favorable prognosis.^17,18

Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis

The combination of upper-lobe-predominant cysts and nodules in a young heavy smoker are diagnostic of pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis. The cysts are bizarrely shaped, thin- or thick-walled, and nonuniform in size (Figure 5). The irregular cavitary nodules are centrilobular. The disease characteristically spares the costophrenic angles.

Spontaneous pneumothorax is the initial clinical presentation in 15% of patients.¹⁶ In the early stages of the disease (nodule-predominant disease without cysts), infection and metastatic disease need to be excluded (Figure 6). In the later stages, the cysts become coalescent, making the distinction between this disease and “burned-out” lymphangioleiomyomatosis or severe emphysema extremely difficult (Figure 7).¹⁷ Smoking cessation and corticosteroids are the mainstay of medical therapy for pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis, and about 50% of patients who quit smoking and receive corticosteroids demonstrate partial or complete clearing of the radiographic abnormalities and symptoms (Figure 8).

FIBROTIC INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASES

If CT identifies a diffuse fibrotic pattern, the two most common possibilities (Table 2) are:

• Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia
• Usual interstitial pneumonia.

As noted above, these carry a worse prognosis than the nonfibrotic interstitial lung diseases.

Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia

While most frequently idiopathic, the nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern can often be seen in connective tissue diseases. It has also been associated with chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, drug toxicity, and slowly resolving diffuse alveolar damage.¹⁹ Although it is not the only pathologic pattern in interstitial lung disease associated with connective tissue disease, it is the most common pattern in systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis-polymyositis, and mixed connective tissue disease.²⁰

The parenchymal changes are typically subpleural and symmetric in distribution (Figure 9). In about one-third of cases, there is a peribronchovascular distribution of the abnormalities (Figure 10).

Ground-glass opacities are the dominant imaging findings, seen in 80% of cases.¹⁸ In advanced disease (also referred to as fibrotic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia), patients have accompanying fine or coarse reticular opacities, traction bronchiectasis, and consolidation (Figure 11). Honeycombing is seen in 1% to 5% of patients.²¹

The most specific sign of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is sparing of the immediate subpleural lung, apparent in 30% to 50% of patients (Figure 12).²² Subpleural sparing with a peribronchovascular distribution of abnormalities, absence of lobular areas with decreased attenuation, and lack of honeycombing are imaging features that increase the diagnostic confidence of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (Table 3).²³ Clinically, compared with those who have usual interstitial pneumonia (see below), patients are younger and more of them are female. These patients also present with extrapulmonary manifestations such as joint involvement, rash, and Raynaud phenomenon. Therefore, these associated symptoms on presentation can help distinguish nonspecific interstitial pneumonia or usual interstitial pneumonia related to connective tissue disease from the idiopathic forms.

The first step in managing nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is to remove all potential exposure to inhaled substances or to drugs. Although immunosuppressive therapy has never been studied in a randomized controlled trial in this disease, numerous reports suggest that patients may respond to prednisone and to steroid-sparing immunosuppressants.²⁴

In several studies, survival rates in nonspecific interstitial pneumonia were significantly greater than in usual interstitial pneumonia independent of the treatment strategy. In long-term follow-up of patients with idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia treated with immunosuppressive therapy, two-thirds remained stable or improved.^25–27

Although most connective tissue diseases cause a lung pattern of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, some (eg, rheumatoid arthritis) may present with a pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia. In these cases and in those of advanced fibrotic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, the prognosis is worse, as the disease is less responsive to immunosuppressive therapy.²⁰

Usual interstitial pneumonia

Usual interstitial pneumonia is the most severe form of lung fibrosis. Most cases are idio­pathic and are termed idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Other causes of the usual interstitial pneumonia pattern include domestic and occupational environmental exposures, connective tissue disease, and drug toxicity.²⁸ An epidemiologic association between smoking and usual interstitial pneumonia is well documented.²⁸

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis typically affects men ages 50 to 70. Because its risk factors coincide with those of lung cancer, there is a high likelihood of detecting idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis early in this screening population. It has an especially poor prognosis, with a mean survival of 2 to 5 years from the time of diagnosis.¹⁸

The distribution of disease in usual interstitial pneumonia is characteristically subpleural and basal. CT features include coarse subpleural reticulation and honeycombing combined with traction bronchiectasis or bronchiolectasis and architectural distortion (Figure 13).¹⁸ Honeycombing is the most specific and key diagnostic CT finding for establishing a definitive diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia.²⁹ However, ground-glass opacities are present in most patients, typically in the region of interstitial fibrosis, and are always less extensive than the reticulation.³⁰ The findings demonstrate morphologic heterogeneity, with areas of fibrosis adjacent to areas of normal lung (Figure 14).

In addition to the aforementioned imaging features, the 2011 American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society joint guidelines for the CT diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia patterns require the absence of atypical features that suggest an alternative diagnosis, including those seen in nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, such as an upper, midlung, or peribronchovascular distribution and extensive ground-glass attenuation.²⁸ Mild mediastinal lymphadenopathy (usually < 1.5 cm in the short axis) is common in usual interstitial pneumonia.³¹

Because other chronic interstitial pneumonias that may resemble usual interstitial pneumonia have a more favorable course and may respond to immunosuppressive therapy, establishing an early and accurate diagnosis is of the utmost importance.⁵ Additionally, the emergence of possible new therapies for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis makes early referral to a specialist paramount in these cases. Recent studies have demonstrated significant slowing of the progression of disease in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with both pirfenidone and nintedanib.^32,33

DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT

The diagnosis of these nonfibrotic and fibrotic lung diseases is complex. In all cases in which interstitial lung disease is detected on screening CT for lung cancer, the internist should strongly consider further evaluation with dedicated high-resolution CT and early referral to a specialist (Figure 15).

Because smoking cessation is the only recommended treatment for nonfibrotic smoking-related interstitial lung diseases, particular emphasis on smoking cessation counseling is essential.

Referral for bronchoscopy with transbronchial lung biopsy is generally not helpful in the diagnosis of the interstitial lung diseases discussed in this article unless there is a need to rule out infection or neoplasm.³⁴ Referral for surgical lung biopsy may be indicated in some cases of suspected pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis, desquamative interstitial pneumonia, nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, or usual interstitial pneumonia if the diagnosis is uncertain (Tables 1 and 2).³⁵

The American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines suggest a multidisciplinary team approach that includes a pathologist, radiologist, and clinician.³⁵ This approach more readily determines the correct diagnosis and relies less on invasive methods such as surgical biopsy and more on noninvasive methods such as radiology and clinical history. Overall, this will promote earlier access to appropriate therapies, clinical trial enrollment, and in more severe cases, lung transplant.

Currently, 23% of all lung transplants worldwide are performed in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Other forms of pulmonary fibrosis account for 3% to 4% of lung transplants performed.³⁶

Evidence suggests that early referral reduces rates of morbidity and death in these patients. The results of a single-center study³⁷ of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated that a longer delay from the onset of symptoms to evaluation by a specialist at a tertiary care referral center was associated with a higher rate of death from this disease independent of disease severity. Those with the longest delay in referral had a multivariable-adjusted death rate 3.4 times higher than those with the shortest delay.^5,37

In summary, with implementation of the new lung cancer screening guidelines, primary care physicians are more often encountering the incidental finding of interstitial lung disease in their patients. Prompt diagnosis of interstitial lung disease helps ensure that patients receive appropriate care and early consideration for clinical trials and lung transplant.

Primary care physicians play a critical role in the initial identification of key characteristics of the interstitial abnormality—namely, whether the pattern is nonfibrotic or fibrotic—and in the correlation of the history and physical findings to expedite the diagnosis. Subsequently, ordering high-resolution CT for more detailed characterization and prompt referral to a specialist in interstitial lung disease allow for a more rapid and accurate diagnosis, specialized therapy, and supportive care.

Primary care physicians are playing a bigger role in evaluating the incidental finding of interstitial lung diseases since the recent publication of guidelines recommending computed tomography (CT) to screen for lung cancer.

In August 2011, the National Cancer Institute published its findings from the National Lung Screening Trial, which demonstrated a 20% reduction in mortality from lung cancer in patients at high risk screened with low-dose CT.¹ Based on these results, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT in adults ages 55 to 74 who have a 30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.² In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force published similar guidelines but increased the age range to include high-risk patients ages 55 to 80.³

Bach et al⁴ estimated that, in 2010 in the United States, 8.6 million people met the criteria used in the National Lung Screening Trial for low-dose CT screening. These are the same criteria as in the multisociety recommendations cited above.² With such large numbers of patients eligible for CT screening, internists and other primary care physicians are undoubtedly encountering the incidental discovery of nonmalignant pulmonary diseases such as interstitial lung disease.

This article reviews the radiographic characteristics of the most common interstitial lung diseases the internist may encounter on screening CT in long-term smokers.

Referral to a specialist has been associated with lower rates of morbidity and death,⁵ and a diagnosis of interstitial lung disease should be confirmed by a pulmonologist and a radiologist specializing in differentiating the subtypes. But the primary care physician now plays a critical role in recognizing the need for further evaluation.

HOW COMMON IS INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE IN SMOKERS?

Several studies have published data on the prevalence of interstitial lung disease in patients undergoing low-dose CT for lung cancer screening.

A trial at Mayo Clinic in current and former smokers identified “diffuse lung disease” in 9 (0.9%) of 1,049 participants.⁶

A trial in Ireland identified idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in 6 (1.3%) of 449 current smokers who underwent low-dose CT screening for lung cancer.⁷

Sverzellati et al⁸ evaluated 692 participants in the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection CT screening study and reported a respiratory bronchiolitis pattern in 109 (15.7%), a usual interstitial pneumonia pattern in 2 (0.3%), and other patterns of chronic interstitial pneumonia in 26 (3.8%).

The National Lung Screening Trial reported that the frequency of “clinically significant” incidental findings (including pulmonary fibrosis) in all participants was 7.5%.¹ A retrospective analysis of 884 participants at a single site in this trial identified interstitial lung abnormalities in 86 participants (9.7%).⁹ These abnormalities were further categorized as nonfibrotic in 52 (5.9%) of 884, fibrotic in 19 (2.1%) of 884, and mixed fibrotic and nonfibrotic in 15 (1.7%) of 884.

Follow-up CT at 2 years in this trial demonstrated improvement in 50% and progression in 11% of patients who had nonfibrotic abnormalities, while fibrotic abnormalities improved in no cases and progressed in 37%. Interstitial lung abnormalities were more common in those who currently smoked and in those with more pack-years of cigarette smoking.⁹

In sum, these trials suggest that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can detect the most common forms of interstitial lung disease in this at-risk population and can characterize them as fibrotic or nonfibrotic, a distinction important for prognosis and subsequent management.

NONFIBROTIC VS FIBROTIC DISEASE

It is important to distinguish between nonfibrotic and fibrotic interstitial lung disease, as fibrotic disease carries a worse prognosis and is treated differently.

Features of nonfibrotic interstitial lung disease:

• Ground-glass opacities
• Nodules
• Mosaic attenuation or consolidation.

Features of fibrotic interstitial lung disease:

• Combination of ground-glass opacities and reticulation
• Reticulation by itself
• Traction bronchiectasis
• Honeycombing
• Loss of lung volume.

NONFIBROTIC INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASES

Given the strong likelihood that a patient undergoing screening CT is either a current or former smoker, physicians may encounter, in addition to emphysema and lung cancer, the following smoking-related interstitial lung diseases, which are primarily nonfibrotic and which frequently coexist (Table 1):

• Respiratory bronchiolitis
• Respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease
• Desquamative interstitial pneumonia
• Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis.

Respiratory bronchiolitis

Respiratory bronchiolitis occurs mostly in smokers and does not necessarily lead to respiratory symptoms in all patients.¹⁰ It cannot always be identified radiographically but occasionally appears as predominantly upper-lobe, patchy ground-glass opacities or ill-defined centrilobular nodules without evidence of fibrosis (Figure 1).

Respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease

In rare cases, respiratory bronchiolitis leads to peribronchial fibrosis invading the alveolar walls, which is then classified as respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease.¹¹ The CT findings in respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease are upper-lobe-predominant centrilobular ground-glass nodules, patchy ground-glass opacities, and bronchial wall thickening (Figure 2).¹⁰ Occasionally, mild reticulation is noted without honeycombing. Mild air trapping can be seen in the lower lobes, with centrilobular emphysema in the upper lobes.¹²

The only successful therapy for respiratory bronchiolitis and respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease is smoking cessation. Finding either of these diseases should prompt aggressive counseling by the internist and consideration of referral to a specialist in interstitial lung disease.

Desquamative interstitial pneumonia

Although pathologically different from respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease, desquamative interstitial pneumonia has a similar clinical and radiographic presentation. Because their features significantly overlap, they are considered a pathomorphologic continuum, representing degrees of severity of the same disease process caused by prolonged tobacco inhalation.^10,13

Widespread ground-glass opacities are the predominant CT finding. These are bilateral and symmetric in distribution in 86%, basal and peripheral in 60%, patchy in 20%, and diffuse in 20% (Figure 3).¹⁴ Other frequent findings are mild reticulation with traction bronchiectasis and coexistent emphysema (Figure 4).¹⁵ The small peripheral cystic spaces noted in this disease most likely represent dilated bronchioles and alveolar ducts rather than honeycombing.¹⁶

No additional treatment beyond elimination of smoking has been proven effective for desquamative interstitial pneumonia, and patients who manage to quit smoking generally have a favorable prognosis.^17,18

Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis

The combination of upper-lobe-predominant cysts and nodules in a young heavy smoker are diagnostic of pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis. The cysts are bizarrely shaped, thin- or thick-walled, and nonuniform in size (Figure 5). The irregular cavitary nodules are centrilobular. The disease characteristically spares the costophrenic angles.

Spontaneous pneumothorax is the initial clinical presentation in 15% of patients.¹⁶ In the early stages of the disease (nodule-predominant disease without cysts), infection and metastatic disease need to be excluded (Figure 6). In the later stages, the cysts become coalescent, making the distinction between this disease and “burned-out” lymphangioleiomyomatosis or severe emphysema extremely difficult (Figure 7).¹⁷ Smoking cessation and corticosteroids are the mainstay of medical therapy for pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis, and about 50% of patients who quit smoking and receive corticosteroids demonstrate partial or complete clearing of the radiographic abnormalities and symptoms (Figure 8).

FIBROTIC INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASES

If CT identifies a diffuse fibrotic pattern, the two most common possibilities (Table 2) are:

• Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia
• Usual interstitial pneumonia.

As noted above, these carry a worse prognosis than the nonfibrotic interstitial lung diseases.

Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia

While most frequently idiopathic, the nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern can often be seen in connective tissue diseases. It has also been associated with chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, drug toxicity, and slowly resolving diffuse alveolar damage.¹⁹ Although it is not the only pathologic pattern in interstitial lung disease associated with connective tissue disease, it is the most common pattern in systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis-polymyositis, and mixed connective tissue disease.²⁰

The parenchymal changes are typically subpleural and symmetric in distribution (Figure 9). In about one-third of cases, there is a peribronchovascular distribution of the abnormalities (Figure 10).

Ground-glass opacities are the dominant imaging findings, seen in 80% of cases.¹⁸ In advanced disease (also referred to as fibrotic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia), patients have accompanying fine or coarse reticular opacities, traction bronchiectasis, and consolidation (Figure 11). Honeycombing is seen in 1% to 5% of patients.²¹

The most specific sign of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is sparing of the immediate subpleural lung, apparent in 30% to 50% of patients (Figure 12).²² Subpleural sparing with a peribronchovascular distribution of abnormalities, absence of lobular areas with decreased attenuation, and lack of honeycombing are imaging features that increase the diagnostic confidence of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (Table 3).²³ Clinically, compared with those who have usual interstitial pneumonia (see below), patients are younger and more of them are female. These patients also present with extrapulmonary manifestations such as joint involvement, rash, and Raynaud phenomenon. Therefore, these associated symptoms on presentation can help distinguish nonspecific interstitial pneumonia or usual interstitial pneumonia related to connective tissue disease from the idiopathic forms.

The first step in managing nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is to remove all potential exposure to inhaled substances or to drugs. Although immunosuppressive therapy has never been studied in a randomized controlled trial in this disease, numerous reports suggest that patients may respond to prednisone and to steroid-sparing immunosuppressants.²⁴

In several studies, survival rates in nonspecific interstitial pneumonia were significantly greater than in usual interstitial pneumonia independent of the treatment strategy. In long-term follow-up of patients with idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia treated with immunosuppressive therapy, two-thirds remained stable or improved.^25–27

Although most connective tissue diseases cause a lung pattern of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, some (eg, rheumatoid arthritis) may present with a pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia. In these cases and in those of advanced fibrotic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, the prognosis is worse, as the disease is less responsive to immunosuppressive therapy.²⁰

Usual interstitial pneumonia

Usual interstitial pneumonia is the most severe form of lung fibrosis. Most cases are idio­pathic and are termed idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Other causes of the usual interstitial pneumonia pattern include domestic and occupational environmental exposures, connective tissue disease, and drug toxicity.²⁸ An epidemiologic association between smoking and usual interstitial pneumonia is well documented.²⁸

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis typically affects men ages 50 to 70. Because its risk factors coincide with those of lung cancer, there is a high likelihood of detecting idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis early in this screening population. It has an especially poor prognosis, with a mean survival of 2 to 5 years from the time of diagnosis.¹⁸

The distribution of disease in usual interstitial pneumonia is characteristically subpleural and basal. CT features include coarse subpleural reticulation and honeycombing combined with traction bronchiectasis or bronchiolectasis and architectural distortion (Figure 13).¹⁸ Honeycombing is the most specific and key diagnostic CT finding for establishing a definitive diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia.²⁹ However, ground-glass opacities are present in most patients, typically in the region of interstitial fibrosis, and are always less extensive than the reticulation.³⁰ The findings demonstrate morphologic heterogeneity, with areas of fibrosis adjacent to areas of normal lung (Figure 14).

In addition to the aforementioned imaging features, the 2011 American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society joint guidelines for the CT diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia patterns require the absence of atypical features that suggest an alternative diagnosis, including those seen in nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, such as an upper, midlung, or peribronchovascular distribution and extensive ground-glass attenuation.²⁸ Mild mediastinal lymphadenopathy (usually < 1.5 cm in the short axis) is common in usual interstitial pneumonia.³¹

Because other chronic interstitial pneumonias that may resemble usual interstitial pneumonia have a more favorable course and may respond to immunosuppressive therapy, establishing an early and accurate diagnosis is of the utmost importance.⁵ Additionally, the emergence of possible new therapies for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis makes early referral to a specialist paramount in these cases. Recent studies have demonstrated significant slowing of the progression of disease in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with both pirfenidone and nintedanib.^32,33

DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT

The diagnosis of these nonfibrotic and fibrotic lung diseases is complex. In all cases in which interstitial lung disease is detected on screening CT for lung cancer, the internist should strongly consider further evaluation with dedicated high-resolution CT and early referral to a specialist (Figure 15).

Because smoking cessation is the only recommended treatment for nonfibrotic smoking-related interstitial lung diseases, particular emphasis on smoking cessation counseling is essential.

Referral for bronchoscopy with transbronchial lung biopsy is generally not helpful in the diagnosis of the interstitial lung diseases discussed in this article unless there is a need to rule out infection or neoplasm.³⁴ Referral for surgical lung biopsy may be indicated in some cases of suspected pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis, desquamative interstitial pneumonia, nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, or usual interstitial pneumonia if the diagnosis is uncertain (Tables 1 and 2).³⁵

The American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines suggest a multidisciplinary team approach that includes a pathologist, radiologist, and clinician.³⁵ This approach more readily determines the correct diagnosis and relies less on invasive methods such as surgical biopsy and more on noninvasive methods such as radiology and clinical history. Overall, this will promote earlier access to appropriate therapies, clinical trial enrollment, and in more severe cases, lung transplant.

Currently, 23% of all lung transplants worldwide are performed in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Other forms of pulmonary fibrosis account for 3% to 4% of lung transplants performed.³⁶

Evidence suggests that early referral reduces rates of morbidity and death in these patients. The results of a single-center study³⁷ of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated that a longer delay from the onset of symptoms to evaluation by a specialist at a tertiary care referral center was associated with a higher rate of death from this disease independent of disease severity. Those with the longest delay in referral had a multivariable-adjusted death rate 3.4 times higher than those with the shortest delay.^5,37

In summary, with implementation of the new lung cancer screening guidelines, primary care physicians are more often encountering the incidental finding of interstitial lung disease in their patients. Prompt diagnosis of interstitial lung disease helps ensure that patients receive appropriate care and early consideration for clinical trials and lung transplant.

Primary care physicians play a critical role in the initial identification of key characteristics of the interstitial abnormality—namely, whether the pattern is nonfibrotic or fibrotic—and in the correlation of the history and physical findings to expedite the diagnosis. Subsequently, ordering high-resolution CT for more detailed characterization and prompt referral to a specialist in interstitial lung disease allow for a more rapid and accurate diagnosis, specialized therapy, and supportive care.

A 25-year-old man with a 2-day history of upper respiratory tract infection presents to the emergency department with the sudden onset of right-sided back and chest pain and shortness of breath after a severe coughing fit.

He is morbidly obese, is a long-time smoker, and has had recurrent exacerbations of asthma with frequent upper respiratory tract infections. He has no history of recent trauma.

A review of systems reveals no significant impairment in exercise tolerance. He has been able to continue doing manual labor at his job as a railroad worker.

Radiography shows a large right pneumothorax and an elevated right diaphragm (Figure 1). Computed tomography (CT) (Figure 2) reveals a right anterior apical pneumothorax with hypoplastic lung and significant elevation of the right diaphragm with fat, bowel, and kidney within the right thorax. He is hemodynamically stable and shows no signs of bowel obstruction.

The physical examination is normal except for diminished breath sounds on the right side. He is diagnosed with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and spontaneous pneumothorax. A 10-F locking pigtail catheter is inserted under CT guidance, leading to complete resolution of the pneumothorax. He is discharged home the next day with a plan for elective repair of the hernia.

Two months later, he returns for scheduled right thoracotomy to repair the hernia. However, while preparing the chest cavity, the surgeon finds no diaphragmatic hernia and no intra-abdominal content—but rather, a severely elevated and thinned-out diaphragm with uninterrupted continuity. The diagnosis is changed to congenital diaphragmatic eventration, and plication of the diaphragm is performed with a series of interrupted, pledgeted polypropylene sutures.

CONGENITAL EVENTRATION OF THE DIAPHRAGM

Congenital diaphragmatic eventration is a rare developmental defect of the central, muscular portion of the diaphragm. The true prevalence is not known, but early reports identified this condition in less than 0.1% of adult.¹

Symptomatic patients usually experience dyspnea secondary to ventilation-perfusion mismatch resulting from chronic atelectasis and lung hypoplasia, as well as impaired ventilation resulting from the limited caudal migration of the diaphragm.^2,3 Increased susceptibility to recurrent upper respiratory tract infections and pneumonia is also a common feature.

Although rare, spontaneous pneumothorax can develop in patients such as ours, whose lengthy history of smoking and asthma predisposed him to the development of emphysema-like blebs and bullae and to subsequent rupture of blebs brought on by vigorous coughing that caused an involuntary Valsalva maneuver.⁴

As in our patient, distinguishing congenital diaphragmatic eventration from hernia preoperatively can be difficult with plain chest radiography. Spiral CT with multiplanar reconstruction or with magnetic resonance imaging can help establish the diagnosis.³ However, a severely attenuated diaphragm can be difficult to visualize on CT, as in our patient, leading to a presumptive diagnosis of diaphragmatic hernia. In such situations, the diagnosis of eventration can only be made intraoperatively.

Surgical repair is indicated only for patients with symptoms. Other potential causes of the symptoms should first be ruled out, however, including primary pulmonary disease, cardiac dysfunction, and morbid obesity.

A 25-year-old man with a 2-day history of upper respiratory tract infection presents to the emergency department with the sudden onset of right-sided back and chest pain and shortness of breath after a severe coughing fit.

He is morbidly obese, is a long-time smoker, and has had recurrent exacerbations of asthma with frequent upper respiratory tract infections. He has no history of recent trauma.

A review of systems reveals no significant impairment in exercise tolerance. He has been able to continue doing manual labor at his job as a railroad worker.

Radiography shows a large right pneumothorax and an elevated right diaphragm (Figure 1). Computed tomography (CT) (Figure 2) reveals a right anterior apical pneumothorax with hypoplastic lung and significant elevation of the right diaphragm with fat, bowel, and kidney within the right thorax. He is hemodynamically stable and shows no signs of bowel obstruction.

The physical examination is normal except for diminished breath sounds on the right side. He is diagnosed with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and spontaneous pneumothorax. A 10-F locking pigtail catheter is inserted under CT guidance, leading to complete resolution of the pneumothorax. He is discharged home the next day with a plan for elective repair of the hernia.

Two months later, he returns for scheduled right thoracotomy to repair the hernia. However, while preparing the chest cavity, the surgeon finds no diaphragmatic hernia and no intra-abdominal content—but rather, a severely elevated and thinned-out diaphragm with uninterrupted continuity. The diagnosis is changed to congenital diaphragmatic eventration, and plication of the diaphragm is performed with a series of interrupted, pledgeted polypropylene sutures.

CONGENITAL EVENTRATION OF THE DIAPHRAGM

Congenital diaphragmatic eventration is a rare developmental defect of the central, muscular portion of the diaphragm. The true prevalence is not known, but early reports identified this condition in less than 0.1% of adult.¹

Symptomatic patients usually experience dyspnea secondary to ventilation-perfusion mismatch resulting from chronic atelectasis and lung hypoplasia, as well as impaired ventilation resulting from the limited caudal migration of the diaphragm.^2,3 Increased susceptibility to recurrent upper respiratory tract infections and pneumonia is also a common feature.

Although rare, spontaneous pneumothorax can develop in patients such as ours, whose lengthy history of smoking and asthma predisposed him to the development of emphysema-like blebs and bullae and to subsequent rupture of blebs brought on by vigorous coughing that caused an involuntary Valsalva maneuver.⁴

As in our patient, distinguishing congenital diaphragmatic eventration from hernia preoperatively can be difficult with plain chest radiography. Spiral CT with multiplanar reconstruction or with magnetic resonance imaging can help establish the diagnosis.³ However, a severely attenuated diaphragm can be difficult to visualize on CT, as in our patient, leading to a presumptive diagnosis of diaphragmatic hernia. In such situations, the diagnosis of eventration can only be made intraoperatively.

Surgical repair is indicated only for patients with symptoms. Other potential causes of the symptoms should first be ruled out, however, including primary pulmonary disease, cardiac dysfunction, and morbid obesity.

A 25-year-old man with a 2-day history of upper respiratory tract infection presents to the emergency department with the sudden onset of right-sided back and chest pain and shortness of breath after a severe coughing fit.

He is morbidly obese, is a long-time smoker, and has had recurrent exacerbations of asthma with frequent upper respiratory tract infections. He has no history of recent trauma.

A review of systems reveals no significant impairment in exercise tolerance. He has been able to continue doing manual labor at his job as a railroad worker.

Radiography shows a large right pneumothorax and an elevated right diaphragm (Figure 1). Computed tomography (CT) (Figure 2) reveals a right anterior apical pneumothorax with hypoplastic lung and significant elevation of the right diaphragm with fat, bowel, and kidney within the right thorax. He is hemodynamically stable and shows no signs of bowel obstruction.

The physical examination is normal except for diminished breath sounds on the right side. He is diagnosed with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and spontaneous pneumothorax. A 10-F locking pigtail catheter is inserted under CT guidance, leading to complete resolution of the pneumothorax. He is discharged home the next day with a plan for elective repair of the hernia.

Two months later, he returns for scheduled right thoracotomy to repair the hernia. However, while preparing the chest cavity, the surgeon finds no diaphragmatic hernia and no intra-abdominal content—but rather, a severely elevated and thinned-out diaphragm with uninterrupted continuity. The diagnosis is changed to congenital diaphragmatic eventration, and plication of the diaphragm is performed with a series of interrupted, pledgeted polypropylene sutures.

CONGENITAL EVENTRATION OF THE DIAPHRAGM

Congenital diaphragmatic eventration is a rare developmental defect of the central, muscular portion of the diaphragm. The true prevalence is not known, but early reports identified this condition in less than 0.1% of adult.¹

Symptomatic patients usually experience dyspnea secondary to ventilation-perfusion mismatch resulting from chronic atelectasis and lung hypoplasia, as well as impaired ventilation resulting from the limited caudal migration of the diaphragm.^2,3 Increased susceptibility to recurrent upper respiratory tract infections and pneumonia is also a common feature.

Although rare, spontaneous pneumothorax can develop in patients such as ours, whose lengthy history of smoking and asthma predisposed him to the development of emphysema-like blebs and bullae and to subsequent rupture of blebs brought on by vigorous coughing that caused an involuntary Valsalva maneuver.⁴

As in our patient, distinguishing congenital diaphragmatic eventration from hernia preoperatively can be difficult with plain chest radiography. Spiral CT with multiplanar reconstruction or with magnetic resonance imaging can help establish the diagnosis.³ However, a severely attenuated diaphragm can be difficult to visualize on CT, as in our patient, leading to a presumptive diagnosis of diaphragmatic hernia. In such situations, the diagnosis of eventration can only be made intraoperatively.

Surgical repair is indicated only for patients with symptoms. Other potential causes of the symptoms should first be ruled out, however, including primary pulmonary disease, cardiac dysfunction, and morbid obesity.

Medial-compartment partial knee arthroplasty (unicompartmental replacement) is an accepted surgical intervention for anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee.1 The radiographic investigations required in the workup of these patients should include weight-bearing standing anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and sunrise (Merchant) views, as well as a valgus stress AP radiograph to assess the functionality of the lateral compartment. The method of properly obtaining the valgus stress film has been well described by the Oxford Group.2 Its recommended radiographic technique requires that a surgeon or a radiologic technologist perform the valgus stress maneuver, manually, while another technologist shoots the film. The 2 consequences of this technique are that it requires 2 individuals to obtain the film, and it subjects the individual who is applying the stress to some level of radiation exposure, which is undesirable. Because of this and the time inconvenience, many surgeons omit the valgus stress radiograph, which can lead to the adverse outcome of missing a lateral compartment that is functionally incompetent, resulting in the potential for early lateral compartment progression of osteoarthritis and the need for revision surgery, usually to a total knee arthroplasty.

In an attempt to mitigate these barriers to obtaining the necessary valgus stress radiograph, Dr. Mauerhan’s team developed a technique that could be done with the assistance of the patient and would require only 1 technologist to perform. Additionally, this project was a quality improvement initiative, because it lowered radiation exposure to all personnel involved in obtaining the correct films.

Materials and Methods

We initiated the project using weight-bearing strategies to impart the valgus stress view of the knee. After trying several different wedges and blocks, and varying patient instructions, we realized a different approach to this problem would be required to find an acceptable solution. We redirected our efforts to effectively performing the stress view with the patient in a supine position on the radiograph table. Ultimately, we decided that a much stiffer wedge and a denser object to squeeze would facilitate obtaining a proper film. Considering all available options, a youth size 4 soccer ball (diameter, 11 in) was introduced along with a slightly larger positioning wedge. The soccer ball was wrapped with 4-in Coban wrap (3M) to create a nonslip surface. This change in patient positioning, along with a standardized 7º to 10º cephalic radiographic tube angulation, helped to correct issues with tibial plateau visualization. Once these changes were enacted, we obtained fairly consistent positive results, and we instituted this patient-directed valgus stress view of the knee, along with a manual valgus stress view for comparison.

The protocol for obtaining the patient-directed valgus stress view of the knee is as follows: The patient lays supine with a dense 45º spine-positioning wedge (Burlington Medical Supplies) placed under both knees and the patient’s heels on the examining table. The radiographic tube is angled cephalad 7º to 10º centered on the inferior pole of the patella, using a 40-in source to image-receptor distance, collimated to part; the image receptor is placed under the affected knee, below the positioning wedge. The affected knee is rotated to the “true” AP position (the patella will be centered between the femoral condyles on the AP exposure), and the ball is placed between the patient’s legs just above the ankle joint. The technologist demonstrates to the patient how to squeeze the ball while maintaining contact of heels with the table. The technologist can exit the room and obtain the exposure, which is taken while the patient is squeezing the ball, as shown in Figures 1A and 1B. Examples of the standing AP, manual stress, and patient-directed valgus radiographs are shown in Figures 2A-2C. The entire technique is demonstrated in the Video.

Vidyard Video

 

 

Results

During the 9 months of this quality improvement project, 78 examinations were performed. Five studies did not show complete correction of the varus deformity. Of these, 3 showed complete correction on a manual valgus stress radiograph, and 2 did not, contraindicating the use of partial knee replacement. Three patients displayed collapse of the lateral compartment, indicating a nonfunctional lateral compartment, and, therefore, were also a contraindication to partial knee arthroplasty. The remaining 70 patients had identical radiographic results with both the manual and patient-directed valgus stress tests. There was no instance of examination failure or need to repeat as a result of difficulty of the examination for the patient. Repeat films because of positioning errors were very rare, usually early in the learning curve, and no more prevalent than when using the manual stress method. The technique was reproducible and easy to teach and adopt.

 

 

Discussion

In total, 73 patients (93.5%) with the patient-directed stress film showed the desired result, either correction of the medial compartment narrowing in conjunction with an intact lateral compartment or narrowing of the lateral compartment. Of the 5 patients (6.5%) whose patient-directed stress films did not show correction of the varus deformity, 3 patients displayed correction with a manually applied stress radiograph and 2 did not. Based on this observation, our recommendation would be for those patients who do not show adequate correction on the patient-directed stress radiograph to have a manual examination to establish the presence or absence of the desired correction.

Performing a valgus stress radiograph is an integral part of the investigation to determine if the patient is an appropriate candidate for partial knee arthroplasty.3 The historical, manually performed valgus stress radiograph requires 2 individuals, 1 to apply the stress with the patient on the table and 1 to shoot the exposure. For the individual or individuals applying this stress, there is an increased radiation exposure that would be undesirable over a long career. The authors developed a new technique using a commercially available spinal positioning wedge and 11-in youth soccer ball wrapped with Coban wrap, as described, which is economical and easy to obtain and use in the clinical setting. We believe this cost-effective method will offer surgeons who perform partial knee arthroplasty a novel method to obtain the important information gleaned from the valgus stress radiograph and to improve surgical outcomes through the preoperative assessment of the lateral compartment. Additionally, as a quality and safety improvement initiative, we believe this technique will reduce radiographic exposure for those performing these studies, and, because the examination can be carried out by a single technologist, it will significantly improve efficiency in the radiology suite.

Conclusion

We have developed a new method of obtaining the important valgus stress radiograph as part of the workup of patients with medial-compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. The technique can be performed with easily obtainable, commercially available products and is reliable 93.5% of the time. It also adds to the efficiency of the radiology suite and reduces radiographic exposure for technologists.

Medial-compartment partial knee arthroplasty (unicompartmental replacement) is an accepted surgical intervention for anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee.1 The radiographic investigations required in the workup of these patients should include weight-bearing standing anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and sunrise (Merchant) views, as well as a valgus stress AP radiograph to assess the functionality of the lateral compartment. The method of properly obtaining the valgus stress film has been well described by the Oxford Group.2 Its recommended radiographic technique requires that a surgeon or a radiologic technologist perform the valgus stress maneuver, manually, while another technologist shoots the film. The 2 consequences of this technique are that it requires 2 individuals to obtain the film, and it subjects the individual who is applying the stress to some level of radiation exposure, which is undesirable. Because of this and the time inconvenience, many surgeons omit the valgus stress radiograph, which can lead to the adverse outcome of missing a lateral compartment that is functionally incompetent, resulting in the potential for early lateral compartment progression of osteoarthritis and the need for revision surgery, usually to a total knee arthroplasty.

In an attempt to mitigate these barriers to obtaining the necessary valgus stress radiograph, Dr. Mauerhan’s team developed a technique that could be done with the assistance of the patient and would require only 1 technologist to perform. Additionally, this project was a quality improvement initiative, because it lowered radiation exposure to all personnel involved in obtaining the correct films.

Materials and Methods

We initiated the project using weight-bearing strategies to impart the valgus stress view of the knee. After trying several different wedges and blocks, and varying patient instructions, we realized a different approach to this problem would be required to find an acceptable solution. We redirected our efforts to effectively performing the stress view with the patient in a supine position on the radiograph table. Ultimately, we decided that a much stiffer wedge and a denser object to squeeze would facilitate obtaining a proper film. Considering all available options, a youth size 4 soccer ball (diameter, 11 in) was introduced along with a slightly larger positioning wedge. The soccer ball was wrapped with 4-in Coban wrap (3M) to create a nonslip surface. This change in patient positioning, along with a standardized 7º to 10º cephalic radiographic tube angulation, helped to correct issues with tibial plateau visualization. Once these changes were enacted, we obtained fairly consistent positive results, and we instituted this patient-directed valgus stress view of the knee, along with a manual valgus stress view for comparison.

The protocol for obtaining the patient-directed valgus stress view of the knee is as follows: The patient lays supine with a dense 45º spine-positioning wedge (Burlington Medical Supplies) placed under both knees and the patient’s heels on the examining table. The radiographic tube is angled cephalad 7º to 10º centered on the inferior pole of the patella, using a 40-in source to image-receptor distance, collimated to part; the image receptor is placed under the affected knee, below the positioning wedge. The affected knee is rotated to the “true” AP position (the patella will be centered between the femoral condyles on the AP exposure), and the ball is placed between the patient’s legs just above the ankle joint. The technologist demonstrates to the patient how to squeeze the ball while maintaining contact of heels with the table. The technologist can exit the room and obtain the exposure, which is taken while the patient is squeezing the ball, as shown in Figures 1A and 1B. Examples of the standing AP, manual stress, and patient-directed valgus radiographs are shown in Figures 2A-2C. The entire technique is demonstrated in the Video.

Vidyard Video

 

 

Results

During the 9 months of this quality improvement project, 78 examinations were performed. Five studies did not show complete correction of the varus deformity. Of these, 3 showed complete correction on a manual valgus stress radiograph, and 2 did not, contraindicating the use of partial knee replacement. Three patients displayed collapse of the lateral compartment, indicating a nonfunctional lateral compartment, and, therefore, were also a contraindication to partial knee arthroplasty. The remaining 70 patients had identical radiographic results with both the manual and patient-directed valgus stress tests. There was no instance of examination failure or need to repeat as a result of difficulty of the examination for the patient. Repeat films because of positioning errors were very rare, usually early in the learning curve, and no more prevalent than when using the manual stress method. The technique was reproducible and easy to teach and adopt.

 

 

Discussion

In total, 73 patients (93.5%) with the patient-directed stress film showed the desired result, either correction of the medial compartment narrowing in conjunction with an intact lateral compartment or narrowing of the lateral compartment. Of the 5 patients (6.5%) whose patient-directed stress films did not show correction of the varus deformity, 3 patients displayed correction with a manually applied stress radiograph and 2 did not. Based on this observation, our recommendation would be for those patients who do not show adequate correction on the patient-directed stress radiograph to have a manual examination to establish the presence or absence of the desired correction.

Performing a valgus stress radiograph is an integral part of the investigation to determine if the patient is an appropriate candidate for partial knee arthroplasty.3 The historical, manually performed valgus stress radiograph requires 2 individuals, 1 to apply the stress with the patient on the table and 1 to shoot the exposure. For the individual or individuals applying this stress, there is an increased radiation exposure that would be undesirable over a long career. The authors developed a new technique using a commercially available spinal positioning wedge and 11-in youth soccer ball wrapped with Coban wrap, as described, which is economical and easy to obtain and use in the clinical setting. We believe this cost-effective method will offer surgeons who perform partial knee arthroplasty a novel method to obtain the important information gleaned from the valgus stress radiograph and to improve surgical outcomes through the preoperative assessment of the lateral compartment. Additionally, as a quality and safety improvement initiative, we believe this technique will reduce radiographic exposure for those performing these studies, and, because the examination can be carried out by a single technologist, it will significantly improve efficiency in the radiology suite.

Conclusion

We have developed a new method of obtaining the important valgus stress radiograph as part of the workup of patients with medial-compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. The technique can be performed with easily obtainable, commercially available products and is reliable 93.5% of the time. It also adds to the efficiency of the radiology suite and reduces radiographic exposure for technologists.

Medial-compartment partial knee arthroplasty (unicompartmental replacement) is an accepted surgical intervention for anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee.1 The radiographic investigations required in the workup of these patients should include weight-bearing standing anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and sunrise (Merchant) views, as well as a valgus stress AP radiograph to assess the functionality of the lateral compartment. The method of properly obtaining the valgus stress film has been well described by the Oxford Group.2 Its recommended radiographic technique requires that a surgeon or a radiologic technologist perform the valgus stress maneuver, manually, while another technologist shoots the film. The 2 consequences of this technique are that it requires 2 individuals to obtain the film, and it subjects the individual who is applying the stress to some level of radiation exposure, which is undesirable. Because of this and the time inconvenience, many surgeons omit the valgus stress radiograph, which can lead to the adverse outcome of missing a lateral compartment that is functionally incompetent, resulting in the potential for early lateral compartment progression of osteoarthritis and the need for revision surgery, usually to a total knee arthroplasty.

In an attempt to mitigate these barriers to obtaining the necessary valgus stress radiograph, Dr. Mauerhan’s team developed a technique that could be done with the assistance of the patient and would require only 1 technologist to perform. Additionally, this project was a quality improvement initiative, because it lowered radiation exposure to all personnel involved in obtaining the correct films.

Materials and Methods

We initiated the project using weight-bearing strategies to impart the valgus stress view of the knee. After trying several different wedges and blocks, and varying patient instructions, we realized a different approach to this problem would be required to find an acceptable solution. We redirected our efforts to effectively performing the stress view with the patient in a supine position on the radiograph table. Ultimately, we decided that a much stiffer wedge and a denser object to squeeze would facilitate obtaining a proper film. Considering all available options, a youth size 4 soccer ball (diameter, 11 in) was introduced along with a slightly larger positioning wedge. The soccer ball was wrapped with 4-in Coban wrap (3M) to create a nonslip surface. This change in patient positioning, along with a standardized 7º to 10º cephalic radiographic tube angulation, helped to correct issues with tibial plateau visualization. Once these changes were enacted, we obtained fairly consistent positive results, and we instituted this patient-directed valgus stress view of the knee, along with a manual valgus stress view for comparison.

The protocol for obtaining the patient-directed valgus stress view of the knee is as follows: The patient lays supine with a dense 45º spine-positioning wedge (Burlington Medical Supplies) placed under both knees and the patient’s heels on the examining table. The radiographic tube is angled cephalad 7º to 10º centered on the inferior pole of the patella, using a 40-in source to image-receptor distance, collimated to part; the image receptor is placed under the affected knee, below the positioning wedge. The affected knee is rotated to the “true” AP position (the patella will be centered between the femoral condyles on the AP exposure), and the ball is placed between the patient’s legs just above the ankle joint. The technologist demonstrates to the patient how to squeeze the ball while maintaining contact of heels with the table. The technologist can exit the room and obtain the exposure, which is taken while the patient is squeezing the ball, as shown in Figures 1A and 1B. Examples of the standing AP, manual stress, and patient-directed valgus radiographs are shown in Figures 2A-2C. The entire technique is demonstrated in the Video.

Vidyard Video

 

 

Results

During the 9 months of this quality improvement project, 78 examinations were performed. Five studies did not show complete correction of the varus deformity. Of these, 3 showed complete correction on a manual valgus stress radiograph, and 2 did not, contraindicating the use of partial knee replacement. Three patients displayed collapse of the lateral compartment, indicating a nonfunctional lateral compartment, and, therefore, were also a contraindication to partial knee arthroplasty. The remaining 70 patients had identical radiographic results with both the manual and patient-directed valgus stress tests. There was no instance of examination failure or need to repeat as a result of difficulty of the examination for the patient. Repeat films because of positioning errors were very rare, usually early in the learning curve, and no more prevalent than when using the manual stress method. The technique was reproducible and easy to teach and adopt.

 

 

Discussion

In total, 73 patients (93.5%) with the patient-directed stress film showed the desired result, either correction of the medial compartment narrowing in conjunction with an intact lateral compartment or narrowing of the lateral compartment. Of the 5 patients (6.5%) whose patient-directed stress films did not show correction of the varus deformity, 3 patients displayed correction with a manually applied stress radiograph and 2 did not. Based on this observation, our recommendation would be for those patients who do not show adequate correction on the patient-directed stress radiograph to have a manual examination to establish the presence or absence of the desired correction.

Performing a valgus stress radiograph is an integral part of the investigation to determine if the patient is an appropriate candidate for partial knee arthroplasty.3 The historical, manually performed valgus stress radiograph requires 2 individuals, 1 to apply the stress with the patient on the table and 1 to shoot the exposure. For the individual or individuals applying this stress, there is an increased radiation exposure that would be undesirable over a long career. The authors developed a new technique using a commercially available spinal positioning wedge and 11-in youth soccer ball wrapped with Coban wrap, as described, which is economical and easy to obtain and use in the clinical setting. We believe this cost-effective method will offer surgeons who perform partial knee arthroplasty a novel method to obtain the important information gleaned from the valgus stress radiograph and to improve surgical outcomes through the preoperative assessment of the lateral compartment. Additionally, as a quality and safety improvement initiative, we believe this technique will reduce radiographic exposure for those performing these studies, and, because the examination can be carried out by a single technologist, it will significantly improve efficiency in the radiology suite.

Conclusion

We have developed a new method of obtaining the important valgus stress radiograph as part of the workup of patients with medial-compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. The technique can be performed with easily obtainable, commercially available products and is reliable 93.5% of the time. It also adds to the efficiency of the radiology suite and reduces radiographic exposure for technologists.

Spondylolysis is a bone defect of the pars interarticularis. It is usually seen in adolescents who participate in sporting activities that involve repetitive axial loads to a hyperextended lower back, such as football offensive lineman, throwing athletes, and gymnasts. It occurs frequently in the L5 pars and can be unilateral or bilateral. The majority of reported multiple-level spondylolysis is at consecutive lumbar segments.^1-6 Rarely, it affects noncontiguous levels. Most patients respond well to conservative treatment in the form of activity modification and orthosis.⁷ Surgical intervention is considered if 6 months of conservative management fails, spondylolisthesis develops, or intractable neurologic symptoms arise.

This case report presents an 18-year-old man with noncontiguous spondylolysis at L2 and L5 who was successfully treated with a 1-level pars repair at L2 after failed conservative management. This unique case highlights the importance of using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan and diagnostic pars block when planning for surgical treatment in the rare cases of noncontiguous spondylolysis. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

An 18-year-old man presented to the clinic with worsening lower back pain for the previous 4 weeks. He was playing high school baseball and stated the pain was worse when he swung his bat. He had no history of trauma or back pain. Rest was the only alleviating factor, and he was beginning to experience pain when he stood after sitting. He denied any radicular pain. On examination, he had midline tenderness along the upper lumbar spine and pain with lumbar spine extension. His neurologic examination showed normal sensation with 5/5 strength in all key muscle groups. Plain radiograph of the lumbar spine showed an L5 pars defect (Figures 1A, 1B). A SPECT scan showed increased uptake at L2 pars bilaterally; the L5 pars did not show increased uptake (Figures 2A, 2B). A computed tomography (CT) scan confirmed bilateral L2 pars fractures and a left L5 pars fracture (Figures 3A, 3B). Bony changes in the form of marginal sclerosis at the L5, but not the L2, pars suggested that the L2 fracture was acute while the L5 fracture was chronic (Figures 4A, 4B).

The patient had conservative management for 6 months in the form of lumbosacral orthosis (LSO), cessation of sports activities, and physical therapy. The patient was initially treated with an LSO brace for 3 months, after which he had physical therapy. At 6 month follow-up, he reported continuing, significant back pain. A repeat CT scan of the lumbar spine showed no interval healing of the bilateral L2 or the unilateral L5 pars fractures. As a result of the patient’s noncontiguous pars fractures, a diagnostic CT-guided block of L2 pars was performed to identify which level was his main pain generator (Figure 5). He reported a brief period of complete pain relief after the L2 pars block. With failure of 6 months’ conservative management and positive SPECT scan and diagnostic block, surgical treatment was recommended. Prior to surgical intervention, magnetic resonance imaging was obtained to rule out pathology (eg, disc degeneration, infection, or tumor) other than the pars defect that could require fusion instead of pars repair (Figures 6A, 6B). Because of the patient’s young age, bilateral L2 pars repair rather than fusion was indicated. After 8 months of persistent back pain, he underwent bilateral L2 pars repair with iliac crest autograft, pedicle screws, and sublaminar hook fixation (Figures 7A, 7B). The patient had an uneventful immediate postoperative course. A 6-month postoperative CT scan showed bridging callus at the L2 pars; however, the left L5 pars fracture was still visible (Figures 8A-8C). Over a 6-month postoperative period, the patient had continued improvement in his back pain, advanced his activity as tolerated without problem, and was allowed to resume his sports activities. At 2-year follow-up, he was playing baseball and basketball, and denied any back pain. 

Discussion

Lumbar spondylolysis is commonly seen at the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae, and accounts for more than 95% of spondylolysis cases.⁸ Multiple-level spondylolysis is a relatively rare finding with an incidence varying between 1.2% and 5.6%. The majority of the reported multiple-level cases are adjacent.^1-3,6 Adolescents often present with a history of insidious-onset low back pain without radicular symptoms that is exacerbated by activity. Occasionally, an acute injury may elicit the onset of pain. A thorough history with emphasis on pain in relation to activity and sports involvement is beneficial. The patient in the current study was a throwing athlete and presented with 4 weeks of back pain that worsened with activity; he had no history of trauma.

Radiographic assessment using standing anteroposterior, lateral, and oblique radiographs of the thoracolumbar spine is useful in the initial assessment. A SPECT scan of the lumbosacral spine is highly sensitive for identifying spondylolytic defects when plain radiographs are within normal limits, yet a high index of suspicion remains given the patient’s history and physical examination findings.^9,10 Increased radionuclide uptake within the pars indicates a stress reaction and, possibly, a more acute pathology. The plain radiographs of the patient showed only L5 spondylolysis. However, a SPECT scan showed only increased uptake in L2 pars on both sides. These findings suggested chronic L5 and acute L2 pars defects. A thin-cut CT scan gives the best visualization of pars defect and can help in differentiating chronic defect with sclerotic margins versus acute defect with hazy irregular margins. In the current case, the CT scan showed changes consistent with unilateral chronic L5 and bilateral acute L2 pars defects.

The origin of the pain in spondylolysis is from the tissues rich in nociceptive nerve endings in the loose posterior arch. A CT-guided pars block is a very useful diagnostic preoperative tool that confirms the symptomatic level in cases of multilevel pars defect, especially if they are noncontiguous. In this case, the diagnostic preoperative bilateral L2 pars block confirmed that the pain generator was the acute L2 rather than the chronic L5 pars defect. This step assured that surgical treatment involving only the L2 level would be beneficial in alleviating the patient’s back pain after the failure of 6 months of conservative treatment.

Most patients with single-level spondylolysis respond to conservative treatment, especially after early diagnosis and treatment. The traditional nonoperative treatment of children and adolescents with a symptomatic spondylolytic lesion was a period of rest and progressive increased activity with physical therapy. Immobilization with an LSO was reserved for individuals who did not respond to rest and physical therapy.¹¹ However, multiple studies revealed early immobilization achieved results superior to activity restriction alone, and individuals who underwent a period of activity restriction prior to bracing were more likely to experience persistent symptoms.^12-14 Our patient underwent conservative treatment for 6 months, in the form of LSO, cessation of sport activities, and physical therapy, which failed to give him relief of his back pain.

Surgical intervention is warranted for adolescents with persistent, debilitating pain intractable to at least a 6-month period of nonoperative management. Additional indications for surgical management are those individuals who present with neurologic deficits and isthmic spondylolisthesis. Surgical treatment involves direct pars repair with iliac crest bone graft and use of a sublaminar hook/pedicle screw construct, cerclage wire, or pars screw.^15-18 

In contrast to single-level pars defects that respond well to conservative treatment, there are conflicting reports regarding the management of multiple-level pars fractures; a few reports suggest good outcome with conservative management, but the majority state that surgery is often required and conservative measures are rarely useful.^1-4,6 Nayeemuddin and colleagues¹⁹ reported a case of a 16-year-old football player who presented with a 4-month history of constant low back pain related to bilateral L3 and L5 pars defects that responded to 1 year of conservative management, when the more acute fractures at L3 showed complete bony union and the patient had symptomatic pain relief and was able to return to full sporting activity.

 Chang and colleagues² reported 10 patients with adjacent 2-level bilateral spondylolysis treated successfully using a pedicle screw–hook construct with autogenous bone grafting. Ogawa and colleagues⁵ reported adjacent 2-level spondylolysis in 5 patients and 3-level spondylolysis in 2 patients, who were treated successfully by segmental wire fixation and bone grafting. Ivanic and colleagues¹⁵ retrospectively reviewed 113 patients with spondylolysis who were treated with direct repair using a hook-screw construct and showed a pseudoarthrosis rate of 13.3%. Superior fusion rates were observed in patients 14 years and younger compared with older patients, particularly those 20 years and older.¹⁵ Roca and colleagues¹⁶ prospectively analyzed 19 consecutive cases of spondylolysis that were repaired using a hook-screw construct. Twelve of 13 patients (92%) who were 20 years or younger at the time of the study (average age, 17.2 years) had fusion, whereas, in 6 patients 21 years and older (average age, 27.5 years), no cases of fusion were observed. The patients 20 years or younger had significantly better clinical results than those obtained in the patients 21 years and older. The authors concluded that pedicle screw–hook fixation is a useful alternative in the treatment of spondylolysis in adolescents, but did not recommend this procedure in patients older than 20 years.¹⁶

Conclusion

The current case demonstrates a unique example of rare noncontiguous pars defects successfully treated with primary repair of 1 level when conservative management failed and the symptomatic defect was isolated. It also highlights the importance of investigating the entirety of the lumbar spine when diagnosis of L5 spondylolysis rules out noncontiguous pars defects. The treatment of noncontiguous pars defects is not well defined; this case showed the importance of using a SPECT scan and a diagnostic pars block to help isolate the symptomatic level when surgical management is considered after a failure of conservative treatment. This case shows 2 possible results: the chronic unilateral L5 defect responded to nonsurgical treatment with asymptomatic fibrous nonunion, while the more acute bilateral L2 defect responded to pars repair with pedicle screw–hook fixation and iliac crest bone graft. 

Spondylolysis is a bone defect of the pars interarticularis. It is usually seen in adolescents who participate in sporting activities that involve repetitive axial loads to a hyperextended lower back, such as football offensive lineman, throwing athletes, and gymnasts. It occurs frequently in the L5 pars and can be unilateral or bilateral. The majority of reported multiple-level spondylolysis is at consecutive lumbar segments.^1-6 Rarely, it affects noncontiguous levels. Most patients respond well to conservative treatment in the form of activity modification and orthosis.⁷ Surgical intervention is considered if 6 months of conservative management fails, spondylolisthesis develops, or intractable neurologic symptoms arise.

This case report presents an 18-year-old man with noncontiguous spondylolysis at L2 and L5 who was successfully treated with a 1-level pars repair at L2 after failed conservative management. This unique case highlights the importance of using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan and diagnostic pars block when planning for surgical treatment in the rare cases of noncontiguous spondylolysis. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

An 18-year-old man presented to the clinic with worsening lower back pain for the previous 4 weeks. He was playing high school baseball and stated the pain was worse when he swung his bat. He had no history of trauma or back pain. Rest was the only alleviating factor, and he was beginning to experience pain when he stood after sitting. He denied any radicular pain. On examination, he had midline tenderness along the upper lumbar spine and pain with lumbar spine extension. His neurologic examination showed normal sensation with 5/5 strength in all key muscle groups. Plain radiograph of the lumbar spine showed an L5 pars defect (Figures 1A, 1B). A SPECT scan showed increased uptake at L2 pars bilaterally; the L5 pars did not show increased uptake (Figures 2A, 2B). A computed tomography (CT) scan confirmed bilateral L2 pars fractures and a left L5 pars fracture (Figures 3A, 3B). Bony changes in the form of marginal sclerosis at the L5, but not the L2, pars suggested that the L2 fracture was acute while the L5 fracture was chronic (Figures 4A, 4B).

The patient had conservative management for 6 months in the form of lumbosacral orthosis (LSO), cessation of sports activities, and physical therapy. The patient was initially treated with an LSO brace for 3 months, after which he had physical therapy. At 6 month follow-up, he reported continuing, significant back pain. A repeat CT scan of the lumbar spine showed no interval healing of the bilateral L2 or the unilateral L5 pars fractures. As a result of the patient’s noncontiguous pars fractures, a diagnostic CT-guided block of L2 pars was performed to identify which level was his main pain generator (Figure 5). He reported a brief period of complete pain relief after the L2 pars block. With failure of 6 months’ conservative management and positive SPECT scan and diagnostic block, surgical treatment was recommended. Prior to surgical intervention, magnetic resonance imaging was obtained to rule out pathology (eg, disc degeneration, infection, or tumor) other than the pars defect that could require fusion instead of pars repair (Figures 6A, 6B). Because of the patient’s young age, bilateral L2 pars repair rather than fusion was indicated. After 8 months of persistent back pain, he underwent bilateral L2 pars repair with iliac crest autograft, pedicle screws, and sublaminar hook fixation (Figures 7A, 7B). The patient had an uneventful immediate postoperative course. A 6-month postoperative CT scan showed bridging callus at the L2 pars; however, the left L5 pars fracture was still visible (Figures 8A-8C). Over a 6-month postoperative period, the patient had continued improvement in his back pain, advanced his activity as tolerated without problem, and was allowed to resume his sports activities. At 2-year follow-up, he was playing baseball and basketball, and denied any back pain. 

Discussion

Lumbar spondylolysis is commonly seen at the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae, and accounts for more than 95% of spondylolysis cases.⁸ Multiple-level spondylolysis is a relatively rare finding with an incidence varying between 1.2% and 5.6%. The majority of the reported multiple-level cases are adjacent.^1-3,6 Adolescents often present with a history of insidious-onset low back pain without radicular symptoms that is exacerbated by activity. Occasionally, an acute injury may elicit the onset of pain. A thorough history with emphasis on pain in relation to activity and sports involvement is beneficial. The patient in the current study was a throwing athlete and presented with 4 weeks of back pain that worsened with activity; he had no history of trauma.

Radiographic assessment using standing anteroposterior, lateral, and oblique radiographs of the thoracolumbar spine is useful in the initial assessment. A SPECT scan of the lumbosacral spine is highly sensitive for identifying spondylolytic defects when plain radiographs are within normal limits, yet a high index of suspicion remains given the patient’s history and physical examination findings.^9,10 Increased radionuclide uptake within the pars indicates a stress reaction and, possibly, a more acute pathology. The plain radiographs of the patient showed only L5 spondylolysis. However, a SPECT scan showed only increased uptake in L2 pars on both sides. These findings suggested chronic L5 and acute L2 pars defects. A thin-cut CT scan gives the best visualization of pars defect and can help in differentiating chronic defect with sclerotic margins versus acute defect with hazy irregular margins. In the current case, the CT scan showed changes consistent with unilateral chronic L5 and bilateral acute L2 pars defects.

The origin of the pain in spondylolysis is from the tissues rich in nociceptive nerve endings in the loose posterior arch. A CT-guided pars block is a very useful diagnostic preoperative tool that confirms the symptomatic level in cases of multilevel pars defect, especially if they are noncontiguous. In this case, the diagnostic preoperative bilateral L2 pars block confirmed that the pain generator was the acute L2 rather than the chronic L5 pars defect. This step assured that surgical treatment involving only the L2 level would be beneficial in alleviating the patient’s back pain after the failure of 6 months of conservative treatment.

Most patients with single-level spondylolysis respond to conservative treatment, especially after early diagnosis and treatment. The traditional nonoperative treatment of children and adolescents with a symptomatic spondylolytic lesion was a period of rest and progressive increased activity with physical therapy. Immobilization with an LSO was reserved for individuals who did not respond to rest and physical therapy.¹¹ However, multiple studies revealed early immobilization achieved results superior to activity restriction alone, and individuals who underwent a period of activity restriction prior to bracing were more likely to experience persistent symptoms.^12-14 Our patient underwent conservative treatment for 6 months, in the form of LSO, cessation of sport activities, and physical therapy, which failed to give him relief of his back pain.

Surgical intervention is warranted for adolescents with persistent, debilitating pain intractable to at least a 6-month period of nonoperative management. Additional indications for surgical management are those individuals who present with neurologic deficits and isthmic spondylolisthesis. Surgical treatment involves direct pars repair with iliac crest bone graft and use of a sublaminar hook/pedicle screw construct, cerclage wire, or pars screw.^15-18 

In contrast to single-level pars defects that respond well to conservative treatment, there are conflicting reports regarding the management of multiple-level pars fractures; a few reports suggest good outcome with conservative management, but the majority state that surgery is often required and conservative measures are rarely useful.^1-4,6 Nayeemuddin and colleagues¹⁹ reported a case of a 16-year-old football player who presented with a 4-month history of constant low back pain related to bilateral L3 and L5 pars defects that responded to 1 year of conservative management, when the more acute fractures at L3 showed complete bony union and the patient had symptomatic pain relief and was able to return to full sporting activity.

 Chang and colleagues² reported 10 patients with adjacent 2-level bilateral spondylolysis treated successfully using a pedicle screw–hook construct with autogenous bone grafting. Ogawa and colleagues⁵ reported adjacent 2-level spondylolysis in 5 patients and 3-level spondylolysis in 2 patients, who were treated successfully by segmental wire fixation and bone grafting. Ivanic and colleagues¹⁵ retrospectively reviewed 113 patients with spondylolysis who were treated with direct repair using a hook-screw construct and showed a pseudoarthrosis rate of 13.3%. Superior fusion rates were observed in patients 14 years and younger compared with older patients, particularly those 20 years and older.¹⁵ Roca and colleagues¹⁶ prospectively analyzed 19 consecutive cases of spondylolysis that were repaired using a hook-screw construct. Twelve of 13 patients (92%) who were 20 years or younger at the time of the study (average age, 17.2 years) had fusion, whereas, in 6 patients 21 years and older (average age, 27.5 years), no cases of fusion were observed. The patients 20 years or younger had significantly better clinical results than those obtained in the patients 21 years and older. The authors concluded that pedicle screw–hook fixation is a useful alternative in the treatment of spondylolysis in adolescents, but did not recommend this procedure in patients older than 20 years.¹⁶

Conclusion

The current case demonstrates a unique example of rare noncontiguous pars defects successfully treated with primary repair of 1 level when conservative management failed and the symptomatic defect was isolated. It also highlights the importance of investigating the entirety of the lumbar spine when diagnosis of L5 spondylolysis rules out noncontiguous pars defects. The treatment of noncontiguous pars defects is not well defined; this case showed the importance of using a SPECT scan and a diagnostic pars block to help isolate the symptomatic level when surgical management is considered after a failure of conservative treatment. This case shows 2 possible results: the chronic unilateral L5 defect responded to nonsurgical treatment with asymptomatic fibrous nonunion, while the more acute bilateral L2 defect responded to pars repair with pedicle screw–hook fixation and iliac crest bone graft. 

Spondylolysis is a bone defect of the pars interarticularis. It is usually seen in adolescents who participate in sporting activities that involve repetitive axial loads to a hyperextended lower back, such as football offensive lineman, throwing athletes, and gymnasts. It occurs frequently in the L5 pars and can be unilateral or bilateral. The majority of reported multiple-level spondylolysis is at consecutive lumbar segments.^1-6 Rarely, it affects noncontiguous levels. Most patients respond well to conservative treatment in the form of activity modification and orthosis.⁷ Surgical intervention is considered if 6 months of conservative management fails, spondylolisthesis develops, or intractable neurologic symptoms arise.

This case report presents an 18-year-old man with noncontiguous spondylolysis at L2 and L5 who was successfully treated with a 1-level pars repair at L2 after failed conservative management. This unique case highlights the importance of using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan and diagnostic pars block when planning for surgical treatment in the rare cases of noncontiguous spondylolysis. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

An 18-year-old man presented to the clinic with worsening lower back pain for the previous 4 weeks. He was playing high school baseball and stated the pain was worse when he swung his bat. He had no history of trauma or back pain. Rest was the only alleviating factor, and he was beginning to experience pain when he stood after sitting. He denied any radicular pain. On examination, he had midline tenderness along the upper lumbar spine and pain with lumbar spine extension. His neurologic examination showed normal sensation with 5/5 strength in all key muscle groups. Plain radiograph of the lumbar spine showed an L5 pars defect (Figures 1A, 1B). A SPECT scan showed increased uptake at L2 pars bilaterally; the L5 pars did not show increased uptake (Figures 2A, 2B). A computed tomography (CT) scan confirmed bilateral L2 pars fractures and a left L5 pars fracture (Figures 3A, 3B). Bony changes in the form of marginal sclerosis at the L5, but not the L2, pars suggested that the L2 fracture was acute while the L5 fracture was chronic (Figures 4A, 4B).

The patient had conservative management for 6 months in the form of lumbosacral orthosis (LSO), cessation of sports activities, and physical therapy. The patient was initially treated with an LSO brace for 3 months, after which he had physical therapy. At 6 month follow-up, he reported continuing, significant back pain. A repeat CT scan of the lumbar spine showed no interval healing of the bilateral L2 or the unilateral L5 pars fractures. As a result of the patient’s noncontiguous pars fractures, a diagnostic CT-guided block of L2 pars was performed to identify which level was his main pain generator (Figure 5). He reported a brief period of complete pain relief after the L2 pars block. With failure of 6 months’ conservative management and positive SPECT scan and diagnostic block, surgical treatment was recommended. Prior to surgical intervention, magnetic resonance imaging was obtained to rule out pathology (eg, disc degeneration, infection, or tumor) other than the pars defect that could require fusion instead of pars repair (Figures 6A, 6B). Because of the patient’s young age, bilateral L2 pars repair rather than fusion was indicated. After 8 months of persistent back pain, he underwent bilateral L2 pars repair with iliac crest autograft, pedicle screws, and sublaminar hook fixation (Figures 7A, 7B). The patient had an uneventful immediate postoperative course. A 6-month postoperative CT scan showed bridging callus at the L2 pars; however, the left L5 pars fracture was still visible (Figures 8A-8C). Over a 6-month postoperative period, the patient had continued improvement in his back pain, advanced his activity as tolerated without problem, and was allowed to resume his sports activities. At 2-year follow-up, he was playing baseball and basketball, and denied any back pain. 

Discussion

Lumbar spondylolysis is commonly seen at the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae, and accounts for more than 95% of spondylolysis cases.⁸ Multiple-level spondylolysis is a relatively rare finding with an incidence varying between 1.2% and 5.6%. The majority of the reported multiple-level cases are adjacent.^1-3,6 Adolescents often present with a history of insidious-onset low back pain without radicular symptoms that is exacerbated by activity. Occasionally, an acute injury may elicit the onset of pain. A thorough history with emphasis on pain in relation to activity and sports involvement is beneficial. The patient in the current study was a throwing athlete and presented with 4 weeks of back pain that worsened with activity; he had no history of trauma.

Radiographic assessment using standing anteroposterior, lateral, and oblique radiographs of the thoracolumbar spine is useful in the initial assessment. A SPECT scan of the lumbosacral spine is highly sensitive for identifying spondylolytic defects when plain radiographs are within normal limits, yet a high index of suspicion remains given the patient’s history and physical examination findings.^9,10 Increased radionuclide uptake within the pars indicates a stress reaction and, possibly, a more acute pathology. The plain radiographs of the patient showed only L5 spondylolysis. However, a SPECT scan showed only increased uptake in L2 pars on both sides. These findings suggested chronic L5 and acute L2 pars defects. A thin-cut CT scan gives the best visualization of pars defect and can help in differentiating chronic defect with sclerotic margins versus acute defect with hazy irregular margins. In the current case, the CT scan showed changes consistent with unilateral chronic L5 and bilateral acute L2 pars defects.

The origin of the pain in spondylolysis is from the tissues rich in nociceptive nerve endings in the loose posterior arch. A CT-guided pars block is a very useful diagnostic preoperative tool that confirms the symptomatic level in cases of multilevel pars defect, especially if they are noncontiguous. In this case, the diagnostic preoperative bilateral L2 pars block confirmed that the pain generator was the acute L2 rather than the chronic L5 pars defect. This step assured that surgical treatment involving only the L2 level would be beneficial in alleviating the patient’s back pain after the failure of 6 months of conservative treatment.

Most patients with single-level spondylolysis respond to conservative treatment, especially after early diagnosis and treatment. The traditional nonoperative treatment of children and adolescents with a symptomatic spondylolytic lesion was a period of rest and progressive increased activity with physical therapy. Immobilization with an LSO was reserved for individuals who did not respond to rest and physical therapy.¹¹ However, multiple studies revealed early immobilization achieved results superior to activity restriction alone, and individuals who underwent a period of activity restriction prior to bracing were more likely to experience persistent symptoms.^12-14 Our patient underwent conservative treatment for 6 months, in the form of LSO, cessation of sport activities, and physical therapy, which failed to give him relief of his back pain.

Surgical intervention is warranted for adolescents with persistent, debilitating pain intractable to at least a 6-month period of nonoperative management. Additional indications for surgical management are those individuals who present with neurologic deficits and isthmic spondylolisthesis. Surgical treatment involves direct pars repair with iliac crest bone graft and use of a sublaminar hook/pedicle screw construct, cerclage wire, or pars screw.^15-18 

In contrast to single-level pars defects that respond well to conservative treatment, there are conflicting reports regarding the management of multiple-level pars fractures; a few reports suggest good outcome with conservative management, but the majority state that surgery is often required and conservative measures are rarely useful.^1-4,6 Nayeemuddin and colleagues¹⁹ reported a case of a 16-year-old football player who presented with a 4-month history of constant low back pain related to bilateral L3 and L5 pars defects that responded to 1 year of conservative management, when the more acute fractures at L3 showed complete bony union and the patient had symptomatic pain relief and was able to return to full sporting activity.

 Chang and colleagues² reported 10 patients with adjacent 2-level bilateral spondylolysis treated successfully using a pedicle screw–hook construct with autogenous bone grafting. Ogawa and colleagues⁵ reported adjacent 2-level spondylolysis in 5 patients and 3-level spondylolysis in 2 patients, who were treated successfully by segmental wire fixation and bone grafting. Ivanic and colleagues¹⁵ retrospectively reviewed 113 patients with spondylolysis who were treated with direct repair using a hook-screw construct and showed a pseudoarthrosis rate of 13.3%. Superior fusion rates were observed in patients 14 years and younger compared with older patients, particularly those 20 years and older.¹⁵ Roca and colleagues¹⁶ prospectively analyzed 19 consecutive cases of spondylolysis that were repaired using a hook-screw construct. Twelve of 13 patients (92%) who were 20 years or younger at the time of the study (average age, 17.2 years) had fusion, whereas, in 6 patients 21 years and older (average age, 27.5 years), no cases of fusion were observed. The patients 20 years or younger had significantly better clinical results than those obtained in the patients 21 years and older. The authors concluded that pedicle screw–hook fixation is a useful alternative in the treatment of spondylolysis in adolescents, but did not recommend this procedure in patients older than 20 years.¹⁶

Conclusion

The current case demonstrates a unique example of rare noncontiguous pars defects successfully treated with primary repair of 1 level when conservative management failed and the symptomatic defect was isolated. It also highlights the importance of investigating the entirety of the lumbar spine when diagnosis of L5 spondylolysis rules out noncontiguous pars defects. The treatment of noncontiguous pars defects is not well defined; this case showed the importance of using a SPECT scan and a diagnostic pars block to help isolate the symptomatic level when surgical management is considered after a failure of conservative treatment. This case shows 2 possible results: the chronic unilateral L5 defect responded to nonsurgical treatment with asymptomatic fibrous nonunion, while the more acute bilateral L2 defect responded to pars repair with pedicle screw–hook fixation and iliac crest bone graft.