Skip to main content
Frontiers in Pediatrics logoLink to Frontiers in Pediatrics
. 2026 Jan 5;13:1682441. doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1682441

Anatomical site variations in healing of pediatric femoral shaft fractures: ultrasound evaluation of conservative treatment

Xiang Li 1,2,3,4,5,†, Junxia Song 6,†, Yuan Zhang 1,4,5, Jun Wu 1,4,5, Xing Liu 1,4,5,*
PMCID: PMC12812909  PMID: 41561506

Abstract

Objective

Ultrasonography is a new alternative to conventional x-ray in fracture examination that avoids radiation damage, but it is unclear whether it can assess fracture healing in children. In this study, we propose to utilize Color Doppler ultrasound to examine in conservative treatment for pediatric femoral shaft fractures, aiming to determine whether there were differences in bone healing at different diaphyseal sites, thereby clarifying the value of ultrasound in fracture healing assessment.

Methods

We performed a prospective observational study to investigate children with femoral shaft fractures treated conservatively who were admitted to our hospital from March 2017 to December 2021. All cases were divided into three groups according to the site of the fracture: upper, middle, and lower segments, and the children were followed-up and observed using Color Doppler ultrasound at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th weeks after the injury, recorded the callus-to-femur width ratio (callus thickness/femur width, cm/cm), callus growth rate (callus thickness/days, cm/d), and vascular Resistive Index (RI) and compared the fracture recovery between the groups.

Results

This study included 31 males and 12 females, for a total of 43 children with femoral shaft fractures. The results showed no statistical difference in callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm), callus growth rate (cm/d), and vascular Resistance Index (RI) detected at different fracture sites at the same time after injury (p > 0.05). However, we found that the RI were smaller in the group with faster callus growth rate (cm/d) and vice versa. In addition, when examined at different time, there were statistical differences in the callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm), callus growth rate (cm/d), and RI between the different time groups (p < 0.05), and as the time after injury increased, the callus growth rate (cm/d) gradually became slower and the RI value gradually decreased.

Conclusion

These results indicate that children with femoral shaft fractures at different anatomical sites demonstrated comparable recovery rates during the early 4-week healing period under conservative treatment, and Color Doppler ultrasound can monitor the recovery process and effectively evaluate bone callus growth by detecting the blood supply around the edge of the fracture.

Keywords: ultrasonography, femoral shaft fracture, conservative treatment, pediatric fracture, bone callus

1. Introduction

The incidence of fractures in children is about 3% (1), most commonly in preschool children, and its incidence tends to be more in males than females (2). x-ray has been widely used as the gold standard for fracture diagnosis, but it also has disadvantages such as ionizing radiation, health hazards, and a tendency to increase the risk of malignant tumor development (3, 4), and for growing children, radiation hazard may pose a greater risk (3, 5, 6). In addition, relevant studies have shown that some children may not have obvious pathological signs after the occurrence of fractures, and there may be false-negative results on plain x-ray examinations (7–11). Over the past century, the scope of ultrasound applications has continuously broadened, achieving especially remarkable progress in medical practice. In recent years, a growing body of scholars has initiated research into the applications of ultrasonography in fracture assessment (1, 7, 9, 12). Ultrasonography provides relatively good imaging of soft tissue injuries (13–15) and can assist in clarifying whether there is concomitant nerve damage (16–22), and the information can assist in diagnosis of bone fractures. Nowadays, ultrasonography is gradually being used in children with fractures to assist in localization during surgical treatment (23–26). During the healing process of fracture, the distribution of blood supply at the fracture site is extremely important (27). Vascular imaging can also be performed by using Color Doppler ultrasound, which can help further clarify fracture. In a study by Santolini (28), it was noted that the division of the femur into upper, middle, and lower parts, with moderate, high, and low levels of vascularization, respectively, would affect fracture healing to varying degrees. In this prospective observational study, we analyzed 43 children who were treated with conservative traction for femoral shaft fractures at the Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (hereinafter referred to as “our hospital”), and used Color Doppler ultrasound to monitor the fracture healing process to determine whether there were differences in early bone healing period at different anatomical sites.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Setting

Children with femoral shaft fractures treated in our hospital between March 2017 and December 2021 were included in this analysis. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age ≤16 years; (2) femoral shaft fractures confirmed by x-ray examination; (3) treated with conservative traction. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) open fractures, multiple fractures, pathological fractures or comminuted fractures; (2) surgical treatment; (3) refusal of ultrasonography; (4) incomplete follow-up.

Each patient's guardian agreed to participate in the study and the study protocol was approved by our hospital's ethics committee (No.117;2019). The data in the study were obtained from our hospital records.

2.2. Instrument and preparation

The Philips-CX50 color Doppler ultrasound diagnostic instrument (Philips, Amsterdam, Netherlands) was used, and the high-frequency line array probe L3–12 color Doppler mode with a probe frequency of 12 MHz was selected, Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI) was simultaneously performed during the examination. Ultrasound examinations were performed by experienced sonographers and orthopedic surgeons together, all ultrasonographic measurements were performed following a standardized protocol, and the same machine was used for all patients.

2.3. Method

Color Doppler Ultrasound Examination Method: The direct scanning method is used to apply coupling agent on the skin surface corresponding to the fracture. Then the high-frequency probe is used to take the appropriate position according to the specific condition of the child: the front, medial and lateral (horizontal traction) or the front-back, medial and lateral (hip traction) of the skin surface at the fracture are examined using transverse and longitudinal scanning.

Using sonographic images of interrupted continuity of strong echogenic light bands in the bone cortex to clarify the location of the fracture. The edge of the fracture is observed for angulation, displacement, separation and shortening, soft tissue insertion, hematoma formation and muscle fiber dissection around. During each examination, callus thickness at the fracture margin and femoral shaft width were measured on identical sonographic planes; CDFI was selected to monitor the blood supply around the edge of the fracture (Figure 1). The callus-to-femur width ratio (callus thickness/femur width, cm/cm), the callus growth rate (callus thickness/days, cm/d), and vascular Resistance Index (RI) were recorded and calculated. RI is a hemodynamic parameter quantifying downstream vascular resistance, it is calculated as: (PSV-EDV)/PSV, where PSV denotes Peak Systolic Velocity and EDV denotes End-Diastolic Velocity.

Figure 1.

Ultrasound images labeled A, B, and C show different views of the same area. Image A highlights an area with an arrow and plus signs. Image B shows multiple markers including crosses and an asterisk. Image C includes a box with blue and red dots labeled \"B\" and an asterisk.

(A) longitudinal section of a 4-year-old child with a left middle femur fracture reveals a hematoma (white arrow) at the edge of the fracture (+) on ultrasound. (B) Longitudinal section of bone callus length (+) and thickness (×) on ultrasound 1 week after the injury. (C) Blood supply (B) to the bone callus (*) on Color Doppler ultrasound 1 week after the injury.

At weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 post-injury, children who met the inclusion criteria underwent examinations at the fracture site using Color Doppler ultrasonography, with subsequent data collection. Ultrasound examiners were blinded to fracture site and week. Fracture location was classified by dividing the anatomical location of the femoral shaft into three equal segments as confirmed by initial radiographs. According to the different sites of femoral shaft fractures, all children were divided into 3 groups for comparison: upper segment, middle segment and lower segment; on the other hand, all children were divided into 4 groups for comparison at 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks according to different time after injury.

2.4. Follow-up

All patients were in traction for 4 weeks and were immobilized in a brace after 4 weeks.

2.5. Statistical analysis

SPSS ver.26 (IBM, Armonk, NY) was used for analysis, measurement information denoted by mean ± standard deviation, and One-way ANOVA was used for comparison between multiple groups, the Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple post-hoc analyses between weeks, the data of each group passed the chi-square test. The P value threshold for significance was set at 0.05.

3. Results

A total of 43 cases, 31 males and 12 females, met the inclusion criteria in this prospective observational study. High-frequency ultrasonography was performed in 43 children with femoral shaft fractures, of which 34 children had horizontal skin traction and 9 children had hip skin traction. All children in this study had a satisfactory recovery. Among the 43 children with fractures, there were 13 children with upper femoral shaft fractures, including 8 males and 5 females, the average age is 2.26 ± 1.05 years; 23 children with middle femoral shaft fractures, including 18 males and 5 females, the average age is 2.85 ± 2.01 years; and 7 children with lower femoral shaft fractures, including 5 males and 2 females, the average age is 2.45 ± 0.09 years (Table 1). There was no significant difference in average age between the groups (p > 0.05).

Table 1.

Comparison of basic clinical information between each group.

Group Gender [n (%)] Age (y)
Male Female
Upper (n = 13) 8 (61.5%) 5 (38.5%) 2.26 ± 1.05
Middle (n = 23) 18 (78.3%) 5 (21.7%) 2.85 ± 2.01
Lower (n = 7) 5 (71.4%) 2 (28.6%) 2.45 ± 0.09
χ 2 1.156
F 0.437
p 0.561 0.650

As confirmed by Color Doppler ultrasound, there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) in the comparison of the callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm), bone callus growth rate (cm/d), and RI in the three groups with femoral fracture sites located in the upper, middle, and lower segments at the same time after injury (Tables 2–5). However, at week 4, we found a difference in callus growth rate (cm/d) between the upper femoral fracture and the middle femoral fracture (Table 5): the callus growth rate (cm/d) of the upper femoral fracture was faster than the middle one. In addition, at the same time after the injury, we found that the trend of callus growth rate (cm/d) and RI between the groups was as follows: the group with relatively faster callus growth rate (cm/d) had a smaller RI, and the group with slower callus growth rate (cm/d) had a larger RI (Figures 2, 3).

Table 2.

Comparison of examination results between groups at week 1 after injury.

Group Callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm) Callus growth rate (cm/d) Vascular resistive index (RI)
Upper 0.40 ± 0.12 0.08 ± 0.03 0.62 ± 0.07
Middle 0.31 ± 0.12 0.07 ± 0.03 0.63 ± 0.12
Lower 0.31 ± 0.09 0.07 ± 0.02 0.63 ± 0.08
F 1.852 0.951 0.024
p 0.176 0.399 0.976

Table 5.

Comparison of examination results between groups at week 4 after injury.

Group Callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm) Callus growth rate (cm/d) Vascular resistive index (RI)
Upper 0.67 ± 0.15 0.01 ± 0.01a 0.42 ± 0.09
Middle 0.55 ± 0.20 0.01 ± 0.01b 0.43 ± 0.08
Lower 0.60 ± 0.15 0.01 ± 0.01 0.43 ± 0.02
F 1.463 2.935 0.017
p 0.249 0.070 0.983
a

Compared with the middle section, ap < 0.05.

b

Compared with the upper section, bp < 0.05.

Figure 2.

Bar graph showing the average bone callus growth rate in centimeters per day at different fracture sites over four weeks. The upper site has the highest growth in week one, decreasing over time. Middle and lower sites grow less throughout the weeks. Growth rate decreases from week one to week four, with varying rates across fracture sites.

Bone callus growth rate (cm/d) detected at different fracture sites at different weeks after injury.

Figure 3.

Bar chart showing the average Relative Intensity (RI) at upper, middle, and lower fracture sites over four weeks after injury. Bars are categorized by weeks, with different shades representing weeks one to four. Each fracture site shows a consistent decrease in RI over time, with the lowest values in week four.

Vascular resistive Index (RI) detected at different fracture sites at different weeks after injury.

Table 3.

Comparison of examination results between groups at week 2 after injury.

Group Callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm) Callus growth rate (cm/d) Vascular resistive index (RI)
Upper 0.53 ± 0.12 0.03 ± 0.02 0.53 ± 0.08
Middle 0.45 ± 0.16 0.03 ± 0.03 0.53 ± 0.10
Lower 0.47 ± 0.10 0.03 ± 0.02 0.52 ± 0.07
F 1.800 0.007 0.010
p 0.323 0.993 0.990

Table 4.

Comparison of examination results between groups at week 3 after injury.

Group Callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm) Callus growth rate (cm/d) Vascular resistive index (RI)
Upper 0.60 ± 0.15 0.01 ± 0.01 0.45 ± 0.10
Middle 0.52 ± 0.18 0.01 ± 0.01 0.47 ± 0.09
Lower 0.55 ± 0.14 0.01 ± 0.02 0.46 ± 0.04
F 0.931 0.017 0.185
p 0.406 0.983 0.832

On the other hand, when compared at 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks according to different time after injury, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were detected in the comparison of the callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm), callus growth rate (cm/d), and RI in the different time groups (Table 6). When multiple comparisons were performed, we found no statistically significant differences in the callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm) between weeks 2 and 3 compared, weeks 3 and 4 compared (p > 0.05); no statistically significant differences in the callus growth rate (cm/d) between weeks 3 and 4 (p > 0.05); and no statistically significant differences in RI between weeks 3 and 4 (p > 0.05).

Table 6.

Comparison of test results at different weeks after injury.

Group Callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm) Callus growth rate (cm/d) Vascular resistive index (RI)
Week 1 0.34 ± 0.12 0.07 ± 0.03 0.64 ± 0.09
Week 2 0.48 ± 0.14a 0.03 ± 0.02 0.53 ± 0.09
Week 3 0.55 ± 0.17b 0.01 ± 0.01d 0.46 ± 0.08f
Week 4 0.59 ± 0.18c 0.01 ± 0.01e 0.43 ± 0.08g
F 15.187 59.789 36.806
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
a

Compared with week 3, ap > 0.05.

b

Compared with week 2, week 4, bp > 0.05.

c

Compared with week 3, cp > 0.05.

d

Compared with week 4, dp > 0.05.

e

Compared with week 3, ep > 0.05.

f

Compared with week 4, fp > 0.05.

g

Compared with week 3, gp > 0.05.

4. Discussion

Fractures are one of the most common injuries in children, multiple repeated examinations are usually required in the treatment of fractures. x-ray examination is widely used for detecting fractures in children. However, the use of x-ray examination has the following disadvantages: (1) It has radiological radiation. (2) Portable x-ray equipment is cumbersome to operate. (3) It cannot be observed dynamically in real time. (4) It is difficult to detect fibrous soft bone callus in early stages (29).

Ultrasonography is a new alternative method. Ultrasound imaging of bone is based on the difference in acoustic impedance between soft tissue and bone, and ultrasound can create a distinct acoustic interface between the two (30, 31). In addition, when scanning soft tissues, bone callus, the edge of the fracture hematomas and other tissues, ultrasound can show more details and have better performance (13, 14, 32). Ultrasonography allows multiple measurements in different axes and angles. It also can clarify the blood supply to the tested area. Compared with adults, children have a thinner subcutaneous fat layer, which is an advantage in using ultrasound. Multiple studies demonstrate the optimal efficacy of ultrasonography for evaluating superficial skeletal structures such as the radius and ulna (33–36). The periosteum of pediatric bones has a stronger osteogenic capacity, so pediatric fractures exhibit accelerated healing compared to adult fractures and with more prominent callus formation (37, 38). During the hematoma mechanization period in the early fracture healing process, the callus produced in the early stage are fibrous callus, which are soft and cannot be visualized by x-ray examination. As time increases, the calcium salt content of the callus gradually increases and the density of the callus gradually increases before they can be visualized by x-ray (29). These studies have confirmed that the appearance of bone callus detected by ultrasonography is significantly earlier than the appearance of bone callus detected by x-ray.

As for the treatment of pediatric femoral fractures, there is no clear consensus has been reached regarding optimal treatment (39–41). For pediatric femoral shaft fractures in older children (generally >5 years of age), surgical management with intramedullary fixation demonstrates effective treatment outcomes, with both elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) and submuscular plating (SMP) proving to be viable options depending on fracture characteristics and surgical considerations (42, 43). Conservative treatment is an appropriate option for younger children with femoral shaft fractures. Studies have indicated that conservative traction management is the preferred approach for most children under 6 years old with isolated femoral shaft fractures, and can achieve clinically effective outcomes (41, 44–46). This finding is consistent with the age distribution of patients with conservative traction management in our study. In General, the parents of these patients typically involve the following considerations. First, most parents express significant concern that anesthesia or sedation may adversely affect neurocognitive development in younger children. A study pointed out that cognitive deficits can be caused by early postnatal exposure to isoflurane (47). Second, as an invasive treatment method, surgical intervention may result in more trauma and carries potential risks of complications such as surgical site infections, deep bone infections, delayed union or nonunion of fractures, along with the necessity for subsequent procedures to remove internal fixation devices. Third, conservative treatments are generally associated with significantly lower costs compared to surgical intervention (48). On the other hand, the older children with femoral shaft fractures require increased traction force due to higher body weight, which predisposes them to complications such as skin necrosis and joint stiffness. Furthermore, prolonged bed rest during traction therapy inevitably disrupts academic progression and may precipitate psychological disorders in severe cases (49). Consequently, these patients’ parents typically choose other treatment options that mitigate these risks. The younger children with femoral shaft fractures have a strong ability to remodel, conservative traction management can maintain the alignment of the fracture and achieve satisfactory appearance and functional recovery. Multiple examinations are usually required during conservative treatment to avoid overlapping, separation or rotational deformity of the edge of fracture. The use of ultrasound can avoid a lot of radiation which is generated by the use of conventional x-ray examination. Furthermore, ultrasound plays a critical role in the surgical treatment of pediatric fractures, effectively reducing radiation exposure for both patients and the operating team during procedures (50–53).

Ultrasonography can also play a key role in monitoring the bone healing. Ultrasound has a great soft tissue resolution and can clarify the vascularization at an early stage, providing an anticipatory assessment of callus production (54–56). With the continuous development of ultrasound technology, more and more ultrasound detection tools have been applied (57–59). In recent years, a study has also proposed that satisfactory results can be obtained by using ultrasound pitch catch measurements instead of conventional radiography for fracture detection (60). Furthermore, the ongoing refinement of three-dimensional ultrasonography (3D US) opens new avenues for application in fracture assessment (61–63).

In this study, Color Doppler Ultrasound could be better applied to monitor the bone healing process in conservative treatment for pediatric femoral shaft fractures, and we achieved satisfactory results. There was no statistical difference in the comparison of the callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm), bone callus growth rate (cm/d), and vascular Resistive Index (RI) in the three groups with femoral fracture sites located in the upper, middle, and lower segments at the same time after injury. This indicated that the recovery of femoral fractures in children in different locations at the same time after injury was essentially the same during the early 4-week healing period under conservative treatment, which could indirectly indicate that there was no significant difference in the degree of femoral vascularization. In comparison, we found that the group with relatively faster callus growth rate (cm/d) had a smaller RI, and the group with slower callus growth rate (cm/d) had a larger RI. This suggested the possibility of a correlation between callus growth rate (cm/d) and RI. On the other hand, when compared at 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks according to different time after injury, statistically significant differences were detected in the comparison of the callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm), callus growth rate (cm/d), and RI in the different time groups. As the fracture healing time gradually increased, both the rate (cm/d) of bone callus growth and the RI gradually decreased (Figures 4, 5). This suggested that ultrasound monitoring allowed for a short-term assessment of the bone healing of femoral shaft fractures in children. When multiple comparisons were performed, we found no statistically significant differences both in the callus-to-femur width ratio (cm/cm), the callus growth rate (cm/d) and RI between weeks 3 and 4. We believed that the main reason was that the callus formation was in the hematoma mechanization period at the early stage of bone healing, the blood supply was abundant, the fibrous callus formation was faster and differed significantly, and gradually decreased as the bone healing time increased (Figure 6).

Figure 4.

Bar graph showing the average bone callus growth rate in centimeters per day over four weeks post-injury. Week one has the highest growth rate at 0.08, followed by week two at approximately 0.03, week three at 0.02, and week four at 0.01.

Changes in the bone callus growth rate (cm/d) at different weeks after injury.

Figure 5.

Bar chart showing the average of RI over four weeks after injury. Week one begins with 0.6, decreasing progressively to 0.5 in week two, 0.4 in week three, and 0.3 in week four.

Changes in the vascular resistive Index (RI) at different weeks after injury.

Figure 6.

Ultrasound scans and diagrams showing anatomical structures labeled with letters: P for proximal end, H for hematoma, D for distal end, PR for periosteal reaction, and C for callus. Images (a) and (b) are scans with labeled regions PR, while (c) is a diagram correlating to them. Images (d) and (e) show different angulations with labeled regions marked as *, while (f) is a corresponding diagram.

Left middle femur fracture of a 1-year-old boy within 1 day after injury (a–c) and after 1 week with conservative treatment (d–f). (a) Cross-sectional ultrasound sonogram (b) Longitudinal ultrasound sonogram (c) Demonstrate the schematic diagram of fracture within 1 day after injury in the longitudinal section (d) Cross-sectional ultrasound sonogram (e) Longitudinal ultrasound sonogram (f) Demonstrate the schematic diagram of fracture after 1 week with conservative treatment in the longitudinal section. C, callus; D, distal end; P, proximal end; H, hematoma; PR, periosteal reaction. The distance between fracture ends [“+” in (a–c)]. Callus length [“+” in (d–f)]. Callus thickness (×).

We acknowledge several limitations in our present study. First, the relatively small sample size (n = 43) from a single institution may limit the statistical power and generalizability of our findings. Future multi-center studies with larger cohorts are necessary to validate our results. Second, as an observational study, the allocation to fracture location groups was based on anatomical nature rather than randomization, which could introduce selection bias. Third, the accuracy of ultrasonographic measurements is operator-dependent. Despite using standardized protocols and having examinations performed by experienced sonographers, inter-observer variability was not specifically assessed in this study. Lastly, our follow-up was limited to 4 weeks to assess the early healing phase; longer-term studies are needed to correlate our sonographic findings with functional outcomes and full radiographic union.

Building on our findings and clinical implications, we attempt to propose a structured protocol for integrating ultrasonography into the follow-up of conservative traction managed pediatric femoral shaft fractures, aiming to minimize radiation exposure: (1) Diagnosis and Baseline Assessment: Confirm fracture type and location with radiographs at presentation. (2) Early High-Frequency Ultrasound Monitoring (Weeks 1–4): Perform weekly ultrasound examinations focusing on bone callus growth rate (cm/d) and vascular Resistive Index (RI) at the fracture site. During this phase, ultrasound can effectively replace routine weekly radiographs. (3) Mid-term Evaluation (Weeks 4–6): If ultrasound demonstrates robust callus bridging and a steadily decreasing RI, radiographs can be safely omitted. Obtain a radiograph only if there is clinical or sonographic concern for delayed healing. (4) Final Healing Assessment: When ultrasound indicates mature callus formation and clinical examination is stable, a final confirmatory radiograph can be obtained to document radiographic union. This protocol has the potential to reduce cumulative radiation exposure during follow-up, which is particularly beneficial for the radiation-sensitive pediatric population.

However, the use of ultrasound to examine pediatric fractures also has limitations such as poor ultrasound image in localized locations, limitations by the examination site, and possible artifacts (64). The utilization of ultrasonography for fracture detection necessitates enhanced training protocols and ongoing technical optimization to ensure diagnostic accuracy (65). In addition, the operation process is more time consuming for both the operators and the patients, which makes the examination more difficult. Taken together, current evidence suggests that ultrasound presents a clinically useful modality for the evaluation of common long bone fractures in children, particularly in settings like emergency departments and primary care, though further standardization of diagnostic criteria is needed. A recent prospective cohort study demonstrates that early diagnosis and surgical intervention (within 48 h) for pediatric femoral fractures significantly reduces operative time, improves clinical outcomes, and decreases the incidence of major complications including avascular necrosis and growth disturbance (66). Several studies also have shown that ultrasound can be better applied in emergency medicine (67–71). In emergency rescue, disaster relief and other unexpected situations, or for children with fractures who are not easily transported, the use of ultrasound for fracture examination is acceptable. Several scholars have systematically summarized the clinical context, indications, and benefits of fracture ultrasound and provided recommendations for its rational application (31). Standardizing imaging protocols, establishing validated reference standards, and conducting large-scale randomized trials will be crucial for the comprehensive integration of ultrasonography into future clinical practice guidelines for fracture management.

The great soft tissue resolution of ultrasound distinguishes it from conventional examinations for fractures. Its exceptional compatibility with pediatric fracture will attract more attention from scholars. It is believed that in the near future, the application of ultrasound in pediatric fractures will see further development.

Acknowledgments

We thank all staffs who work in Department of Orthopedic and Department of Ultrasonography for your assistance.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study was supported by Chongqing Municipal Health Commission Science-Health Collaborative Key Project (No. 2024ZDXM029), The Project of Chongqing Municipal Science and Technology Bureau (No. CSTB2023NSCQ-MSX0129), The Project of Chongqing Banan Science and Technology Bureau (No. SHSY2022-67).

Footnotes

Edited by: Xin Tang, Zhejiang University, China

Reviewed by: Saptarshi Barman, R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, India

Anil Regmi, All India Institute of Medical Sciences- CAPFIMS, India

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University Ethics Committee. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s), and minor(s)' legal guardian/next of kin, for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

XL: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Data curation. JS: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Data curation, Visualization, Methodology. YZ: Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Validation. JW: Methodology, Validation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Project administration. XL: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Resources, Validation.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

  • 1.Herren C, Sobottke R, Ringe MJ, Visel D, Graf M, Müller D, et al. Ultrasound-guided diagnosis of fractures of the distal forearm in children. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. (2015) 101(4):501–5. 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kosuge D, Barry M. Changing trends in the management of children’s fractures. Bone Joint J. (2015) 97-B(4):442–8. 10.1302/0301-620X.97B4.34723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shulan JM, Vydro L, Schneider AB, Mihailescu DV. Role of biomarkers in predicting the occurrence of thyroid neoplasms in radiation-exposed children. Endocr Relat Cancer. (2018) 25(4):481–91. 10.1530/ERC-17-0408 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zhang Y, Chen Y, Huang H, Sandler J, Dai M, Ma S, et al. Diagnostic radiography exposure increases the risk for thyroid microcarcinoma: a population-based case-control study. Eur J Cancer Prev. (2015) 24(5):439–46. 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Iacob R, Stoicescu ER, Cerbu S, Iacob D, Amaricai E, Catan L, et al. Could ultrasound be used as a triage tool in diagnosing fractures in children? A Literature Review. Healthcare (Basel). (2022) 10(5):823. 10.3390/healthcare10050823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Moritz JD. Sonographic fracture diagnosis in children and adolescents. Rofo. (2023) 195(9):790–6. 10.1055/a-2042-2161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sujitkumar P, Hadfield JM, Yates DW. Sprain or fracture? An analysis of 2000 ankle injuries. Arch Emerg Med. (1986) 3(2):101–6. 10.1136/emj.3.2.101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Patel DS, Statuta SM, Ahmed N. Common fractures of the radius and ulna. Am Fam Physician. (2021) 103(6):345–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sesia SB, Prufer F, Mayr J. Sternal fracture in children: diagnosis by ultrasonography. Eur J Pediatr Surg Rep. (2017) 5(1):e39–42. 10.1055/s-0037-1606197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jia G, Sun J. Application of ultrasound in the management of TRASH (the radiographic appearance seemed harmless) fractures in preschool children: a review. Medicine (Baltimore). (2023) 102(34):e34855. 10.1097/MD.0000000000034855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Epema AC, Spanjer MJB, Ras L, Kelder JC, Sanders M. Point-of-care ultrasound compared with conventional radiographic evaluation in children with suspected distal forearm fractures in The Netherlands: a diagnostic accuracy study. Emerg Med J. (2019) 36(10):613–6. 10.1136/emermed-2018-208380 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wang CL, Shieh JY, Wang TG, Hsieh FJ. Sonographic detection of occult fractures in the foot and ankle. J Clin Ultrasound. (1999) 27(8):421–5. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199910)27:8<421::AID-JCU2>3.0.CO;2-E [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gheduzzi S, Dodd SP, Miles AW, Humphrey VF, Cunningham JL. Numerical and experimental simulation of the effect of long bone fracture healing stages on ultrasound transmission across an idealized fracture. J Acoust Soc Am. (2009) 126(2):887–94. 10.1121/1.3158938 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Guo X, Yang D, Zhang D, Li W, Qiu Y, Wu J. Quantitative evaluation of fracture healing process of long bones using guided ultrasound waves: a computational feasibility study. J Acoust Soc Am. (2009) 125(5):2834–7. 10.1121/1.3106526 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ackermann O, Simanowski J, Eckert K. Fracture ultrasound of the extremities. Ultraschall Med. (2020) 41(1):12–28. 10.1055/a-1023-1782 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Morikawa T, Igarashi Y. [Efficacy of whole blood theophylline assay kit AccuLevel]. Arerugi. (1988) 37(6):381–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Radic B, Radic P, Durakovic D. Peripheral nerve injury in sports. Acta Clin Croat. (2018) 57(3):561–9. 10.20471/acc.2018.57.03.20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Erra C, Granata G, Liotta G, Podnar S, Giannini M, Kushlaf H, et al. Ultrasound diagnosis of bony nerve entrapment: case series and literature review. Muscle Nerve. (2013) 48(3):445–50. 10.1002/mus.23845 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tokutake K, Okui N, Hirata H. Primary radial nerve exploration determined by ultrasound in pediatric supracondylar humerus fracture: a report of two cases. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol. (2021) 26(2):284–9. 10.1142/S2424835521720097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jiaqi W, Hui L, Yanzhou W, Long L, Tianyou L. Radial nerve trapped posterior to the proximal fracture end after closed reduction of supracondylar humerus fracture in children: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. (2022) 99:107628. 10.1016/j.ijscr.2022.107628 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gao H, Yin S, Su Y. Assessment of ulnar nerve stability at the elbow by ultrasonography in children. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. (2023) 32(6):1249–53. 10.1016/j.jse.2023.01.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Averill LW, Kraft DB, Sabado JJ, Atanda A, Long SS, Nazarian LN. Ultrasonography of the pediatric elbow. Pediatr Radiol. (2023) 53(8):1526–38. 10.1007/s00247-023-05623-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Li J, Wu J, Zhang Y, Gou P, Li X, Shi M, Zhang M, et al. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing for pediatric humeral shaft fractures under ultrasonographic guidance: a retrospective study. Front Pediatr. (2021) 9:806100. 10.3389/fped.2021.806100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mori T, Nomura O, Ihara T. Ultrasound-guided peripheral forearm nerve block for digit fractures in a pediatric emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. (2019) 37(3):489–93. 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.11.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Scheier E, Balla U. Ultrasound-guided distal forearm fracture reduction by pediatric emergency physicians: a single center retrospective study. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2022) 38(2):e756–60. 10.1097/PEC.0000000000002464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Shen S, Wang X, Fu Z. Value of ultrasound-guided closed reduction and minimally invasive fixation in the treatment of metacarpal fractures. J Ultrasound Med. (2019) 38(10):2659–66. 10.1002/jum.14967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ramirez-GarciaLuna JL, Rangel-Berridi K, Olasubulumi OO, Rosenzweig DH, Henderson JE, Gawri R, et al. Enhanced bone remodeling after fracture priming. Calcif Tissue Int. (2022) 110(3):349–66. 10.1007/s00223-021-00921-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Santolini E, Goumenos SD, Giannoudi M, Sanguineti F, Stella M, Giannoudis PV. Femoral and tibial blood supply: a trigger for non-union? Injury. (2014) 45(11):1665–73. 10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Boutis K, Grootendorst P, Willan A, Plint AC, Babyn P, Brison RJ, et al. Effect of the low risk ankle rule on the frequency of radiography in children with ankle injuries. CMAJ. (2013) 185(15):E731–8. 10.1503/cmaj.122050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liu Y, Wei X, Kuang Y, Zheng Y, Gu X, Zhan H, et al. Ultrasound treatment for accelerating fracture healing of the distal radius. A control study. Acta Cir Bras. (2014) 29(11):765–70. 10.1590/S0102-86502014001800012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Osterwalder J, Hoffmann B, Blaivas M, Horn R, Matchiner E, Dietrich CF. A plea for a paradigm shift from x-ray to ultrasound in adults: an update for emergency physicians, general practitioners, orthopedists and sports medicine physicians. Diagnostics (Basel). (2025) 15(14):1827. 10.3390/diagnostics15141827 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Matschiner E, Serban O, Fodor D, Blaivas M, Horn R, Koch J, et al. Ultrasound in bone fracture diagnosis—a comparative meta-analysis and systematic review. Med Ultrason. (2025) 27(1):52–62. 10.11152/mu-4407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Auten JD, Hurst ND, Kanegaye JT. Correspondence: comparison of pediatric post-reduction fluoroscopic- and ultrasound forearm fracture images. Am J Emerg Med. (2020) 38(2):395–6. 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tsou PY, Ma YK, Wang YH, Gillon JT, Rafael J, Deanehan JK. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for upper extremity fractures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. (2021) 44:383–94. 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.04.071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Snelling PJ, Jones P, Gillespie A, Bade D, Keijzers G, Ware RS. Point-of-Care ultrasound fracture-physis distance association with Salter-Harris II fractures of the distal radius in children: the “POCUS 1-cm rule”. Ultrasound Med Biol. (2023) 49(2):520–6. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2022.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Şık N, Öztürk A, Koşay MC, Yılmaz D, Duman M. Accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for determining the adequacy of pediatric forearm fracture reductions. Am J Emerg Med. (2021) 48:243–8. 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.05.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Neri E, Barbi E, Rabach I, Zanchi C, Norbedo S, Ronfani L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for hand bony fractures in paediatric patients. Arch Dis Child. (2014) 99(12):1087–90. 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305678 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tzatzairis T, Skarentzos K, Grammatikos C, Karamalis C, Korakianitis K, Kourempeles R, et al. Ultrasound applications in pediatric orthopedics. Arch Bone Jt Surg. (2024) 12(7):457–68. 10.22038/ABJS.2024.59904.2950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kocher MS, Sink EL, Blasier RD, Luhmann SJ, Mehlman CT, Scher DM, et al. American academy of orthopaedic surgeons clinical practice guideline on treatment of pediatric diaphyseal femur fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. (2010) 92(8):1790–2. 10.2106/JBJS.J.00137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kakakhel MMG, Rauf N, Khattak SA, Adhikari P, Askar Z. Femoral shaft fractures in children: exploring treatment outcomes and implications. Cureus. (2023) 15(10):e46336. 10.7759/cureus.46336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jevsevar DS, Shea KG, Murray JN, Sevarino KS. AAOS clinical practice guideline on the treatment of pediatric diaphyseal femur fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. (2015) 23(12):e101. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.K S A, Singh V, Regmi A, Kumar N, Sharma C, Maheshwari V. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing versus submuscular plating in length unstable pediatric diaphyseal femur fractures: a prospective comparative study. J Clin Orthop Trauma. (2025) 63:102920. 10.1016/j.jcot.2025.102920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Garg V, Gowda AKS, Regmi A, Barik S, Maheshwari VK, Singh V. Management of length unstable femur fractures in children by flexible intramedullary nails: a systematic review. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. (2024) 91(1):44–51. 10.55095/achot2024/006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Staheli LT, Sheridan GW. Early spica cast management of femoral shaft fractures in young children. A technique utilizing bilateral fixed skin traction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. (1977) 126:162–6. 10.1097/00003086-197707000-00027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gao H, Wang Z, Su Y. Surveillance ultrasonography for conservative treatment of femoral shaft fractures in young children. J Orthop Surg Res. (2020) 15(1):604. 10.1186/s13018-020-02149-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.van Cruchten S, Warmerdam EC, Reijman M, Kempink DR, de Ridder VA. Current practices in the management of closed femoral shaft fractures in children: a nationwide survey among Dutch orthopaedic surgeons. J Orthop. (2023) 45:1–5. 10.1016/j.jor.2023.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kang E, Jiang D, Ryu YK, Lim S, Kwak M, Gray CD, et al. Early postnatal exposure to isoflurane causes cognitive deficits and disrupts development of newborn hippocampal neurons via activation of the mTOR pathway. PLoS Biol. (2017) 15(7):e2001246. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Curran PF, Albright P, Ibrahim JM, Ali SH, Shearer DW, Sabatini CS. Practice patterns for management of pediatric femur fractures in low- and middle-income countries. J Pediatr Orthop. (2020) 40(5):251–8. 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001435 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ewing-Cobbs L, Bloom DR, Prasad MR, Waugh JK, Cox CS Jr, Swank PR. Assessing recovery and disability after physical trauma: the pediatric injury functional outcome scale. J Pediatr Psychol. (2014) 39(6):653–65. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsu018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Yuan S, Li ZC, Lyu SJ, Yao ZY, Tong PJ. [Ultrasound-guided closed reduction and kirschner wires internal fixation for the treatment of kilfoyleⅡand Ⅲ medial condylar fracture of humerus in children]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. (2021) 34(5):437–41. 10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2021.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Xu WB, Dai RD, Liu Y, Zhong H, Zhuang W. [Ultrasound-guided reduction and percutaneous crossed pin fixation for the treatment of displaced supracondylar fracture of the humerus in children]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. (2020) 33(10):907–11. 10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2020.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Fan Y, Liu Q, Yu X, Zhang J, Wang W, Liu C. Ultrasound, a new adjuvant method for treating acute monteggia fracture in children. J Orthop Surg Res. (2023) 18(1):595. 10.1186/s13018-023-04075-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bao YF, Xu WB, Zhuang W. [Feasibility study of protecting ulnar nerve by ultrasound in treating children with supracondylar fracture of humerus by closed reduction and intercross needle fixation]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. (2022) 35(9):863–8. 10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2022.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Caruso G, Lagalla R, Derchi L, Iovane A, Sanfilippo A. Monitoring of fracture calluses with color Doppler sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. (2000) 28(1):20–7. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(200001)28:1<20::AID-JCU3>3.0.CO;2-W [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Garcia L, Jaff MR, Metzger C, Sedillo G, Pershad A, Zidar F, et al. Wire-interwoven nitinol stent outcome in the superficial femoral and proximal popliteal arteries: twelve-month results of the SUPERB trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2015) 8(5):e000937. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.000937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Messina A, Frassanito L, Colombo D, Vergari A, Draisci G, Della Corte F, et al. Hemodynamic changes associated with spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery in severe ASA III elderly population: a pilot trial. Minerva Anestesiol. (2013) 79(9):1021–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Cheng S, Tylavsky F, Carbone L. Utility of ultrasound to assess risk of fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc. (1997) 45(11):1382–94. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb02940.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ghavami S, Gregory A, Webb J, Bayat M, Denis M, Kumar V, et al. Ultrasound radiation force for the assessment of bone fracture healing in children: an in vivo pilot study. Sensors (Basel). (2019) 19(4):955. 10.3390/s19040955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Yang X, Wang Y, Feng Y, Gao L. Diagnostic value of high-resolution ultrasonography and computed tomography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fracture. Pak J Med Sci. (2025) 41(9):2540–5. 10.12669/pjms.41.9.12706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Bhavsar MB, Moll J, Barker JH. Bone fracture sensing using ultrasound pitch-catch measurements: a proof-of-principle study. Ultrasound Med Biol. (2020) 46(3):855–60. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Zhang J, Boora N, Melendez S, Rakkunedeth Hareendranathan A, Jaremko J. Diagnostic accuracy of 3D ultrasound and artificial intelligence for detection of pediatric wrist injuries. Children (Basel). (2021) 8(6):431. 10.3390/children8060431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.du Toit C, Orlando N, Papernick S, Dima R, Gyacskov I, Fenster A. Automatic femoral articular cartilage segmentation using deep learning in three-dimensional ultrasound images of the knee. Osteoarthr Cartil Open. (2022) 4(3):100290. 10.1016/j.ocarto.2022.100290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.du Toit C, Dima R, Papernick S, Jonnalagadda M, Tessier D, Fenster A, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound to investigate synovitis in first carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a feasibility study. Med Phys. (2023) 51(2):1092–104. 10.1002/mp.16640 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Nilsson A. Artefacts in sonography and Doppler. Eur Radiol. (2001) 11(8):1308–15. 10.1007/s003300100914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Alsaadi MJ, Alhejji AK, Alkhamis AM, Alshehri ST, Almutiri ZA, Alshulail SM, et al. Comparative efficacy of conventional and handheld ultrasound devices in detecting bone fractures: an in vitro study. Med Ultrason. (2025):1–7. 10.11152/mu-4559 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Regmi A, Singh V, Bandhu Niraula B, Gowda AKS, Bansal S, Gowda R, et al. Outcome of early versus delayed presentation of proximal femur fractures in children: a prospective cohort study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. (2024) 110(4):103840. 10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Snelling PJ, Keijzers G, Byrnes J, Bade D, George S, Moore M, et al. Bedside ultrasound conducted in kids with distal upper limb fractures in the emergency department (BUCKLED): a protocol for an open-label non-inferiority diagnostic randomised controlled trial. Trials. (2021) 22(1):282. 10.1186/s13063-021-05239-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Snelling PJ, Jones P, Keijzers G, Bade D, Herd DW, Ware RS. Nurse practitioner administered point-of-care ultrasound compared with x-ray for children with clinically non-angulated distal forearm fractures in the ED: a diagnostic study. Emerg Med J. (2021) 38(2):139–45. 10.1136/emermed-2020-209689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Scheier E, Shir Y, Balla U. The child with a painful arm: a POCUS screening protocol to identify fracture in children with upper extremity injury. J Emerg Med. (2021) 60(2):202–9. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Navaratnam R, Davis T. The role of ultrasound in the diagnosis of pediatric nasal fractures. J Craniofac Surg. (2019) 30(7):2099–101. 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Jones S, Colaco K, Fischer J, Stimec J, Kwan C, Boutis K. Accuracy of point-of-care ultrasonography for pediatric ankle sprain injuries. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2018) 34(12):842–7. 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.


Articles from Frontiers in Pediatrics are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES