Abstract
Objective
Surgery is the gold standard in the management of chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) of the lower extremity, although recent studies also reported success following gait retraining. Outcome parameters are diverse, and reporting is not standardized. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the current evidence regarding treatment outcome of CECS in the lower leg.
Material and Methods
A literature search and systematic analysis were performed according to the PRISMA criteria. Studies reporting on outcome following treatment of lower leg CECS were included.
Results
A total of 68 reports fulfilled study criteria (n =; 3783; age range 12‐70 year; 7:4 male‐to‐female ratio). Conservative interventions such as gait retraining (n =; 2) and botulinum injection (n =; 1) decreased ICP ( =; 68 mm Hg to =; 32 mm Hg) and resulted in a 47% (±42%) rate of satisfaction and a 50% (±45%) rate of return to physical activity. Fasciotomy significantly decreased ICP ( =; 76 mm Hg to =; 24 mm Hg) and was associated with an 85% (±13%) rate of satisfaction and an 80% (±17%) rate of return to activity. Return to activity was significantly more often achieved (P < .01) in surgically treated patients, except in one study favoring gait retraining in army personnel.
Conclusion
Surgical treatment of CECS in the lower leg results in higher rates of satisfaction and return to activity, compared to conservative treatment. However, the number of studies is limited and the level of evidence is low. Randomized controlled trials with multiple treatment arms and standardized outcome parameters are needed.
Keywords: chronic exertional compartment syndrome, conservative treatment, fasciotomy, lower extremity, systematic review
1. INTRODUCTION
Chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) may affect muscle compartments mostly of the lower limb and is characterized by a sensation of tightness and pain during or after performing repetitive physical activity. Symptoms are likely the result of a mismatch between swelling of muscular tissue within a relatively noncompliant fascia, leading to supranormal intracompartmental pressures (ICP). However, strong evidence supporting this hypothesized pathogenetic mechanism of CECS is currently lacking. 1
The diagnosis of CECS is often delayed as familiarity with the disorder among physicians is limited. Moreover, clues in patient history or physical examination in patients possibly suffering from CECS are not universally accepted. The diagnostic gold standard is invasive needle or catheter manometry that can provide values of ICP before, during, and after provocative exercise. However, the validity of these ICP measurements is seriously doubted and cutoff criteria (Box 1) are questioned. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 As a consequence of all these uncertainties, diagnostic delay in CECS can be unacceptably long.
BOX 1.
Cutoff criteria of intracompartmental pressure (ICP) for the diagnosis of chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS)
Table 1.
|
In studies with civilian patients, usually one or a combination of the three Pedowitz 83 criteria is used to define CECS of the leg:
Yet, in service members the value most commonly referred to is the one minute after exercise measurement, with a cutoff value ≥ 35 mm Hg. 10 |
Once CECS is diagnosed, intervention is advised as its natural course is not beneficial. 7 Conservative therapy may entail cessation of provocative physical activity, therapeutic massage, taping, stretching, or strengthening. In addition, gait retraining and shoe modifications may be tried. 11 , 12 Surgical intervention entails opening of the enveloping fascia via a fasciotomy using an open, a minimally invasive, or an endoscopic technique. 12 , 13 , 14
Traditionally, management of CECS starts with conservative measures, followed by surgical intervention in case of treatment failure or severely disabling symptoms. 11 This sequence is merely based on clinical experience; a surgery first approach, or a combination of surgery and conservative measures, might also be beneficial.
Apart from clinical therapeutic considerations, presentation of treatment outcome in scientific literature is far from standardized. Commonly used outcome measures are return to physical activity, improvement of symptoms or patient‐reported satisfaction, though applied methodologies often vary. At present, clinical outcome seems largely dependent on population characteristics, in particular military versus civilian athletes. 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 In addition, outcome measures may even differ between military and civilian athletes; for example, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score 18 is a validated single question instrument increasingly applied in military populations, yet rarely used with civilian patients. Conversely, these factors do influence whether a conservative or surgical approach is preferred.
A systematic review focusing on outcome following various treatments for CECS in the lower leg is currently not available. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the current evidence regarding the most commonly reported treatment outcomes of CECS in the lower leg. Results of this review may aid in proposing a standardized report for treatment outcome regarding CECS in future research.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Search strategy
The search strategy and systematic analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement methodology. A search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, CENTRAL, and Emcare. Key words used included “chronic exertional compartment syndrome,” “anterior compartment,” “posterior compartment,” “peroneal compartment,” “exertional leg pain,” “medial tibial pain,” “overuse injuries,” “therapy,” “surgical treatment,” and “conservative treatment.” All related MeSH terms, synonyms, and plurals were entered. Language was restricted to English and Dutch. Studies published between January 1, 1970, and May 1, 2019, were selected. In addition, relevant publications that were found outside this strategy were manually added, based on opinions of experts in the field.
2.2. Inclusion criteria
Clinical studies with fully available text including at least five subjects diagnosed with CECS of the lower leg were considered. The diagnosis was based on a suggestive history and physical examination in the presence of elevated ICP values. Outcome following a conservative and/or surgical intervention was reported as drop in ICP values, complication rate, or recurrence rates. Moreover, studies using patient‐reported outcome measures such as return to activity, satisfaction, Lower Leg Outcome Survey (LLOS), 19 or the SANE, 18 which numerically scores functioning of affected joints or other sections of the leg, were also included. The commonly encountered, yet heterogeneous outcome variable patient satisfaction was summarized dichotomously, using the categories “satisfied and/or improvement of symptoms” or “very satisfied and/or free of symptoms.”
2.3. Exclusion criteria
Studies concerning acute compartment syndrome, compartment syndrome secondary to a condition other than repetitive physical activity, or a compartment syndrome in body parts other than the lower leg were excluded. Moreover, papers on combinations of CECS with medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) or popliteal artery entrapment syndrome were not considered, as were reviews, case reports, letters, expert opinions, and narrative articles. Finally, if two selected articles were reporting on the same (retrospective) cohort, the smallest study was excluded.
2.4. Data analysis
Data extracted from included studies were study design, demographics of participants, diagnostics, type of intervention, comparator groups, and all available outcome measures. All relevant data were independently entered into an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, 2010) by two researchers (SV & ER). If absolute numbers were available, rates of recurrence, reoperation, or complication were calculated by dividing by the total number of legs. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by discussion.
For quantitative data, results from comparable groups of studies were pooled and means with corresponding standard deviations (SD) were calculated. P‐values < .05 were considered significant.
2.5. Assessing the quality of evidence
The quality of studies was evaluated according to Cochrane's GRADE evidence profile. Subsequently, levels of evidence were established for all selected studies.
3. RESULTS
A total of 7421 studies were identified (Figure 1). Following removal of duplicates and screening of title and abstract, 286 articles were reviewed for potential eligibility. Subsequently, 92 articles fitted all study criteria. After studying outcome variables, 68 studies were included (patients n =; 3783). The majority of the studied populations received surgical treatment (n =; 3612), whereas only 171 patients were treated conservatively.
FIGURE 1.
Flow chart of selected studies.
An overview of study characteristics is found in Table 1. The majority (72%) was of retrospective design. An overall 7:4 male‐to‐female ratio was found. Study populations were dominated by adults between 20 and 30 years of age, although CECS cases up to 70 years old were identified. Additionally, more than half of the studies (56%) reported on CECS in multiple compartments, whereas 22 (32%) studies analyzed results of only one compartment. In eight (12%) articles, the affected compartments were not specified.
TABLE 1.
CECS study characteristics (n =; 68)
| Author | Design | Level of Evidence | patients (n) | Patient population? | Male/Female | µ age in year (min‐max) | Affected compartments | µ duration symptoms in months (min‐max) | n conservative patients/ n surgical patients | Conservative Intervention(s) | Surgical approach | µ Follow‐up in months (min‐max) | Outcome measurements used | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICP | Patient satisfaction | Return to activity | SANE | LLOS | Complications (in %) | Recurrence (in %) | Reoperations (in %) | |||||||||||||
| Akermark et al 42 | R | 4 | 30 | C | 19/11 | 23 (15‐36) | DP | ‐ | ‐/30 | ‐ | Open | 34 (6‐85) | N | Y | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Ali et al 24 | P | 4 | 20 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | A | ‐ | 4/16 | PT | ES | 6 (‐) | N | Y | N | N | N | 0 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Allen & Barnes 43 | P | 4 | 110 | C | 86/24 | ‐ (12‐44) | A, DP | ‐ | ‐/110 | ‐ | MI | ‐ | Y | N | Y | N | N | 0 | 1 | ‐ |
| Balius et al 44 | P | 4 | 7 | C | ‐ | 26 (18‐34) | A | ‐ | ‐/7 | ‐ | MI | 25 (12‐38) | N | N | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Beck et al 45 | R | 4 | 135 | C | ‐ | ‐ | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/135 | ‐ | Open, MI & ES | 11 (6‐28) | N | N | Y | N | N | 11.2 | ‐ | 19 |
| Biedert & Marti 29 | R | 4 | 15 | C | 14/1 | 29 (‐) | DP | 54 (12‐180) | ‐/15 | ‐ | Open | 27 (8‐72) | Y | N | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Blackman et al 46 | P | 4 | 7 | C | 6/1 | 25 (21‐29) | A | ‐ | 7/‐ | M | ‐ | 1 (‐) | Y | N | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Breen et al 23 | P | 4 | 10 | C | 9/1 | 31 (‐) | ‐ | ‐ | 10/‐ | GR | ‐ | 12 (‐) | N | Y | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Cook & Bruce 47 | R | 4 | 14 | M | 10/4 | 27 (22‐38) | A, L, DP, SP | 63 (6‐120) | ‐/14 | ‐ | Open | 37 (11‐90) | N | Y | N | N | N | 11.1 | 3.7 | 3.7 |
| de Bruijn et al 48 | P | 4 | 14 | C | 5/9 | 26 (18‐48) | A | ‐ (6‐240) | ‐/14 | ‐ | MI | 21 (16‐25) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 3.6 | ‐ | ‐ |
| de Fijter et al 33 | R | 4 | 72 | C + M | 65/7 | 21 (18‐37) | A | ‐ | ‐/72 | ‐ | MI | 62 (‐) | N | N | Y | N | N | 18 | 2 | 2 |
| Detmer et al 49 | R | 4 | 100 | C | 51/49 | 26 (‐) | A, L, DP, SP | 22 (‐) | ‐/100 | ‐ | Open & MI | 5 (0‐47) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 7.7 | 3.4 | 3.4 |
| Diebal et al 19 | P | 4 | 10 | M | 8/2 | 20 (‐) | A, L | ‐ | 10/‐ | GR | ‐ | 12 (‐) | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Drexler et al 50 | R | 4 | 53 | C | 49/4 | 24 (16‐43) | A, L | 22 (1‐120) | ‐/53 | ‐ | MI | 50 (5‐98) | N | Y | N | N | N | 16.8 | 8.4 | ‐ |
| Edmundsson et al 51 | P | 4 | 18 | C | 8/10 | 36 (16‐65) | ‐ | 31 (6‐180) | ‐/18 | ‐ | Open | 12 (‐) | N | Y | N | N | N | 10.5 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Finestone et al 2 | R | 4 | 36 | C + M | ‐ | 24 (16‐54) | A | ‐ | ‐/36 | ‐ | ‐ | 116 (‐) | N | N | N | N | N | 4.9 | ‐ | 1.6 |
| Fronek et al 25 | R | 4 | 18 | C | 8/10 | 24 (12‐43) | A, L | ‐ | 5/13 | AM | Open | 50 (‐) | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 10 | ‐ | 5 |
| Garcia‐Mata et al 3 | R | 4 | 23 | C | 10/13 | 16 (14‐18) | A, L, DP, SP | 24 (7‐72) | ‐/23 | ‐ | Open | 58 (12‐84) | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 2.3 | 0 | 2.3 |
| Gatenby et al 52 | R | 4 | 20 | C | 8/12 | 28 (16‐50) | A, L | 32 (1‐131) | ‐/20 | ‐ | Open | ‐ | N | N | Y | N | N | 5.6 | 5.6 | 2.8 |
| Helmhout et al 21 | P | 3 | 19 | M | 18/1 | 25 (19‐53) | ‐ | ‐ | 19/‐ | GR | ‐ | 4 (‐) | Y | N | N | Y | Y | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Helmhout et al 53 | P | 4 | 6 | M | 6/0 | 21 (18‐27) | ‐ | ‐ (6‐36) | 6/‐ | GR | ‐ | 9 (‐) | N | N | N | Y | Y | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Howard et al 54 | R | 4 | 39 | C | 14/25 | 32 (‐) | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/39 | ‐ | Open | 185 (‐) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 13 | ‐ | 6 |
| Irion et al 55 | R | 4 | 13 | C | 6/7 | 20 (17‐24) | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ (0‐4) | ‐/13 | ‐ | Open | 11 (2‐60) | N | N | Y | N | N | 7.7 | 31 | 7.7 |
| Islam & Robbs. 39 | P | 3 | 120 | C | 86/34 | 28 (18‐53) | A, L, DP, SP | 42 (12‐72) | ‐/120 | ‐ | Open | 12 (‐) | N | Y | N | N | N | 11 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Isner‐Horobeti et al 22 | R | 4 | 16 | C + M | 13/3 | 23 (18‐36) | A, L | 40 (4‐240) | ‐/16 | BI | ‐ | 4 (3‐9) | Y | Y | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Jarvinnen et al 56 | R | 4 | 34 | C | 26/8 | 24 (15‐41) | DP | 18 (3‐60) | ‐/34 | ‐ | Open | ‐ (12‐120) | N | Y | N | N | N | 9 | 6 | 6 |
| Lohrer & Nauck. 57 | R | 4 | 17 | C | 8/9 | 24 (14‐43) | A, L, DP | 38 (6‐360) | ‐/17 | ‐ | ES | 47 (5‐84) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 10.5 | 0 | 5.3 |
| Maffulli et al 58 | P | 4 | 18 | C | 12/6 | 27 (18‐35) | A, L | 17 (5‐31) | ‐/18 | ‐ | MI | 8 (5‐12) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 14.8 | 0 | ‐ |
| Maher et al 59 | R | 4 | 21 | C | 5/16 | 25 (‐) | ‐ | 15 (‐) | ‐/21 | ‐ | Open | 213(32‐329) | N | N | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| McCallum et al 60 | R | 4 | 46 | M | 38/8 | 30 (19‐50) | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/46 | ‐ | ‐ | 26 (8‐51) | N | Y | Y | Y | N | 20 | ‐ | 1.4 |
| Micheli et al 16 | R | 4 | 47 | C | ‐ | 17 (14‐21) | A, L, DP, SP | 15 (‐) | ‐/47 | ‐ | MI | 50 (3‐162) | N | Y | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Moeyersoons et al 61 | R | 4 | 100 | C | 81/19 | 14 (‐) | ‐ | 24 (‐) | ‐/100 | ‐ | Open | ‐ | N | Y | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Mouhsine et al 62 | R | 4 | 18 | C | 10/8 | 25 (19‐38) | A, L | ‐ | ‐/18 | ‐ | Open | 24 (‐) | N | N | Y | N | N | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Orlin et al 63 | R | 4 | 37 | C | 17/20 | 37 (‐) | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/37 | ‐ | Open | 34 (24‐52) | N | Y | N | N | N | 2.7 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Packer et al 26 | R | 3 | 100 | C | 32/68 | 26 (‐) | ‐ | ‐ | 27/73 | AM | ‐ | 67 (‐) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 6.4 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Pandya & Ganley. 64 | R | 4 | 6 | C | ‐ | ‐ (15‐17) | A, L | ‐ | ‐/6 | ‐ | ES | ‐ | N | N | Y | N | N | 9.1 | ‐ | 0 |
| Pasic et al 65 | R | 4 | 46 | C | 23/23 | 30 (16‐57) | A, L, DP, SP | 48 (0‐252) | ‐/46 | ‐ | Open | 55 (4‐127) | N | Y | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | 11 |
| Puranen & Alavaikko. 66 | R | 4 | 24 | C | 11/13 | 29 (16‐63) | A, DP | ‐ | ‐/24 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ (2‐8) | Y | N | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Qvarfordt et al 34 | R | 4 | 15 | C | 8/7 | 29 (17‐50) | A, L | 36 (5‐108) | ‐/15 | ‐ | Open | 3 (‐) | Y | Y | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Raikin et al 35 | R | 4 | 16 | C | 6/10 | 25 (14‐50) | A, L, DP | 30 (7‐72) | ‐/16 | ‐ | Open | 16 (6‐48) | N | Y | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Reneman. 36 | R | 4 | 61 | C + M | 58/3 | 21 (18‐57) | A, L | ‐ | ‐/61 | ‐ | Open | ‐ (2‐48) | Y | N | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Rettig et al 67 | R | 4 | 12 | C | 1/11 | 21 (15‐30) | A, L, DP | 17 (1‐36) | ‐/12 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ (6‐24) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 4.8 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Roberts et al 68 | R | 4 | 98 | M | 88/10 | 28 (‐) | A | ‐ | ‐/98 | ‐ | Open | 23 (‐) | N | Y | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Rorabeck et al 69 | R | 4 | 12 | C | 9/3 | 21 (18‐26) | A, L, DP, SP | 11 (5‐18) | ‐/12 | ‐ | Open | 12 (6‐24) | N | Y | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Rorabeck et al 70 | R | 4 | 25 | C | 14/11 | 22 (‐) | A, L, DP | ‐ (12‐84) | ‐/25 | ‐ | Open | ‐ (24‐42) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 4 | 12 | 8 |
| Schepsis et al 71 | P | 4 | 20 | C | 8/12 | 23 (16‐37) | A, L | ‐ (4‐30) | ‐/20 | ‐ | Open | 26 (12‐42) | N | Y | N | N | N | 3.3 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Schepsis et al 37 | R | 4 | 28 | C | 15/13 | ‐ (15‐39) | A, L, DP | ‐ (2‐30) | ‐/28 | ‐ | Open | 50 (‐) | N | Y | N | N | N | 8.7 | ‐ | 2.2 |
| Sebik & Dogan. 38 | P | 4 | 6 | C | 4/2 | 28 (‐) | A | ‐ | ‐/6 | ‐ | ES | 24 (‐) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 0 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Simpson et al 4 | R | 4 | 41 | M | ‐ | ‐ | A | 40 (9‐110) | ‐/41 | ‐ | MI | ‐ | N | N | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Singh et al 72 | R | 4 | 15 | C + M | 13/2 | 31 (20‐43) | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/15 | ‐ | Open | 3 (1‐6) | N | Y | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Slimmon et al 73 | R | 3 | 62 | C | 27/35 | 26 (‐) | ‐ | 30 (2‐300) | ‐/62 | ‐ | Open | 51 (24‐107) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 3.4 | 11 | 11 |
| Styf & Korner. 74 | R | 4 | 19 | C | 14/5 | 26 (17‐51) | A | 30 (10‐84) | ‐/19 | ‐ | Open | 25 (19‐46) | N | Y | Y | N | N | ‐ | 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Sudmann. 75 | R | 4 | 29 | C + M | 11/18 | ‐ (14‐70) | A | ‐ (1‐120) | ‐/29 | ‐ | MI | ‐ (8‐30) | N | Y | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Takebayashi et al 76 | R | 4 | 9 | C | 6/3 | 22 (18‐24) | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/9 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | N | Y | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Thein et al 31 | R | 4 | 55 | C | 36/7 | 24 (‐) | A | ‐ | 12/43 | AM | Open | 28 (‐) | N | N | Y | N | N | 7.4 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Turnipseed. 5 | R | 4 | 796 | C | 279/517 | ‐ | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/796 | ‐ | Open & MI | ‐ | N | Y | N | N | N | 7 | 3.9 | ‐ |
| van den Brand et al 30 | P | 3 | 10 | C + M | 8/2 | 23 (‐) | A | ‐ | ‐/10 | ‐ | MI | ‐ | Y | N | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| van den Brand et al 77 | P | 3 | 42 | M | ‐ | ‐ | A | ‐ | ‐/42 | ‐ | MI | ‐ | Y | N | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| van der Wal et al 7 | R | 4 | 12 | M | 11/1 | 30 (‐) | A | 50 (‐) | 12/6 | LM | MI | 2 (‐) | Y | Y | N | N | N | 0 | ‐ | ‐ |
| van Zantvoort et al 78 | R | 4 | 30 | C | 14/16 | 29 (17‐65) | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/30 | ‐ | Open | ‐ (12‐108) | N | Y | Y | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| van Zoest et al 27 | R | 4 | 46 | C | 19/27 | 35 (‐) | DP | ‐ | 19/27 | LM | Open | 36 (19‐44) | N | Y | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Verleisdonk et al 8 | P | 4 | 53 | C + M | 47/6 | ‐ (18‐41) | A | 24 (‐) | 3/50 | AM | MI | ‐ | Y | Y | N | N | N | ‐ | 5.7 | 1.4 |
| Verleisdonk et al 28 | R | 4 | 81 | C + M | 77/4 | 24 (18‐54) | A, L | 6 (1‐60) | ‐/81 | ‐ | MI | 6 (‐) | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 2.6 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Waterman et al 79 | R | 4 | 611 | M | 561/50 | 28 (‐) | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/611 | ‐ | Open | ‐ | N | N | Y | N | N | 14.3 | 45 | 5.9 |
| Winkes et al 80 | P | 4 | 52 | C | 23/29 | 33 (‐) | A, L, DP | ‐ | ‐/52 | ‐ | Open | 39 (3‐89) | N | Y | N | N | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Winkes et al 81 | P | 4 | 42 | C | 23/19 | ‐ (17‐52) | DP | ‐ (3‐72) | ‐/42 | ‐ | Open | 26 (12‐42) | N | Y | Y | N | N | 6.3 | 6.2 | 1.6 |
| Wittstein et al 82 | R | 4 | 9 | C | 4/5 | 24 (13‐54) | A, L, DP, SP | ‐ | ‐/9 | ‐ | ES | 45 (5‐90) | N | N | Y | N | N | 14.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Zimmermann et al 20 | R | 3 | 37 | M | 32/5 | 23 (19‐30) | A | 11 (3‐28) | 37/‐ | GR | ‐ | 11 (3‐28) | N | Y | N | Y | N | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
Abbreviations: ‐, information not available; A, anterior compartment; AM, Activity modification; BI, botulinum injection; C, civil population; DP, deep posterior compartment; ES, endoscopic; GR, Gait retraining; L, lateral compartment; LM, Lifestyle modification; M, military population; MI, minimally invasive; N, no; P, prospective; PT, Physical therapy; R, retrospective; SP, superficial posterior compartment; Y, yes.
Inclusion of CECS patients was done by using a suggestive history of pain during exercise as a criterium in 62 articles (91%). In a total of 58 studies (85%), ICP manometry was performed, of which 24 studies applied the Pedowitz criteria. Additional imaging using radiographic images, MRI, or scintigraphy, for exclusion of stress fractures, was performed in 23 (34%), eight (12%), and 20 (29%) articles, respectively. Ultrasonography either traditionally and/or with Doppler, for exclusion of vascular pathologies, was conducted by ten studies (15%).
3.1. Outcome following conservative treatment
Studies reporting on ICP measurements, SANE, 19 , 20 LLOS, 19 patient satisfaction, or return to physical activity following conservative interventions are depicted in Table 2. Interestingly, none of the studies used similar intervention strategies (Appendix S1) or outcome measurements.
TABLE 2.
Treatment outcome following conservative intervention in CECS
| n | Conservative Intervention | ICP values | SANE | LLOS | Satisfaction (in %) | Return to activity (in %) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement | Before intervention µ in mm Hg (±SD) | After intervention µ in mm Hg (±SD) | Change (P‐value) | Before intervention (±SD) | After intervention (±SD) | Change (P‐value) | Before intervention (±SD) | After intervention (±SD) | Change (P‐value) | Satisfied or improved | Very satisfied or symptom free | Previous level | Full activity | |||
| Ali et al 24 | 4 | PT | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 0 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Blackman et al 46 | 7 | M | 3‐min PE | 63 (±21) | 68 (±24) | 0.156 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Breen et al 23 | 10 | GR | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 17 | 83 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Diebal et al 19 | 10 | GR |
Resting 1‐min PE |
40 (±11) 78 (±32) |
36 (±12) 38 (±12) |
‐ 0.002 |
50 (±21) | 90 (±10) | <0.01 | 67.3 (±13.7) | 91.5 (±8.5) | <0.01 | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | ‐ |
| Fronek et al 25 | 5 | AM | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 20 | ‐ | 0 | ‐ |
| Helmhout et al 21 | 19 | GR | 1‐min PE | 73 (‐) | 47 (‐) | <0.05 | 56 (±15) | 77 (±22) | 0.00 | 72.0 (±11.3) | 84.6 (±15.5) | 0.00 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Isner‐Horobeti et al 22 | 16 | BI |
anterior 1‐min PE 5‐min PE lateral 1‐min PE 5‐min PE |
65 (‐) 40 (‐) 60 (‐) 39 (‐) |
22 (‐) 12 (‐) 19 (‐) 10 (‐) |
<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.01 |
94 | 94 | ||||||||
| Packer et al 26 | 27 | AM | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 56 | ‐ | ‐ | 30 |
| Thein et al 31 | 12 | AM | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 25 | ‐ |
| van der Wal et al 7 | 12 | LM | PE | 58 (±15) | 51 (±15) | NS | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 0 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Van Zoest et al 27 | 19 | LM | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 84 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Verleisdonk et al 8 | 3 | AM | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 0 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Zimmermann et al 20 | 37 | GR | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 51 (±15) | 73 (±22) | <0.01 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 70 | 19 | ‐ | ‐ |
Abbreviations: ‐, information not available; AM, Activity modification; BI, botulinum injection; GR, Gait retraining; ICP, intracompartmental pressure; LLOS, Lower Leg Outcome Survey (0‐60, with 60 being normal); LM, Lifestyle modification; M, Massage; PE, post‐exercise; PT, Physical therapy; SANE, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (0‐100 scale, with 100 being normal).
A significant drop in ICP was reported in two studies using gait retraining 19 , 21 and one applying botulinum injections. 22 Moreover, lower ICP values were associated with an improved outcome as reflected by SANE and LLOS scores. Improvement of symptoms or satisfaction was reported by 47% (±42%) of the patients who completed a follow‐up analysis, whereas 50% (±45%) returned to a form of physical activity. The well‐structured gait retraining programs 20 , 23 and treatment with botulinum injections 22 scored highest with satisfaction rates ranging from 89% to 100%, whereas all studies with patients alone initiated modifications in activity and/or lifestyle 7 , 8 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 scored between 0% and 84% satisfaction.
Among the 171 conservatively treated patients, six cases were reported to eventually opt for surgery. 7 Additionally, a significant reduction of individuals requiring subsequent surgery was found in military populations (not mentioned in Table 2). 19 , 20
3.2. Outcome following surgical treatment
Clinical outcome with respect to lowered ICP values, patient satisfaction, return to activity, rates of complication, recurrence, and reoperation after surgical intervention is depicted in Table 3.
TABLE 3.
Treatment outcome following surgical intervention for CECS
| Legs (n) | Compartments (n) | Type of Surgery | ICP in mm Hg | Likert Scale (in %) | Satisfaction (in %) | Return to activity (in %) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement | Before intervention µ (±SD) | After intervention µ (±SD) | Change (P‐value) | Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | Bad | Satisfied/ improved | Very satisfied/ symptom free | Previous level | Full activity | ||||
| Akermark et al 42 | 60 | 60 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 30 | 57 | ‐ | 67 |
| Ali et al 24 | 24 | 24 | ES | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Allen & Barnes 43 | 73 | 84 | MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 96 |
| Balius et al 44 | 9 | 9 | MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 86 | ‐ |
| Beck et al 45 | 250 | 741 | Open, MI & ES | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 80 | ‐ |
| Biedert & Marti. 29 | 15 | ‐ | Open |
Rest PE |
6 (‐) 19 (‐) |
2 (‐) 2 (‐) |
<0.005 <0.0001 |
‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Cook & Bruce 47 | 27 | 56 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 78.5 | ‐ | ‐ | |||||
| de Bruijn et al 48 | 28 | 28 | MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 31 | 31 | 23 | 8 | 8 | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | ‐ |
| de Fijter et al 33 | 118 | 118 | MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 94 |
| Detmer et al 49 | ‐ | 233 | Open & MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 9 | 73 | 16 | 75 |
| Drexler et al 50 | 95 | 95 | MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 75.5 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Edmundsson et al 51 | 57 | 121 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 11 | 61 | 26 | 2 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Fronek et al 25 | 20 | 40 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 94 | 94 | ‐ |
| Garcia‐Mata et al 3 | 43 | ‐ | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | ‐ | 100 |
| Gatenby et al 52 | 36 | 72 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 50 | 40 |
| Howard et al 54 | 39 | 78 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 79 | ‐ | 78 | ‐ |
| Irion et al 55 | 20 | 48 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 85 | ‐ |
| Islam & Robbs. 39 | 216 | 376 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 6 | 90 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Jarvinnen et al 56 | 34 | 48 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 41 | 37 | 15 | 7 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Lohrer & Nauck 57 | 38 | 38 | ES | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 53 | 6 | 24 | 18 | ‐ | ‐ | 59 | 82 | ‐ |
| Maffulli et al 58 | 27 | 38 | MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 94 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 83 | 11 |
| Maher et al 59 | 36 | ‐ | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 75 | ‐ |
| McCallum et al 60 | 70 | 114 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 71.4 | ‐ | 37 | 41 |
| Micheli et al 16 | 72 | 103 | MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 47 | 28 | 15 | 9 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 75 | ‐ |
| Moeyersoons & Martens 61 | 85 | ‐ | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 75 | 6 | 19 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 83.5 | 84 | ‐ |
| Mouhsine et al 62 | 29 | 36 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | ‐ |
| Orlin et al 63 | 74 | 296 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 30 | 63 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Packer et al 26 | 125 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 81 | ‐ | ‐ | 79 |
| Pandya & Ganley. 64 | 11 | 22 | ES | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | ‐ |
| Pasic et al 65 | 84 | 244 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 30 | 48 | 63 | ‐ |
| Qvarfordt et al 34 | 30 | 60 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 93 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Raikin et al 35 | ‐ | ‐ | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 20 | 80 | 87 | ‐ |
| Reneman et al 36 | 119 | ‐ | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 90 | ‐ |
| Rettig et al 67 | 20 | 21 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 83 | 17 | 25 | 66 |
| Roberts et al 68 | 189 | 189 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 52 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Rorabeck et al 69 | 24 | 56 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 83 | ‐ | 83 |
| Rorabeck et al 70 | ‐ | ‐ | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 92 | ‐ | 64 | ‐ |
| Schepsis et al 71 | 30 | 45 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 43 | 47 | 7 | 3 | ‐ | 90 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Schepsis et al 37 | 46 | 64 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 49 | 23 | 14 | 0 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Sebik & Dogan. 38 | 9 | 9 | ES | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | 100 | ‐ |
| Simpson et al 4 | 82 | 82 | MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 29 | 46 |
| Singh et al 72 | 17 | 64 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Slimmon et al 73 | 117 | 148 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 31 | 18 | 19 | 13 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 42 | ‐ |
| Styf & Korner. 74 | 30 | 30 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 74 | ‐ | 63 | 32 |
| Sudmann. 75 | 40 | 40 | MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 15 | 70 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Takebayashi et al 76 | 12 | 20 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 33 | 33 | 33 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Thein et al 31 | 54 | 54 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 77.4 | ‐ |
| Turnipseed. 5 | 1396 | 2401 | Open & MI | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 91 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Van den Brand et al 30 | 10 | 20 | MI | PE | 61 (±27) | 30 (±8) | <0.05 | |||||||||
| Van der Wal et al 7 | 10 | 10 | MI | PE | 51 (±15) | 36 (±5) | Sig. | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| van Zantvoort et al 78 | 54 | 95 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 13 | 20 | 23 | 10 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 30 | ‐ |
| Van Zoest et al 27 | ‐ | ‐ | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 19 | ‐ | ‐ | 52 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Verleisdonk et al 8 | 100 | 100 | MI | Median and range instead of mean and SD | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 83 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |||
| Rest | 17 (3‐23) | 15 (4‐29) | >0.05 | |||||||||||||
| PE | 62 (30‐103) | 22 (11‐29 | <0.05 | |||||||||||||
| 5‐min PE | 37 (21‐55) | 16 (7‐28) | <0.05 | |||||||||||||
| Verleisdonk et al 28 | 151 | 151 | MI | Rest | 22 (‐) | 14 (‐) | <0.05 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 76 | ‐ | ‐ | 76 |
| DE | 58 (‐) | 25.4 (‐) | <0.01 | |||||||||||||
| 5‐min PE | 34 (‐) | 25.2 (‐) | <0.05 | |||||||||||||
| Waterman et al 79 | 754 | 1794 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 72 |
| Winkes et al 80 | ‐ | ‐ | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 17 | 31 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Winkes et al 81 | 64 | 64 | Open | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 23 | 31 | 9 | 8 | ‐ | 76 | ‐ | 29 | ‐ |
| Wittstein et al 82 | 14 | 30 | ES | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 89 | ‐ |
Abbreviations: ‐, information not available; DE, during exercise; ES, endoscopic; ICP, intracompartmental pressure; MI, minimally invasive; PE, post‐exercise.
ICP values were obtained both before and after surgical intervention in nine of thirty studies. Five 7 , 8 , 28 , 29 , 30 of these found a statistically significant reduction of ICP, suggesting that surgical intervention is effective in reducing muscle compartment pressures.
Patient‐reported outcome measures and rates of return to activity reveal that the majority of CECS patients were satisfied and returned to previous levels of activity. In addition, 58% (±29.6%) were satisfied with the treatment results and experienced reduction of symptoms, whereas 78% (±21.2%) were very satisfied and/or free of symptoms. Combining these results allows for calculating an 85% (±13%) overall satisfaction rate. Moreover, the average proportion that returned to some form of physical activity after surgery was 80% (±17.3). However, return to previous level and/or full activity was on average 69% (±25.5%) and 65% (±25.0%), respectively.
Surgical complications and rates of recurrence and reoperations (Table 1) indicate that approximately 8% (±5.3%) of the studied CECS patients experienced surgical complications, mainly wound problems or nerve damage. Irrespective of surgical technique or operated compartment, recurrence, and reoperation rates were 7% (±10.8%) and 5% (±4.3%), respectively. Comparing studies that focused on civilian (n =; 32) or military patients (n =; 3) revealed a significantly higher complication rate among patients that serve in the armed forces (civilian 7.1%±4.6% versus military 15.1%±4.5%, P =; .01). Similar results are found with respect to recurrence (civilian 5.6%±7.7% versus military 24.4%±29.2%, P =; .03) and reoperations rates (civilian 5.2%±4.8% versus military 21.4%±32.6%, P =; .03).
A list of different postoperative treatment protocols after surgical intervention is found in Appendix S2. Days of rest, weight bearing, use of compressive bandages, and sport limitations varied widely among studies.
3.3. Comparison of conservative and surgical interventions
Table 4 lists studies comparing conservative and surgical interventions. Packer et al 26 and Thein et al 31 compared rates of return to activity and found significant differences favoring surgical intervention. However, Packer et al 26 found similar satisfaction rates. Interestingly, Zimmermann et al 20 reported in a military population a higher percentage that returned to active duty following conservative treatment compared to surgical intervention.
TABLE 4.
Comparing conservative and surgical interventions in CECS
| Study | Conservative | Surgical | ICP in mm Hg | Satisfaction (in %) | Return to activity (in%) | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement | Conservative | Surgical | Overall Difference (p‐value) | Conservative | Surgical | Difference (p‐value) | Conservative | Surgical | Overall Difference (p‐value) | ||||||||||
| Patients (n) | Legs (n) | Compartments (n) | Before intervention µ (±SD) | After intervention µ (±SD) | Before intervention µ (±SD) | After intervention µ (±SD) | Satisfied/ improved | Very satisfied/ symptom free | Satisfied/ improved | Very satisfied/ symptom free | Previous level | Full activity | Previous level | Full activity | |||||
| Ali et al 24 | 4 | 24 | 24 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 0 | ‐ | ‐ | 100 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Fronek et al 25 | 5 | 20 | 40 |
Resting PE 1‐min PE 5‐min PE |
17.14(±9.05) 57.0 (±22.4) 42.3 (±21.0) 34.3 (±22.3) |
‐ |
18.5 (±7.94) 55.7(±33.25) 37.4 (±14.3) 27.8 (±9.61) |
9.2 (±0.98) 12.7(±2.49) 10 (±0) 9.8 (±2.23) |
‐ | 20 | ‐ | ‐ | 94 | ‐ | 0 | ‐ | 94 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Packer et al 26 | 27 | 125 | ‐ |
Rest PE |
6.30 (±2.92) 26.67(±11.26) |
‐ |
6.60 (±3.23) 40.44(±9.60) |
‐ |
NS <0.001 |
56 | ‐ | 81 | ‐ | 0.011 | ‐ | 30 | ‐ | 79 | <0.001 |
| Thein et al 31 | 12 | 54 | 54 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 25 | ‐ | 77.4 | ‐ | 0.001 |
| Van der Wal et al 7 | 12 | 10 | 10 | PE | 58 (±15) | 51 (±15) | 51 (±15) | 36 (±5) | ‐ | 0 | ‐ | 100 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Van Zoest et al 27 | 19 | ‐ | ‐ |
Rest PE 1‐min PE 5‐min PE |
14.5 (‐) 15.5 (‐) 13.5 (‐) 12 (‐) |
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ |
22 (‐) 34.5 (‐) 31.5 (‐) 29.5 (‐) |
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ |
NS <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 |
84 | ‐ | 52 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Verleisdonk et al 8 | 3 | 100 | 100 | Median and range instead of mean and SD | ‐ | 0 | ‐ | 83 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ||||
|
Rest PE 5‐min PE |
‐ ‐ ‐ |
‐ ‐ ‐ |
17 (3‐23) 62 (30‐103) 37 (21‐55) |
15 (4‐29) 22 (11‐29) 16 (7‐28) |
‐ ‐ ‐ |
||||||||||||||
Abbreviations: ‐, information not available; ICP, intracompartmental pressure; NS, non‐significant; PE, post‐exercise.
4. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
This systematic review is the first to analyze studies reporting on outcome following conservative and surgical treatment in patients with CECS in any compartment of the lower leg, not just the posterior compartment. 32 No randomized controlled trials were found.
Most CECS studies report on beneficial effects of surgical therapy, with an overall 85% satisfaction rate and an 80% rate of return to physical activity. In contrast, conservative interventions were seemingly associated with lower rates of satisfaction and return to activity (47% and 50%, respectively). Only two studies compared both modalities in one model, reporting statistically superior results following a fasciotomy. 26 , 31 However, caution regarding an interpretation is required due to the limited number of studies on conservative treatment with substantial smaller study populations.
This review demonstrates that ICP measurements are infrequently used as a treatment outcome parameter, even though they are considered the gold standard in diagnosing CECS. Only sixteen of the included studies measured ICPs before and after intervention, with only nine studies reporting on corresponding P‐values. The use of ICP measurements as outcome measure cannot be confirmed, nor discarded with current literature.
Another interesting finding is that this overview consistently found a potential difference between surgically treated civilian and military study populations with significant higher rates of postoperative complications, recurrence, and reoperations in the military, as was already suggested by previous literature. 12 , 15 , 17 Even though these observations were made on the basis of different population sizes (civilian n =; 1975, military n =; 671), these findings may suggest conservative treatment in military patients may be preferred compared to surgery.
This review was subject to a number of limitations, the most prominent being the lack of uniformity among outcome measures. Moreover, follow‐up data were often obtained in substantially smaller number of patients than initially treated, potentially introducing selection bias. This principle also applies to the exact determination of overall recurrence rates and complications, especially when information on unilaterality or bilaterality of symptoms was missing.
This review was further hampered by the heterogeneity among study populations. Variation was found in studies with respect to the inclusion of patients with fascial herniae, 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 28 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 presence of concomitant MTSS 20 or affected upper extremities. 39 An attempt to overcome this heterogeneity was made by solely including studies that allowed for extraction of data only concerning CECS in the lower extremity. Nevertheless, any conclusion based on the present review must be taken with caution.
Defining uniform and generally applicable outcome parameters will likely simplify future data comparison. This process is facilitated by initiating a consensus via the Delphi method as was already conducted for various other entities by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. 40 Based on the content of Hip & Knee osteoarthritis set, 41 we wish to propose a potential outline from which standardization can be initiated (Figure 2). The use of a 5‐point Likert scale is preferred for all questions related to symptoms or performance. Currently, such a set of standardized outcome measurements will be applied by our study group to military civilian collaboration, with special emphasis on prevention, conservative treatment, and non‐invasive diagnostics.
FIGURE 2.
Proposed outline for a standardized Patient Reported Outcome Measurement in patients with CECS
In conclusion, the present review found that surgical treatment for CECS resulted in a minimal 80% overall satisfaction and return to physical activity rate. In contrast, conservative interventions were associated with lower rates of satisfaction and return to activity up to 50%. As these findings are based on low‐quality studies demonstrating a large heterogeneity, higher quality studies including randomized controlled trials with univocal endpoints are required for determining any superior treatment regimen in the lower leg CECS.
5. PERSPECTIVE
Surgery is currently the gold standard in the management of CECS of the lower extremity, although recent studies also reported success following gait retraining. This review provides an extensive overview of all published evidence regarding treatment outcome for both conservative and surgical therapy. This study therefore serves educational purposes for healthcare professionals working with CECS patients, who can be found among all areas of sport in both civil and military populations. The presented overview aids evidence‐based and shared decision making in the discussion between healthcare provider and patients; it offers clear implications and guidelines for future treatment and research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There is no conflict of interest to declare.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
SV and ER contributed equally to this manuscript. SV, ER, and RH conceptualized the study. SV wrote the study protocol. SV and ER conducted the literature searches, the study selection, the data extraction, and the study quality assessment. SV and ER performed all statistical analyses. SV and ER drafted all sections of the manuscript. All authors critically revised the draft manuscript and contributed to the subsequent revisions and the final version of the manuscript.
Supporting information
Appendix S1‐S2
Vogels S, Ritchie ED, van Dongen TTCF, Scheltinga MRM, Zimmermann WO, Hoencamp R. Systematic review of outcome parameters following treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome in the lower leg. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30:1827–1845. 10.1111/sms.13747
REFERENCES
- 1. Wuellner JC, Nathe CD, Kreulen CD, Burnham KJ, Giza E. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome: the Athlete's claudication. Oper Tech Sports Med. 2017;25(2):52‐58. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Finestone AS, Noff M, Nassar Y, Moshe S, Agar G, Tamir E. Management of chronic exertional compartment syndrome and fascial hernias in the anterior lower leg with the forefoot rise test and limited fasciotomy. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(3):285‐292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Garcia‐Mata S, Hidalgo‐Ovejero A, Martinez‐Grande M. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the legs in adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21(3):328‐334. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Simpson C, Roscoe D, Hughes S, Hulse D, Guthrie H. Surgical outcomes for chronic exertional compartment syndrome following improved diagnostic criteria. J R Army Med Corps. 2019. https://militaryhealth.bmj.com/content/early/2019/04/15/jramc‐2019‐001171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Turnipseed WD. Clinical review of patients treated for atypical claudication: a 28‐year experience. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(1):79‐85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Turnipseed WD. Diagnosis and management of chronic compartment syndrome. Surgery. 2002;132(4):613‐617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Van der Wal WA, Heesterbeek PJ, Van den Brand JG, Verleisdonk EJ. The natural course of chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the lower leg. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(7):2136‐2141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Verleisdonk EJ, Schmitz RF, van der Werken C. Long‐term results of fasciotomy of the anterior compartment in patients with exercise‐induced pain in the lower leg. Int J Sports Med. 2004;25(3):224‐229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Roberts A, Franklyn‐Miller A. The validity of the diagnostic criteria used in chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a systematic review. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012;22(5):585‐595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Zimmermann WO, Ligthert E, Helmhout PH, et al. Intracompartmental pressure measurements in 501 service members with exercise‐related leg pain. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med. 2018;3(14):107‐112. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Rajasekaran S, Hall MM. Nonoperative management of chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a systematic review. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2016;15(3):191‐198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Zimmermann WO, Helmhout PH, Beutler A. Prevention and treatment of exercise related leg pain in young soldiers; a review of the literature and current practice in the Dutch Armed Forces. J R Army Med Corps. 2017;163(2):94‐103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Lohrer H, Malliaropoulos N, Korakakis V, Padhiar N. Exercise‐induced leg pain in athletes: diagnostic, assessment, and management strategies. Phys Sportsmed. 2019;47(1):47‐59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Vajapey S, Miller TL. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a review of current literature. Phys Sportsmed. 2017;45(4):391‐398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Dunn JC, Waterman BR. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg in the military. Clin Sports Med. 2014;33(4):693‐705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Micheli LJ, Solomon R, Solomon J, Plasschaert VF, Mitchell R. Surgical treatment for chronic lower‐leg compartment syndrome in young female athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(2):197‐201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Meulekamp MZ, van der Wurff P, van der Meer A, Lucas C. Identifying prognostic factors for conservative treatment outcomes in servicemen with chronic exertional compartment syndrome treated at a rehabilitation center. Mil Med Res. 2017;4(1):36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC. Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(2):214‐221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Diebal AR, Gregory R, Alitz C, Gerber JP. Forefoot running improves pain and disability associated with chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(5):1060‐1067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Zimmermann WO, Hutchinson MR, Van den Berg R, Hoencamp R, Backx FJG, Bakker EWP. Conservative treatment of anterior chronic exertional compartment syndrome in the military, with a mid‐term follow‐up. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2019;5(1):e000532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Helmhout PH, Diebal AR, van der Kaaden L, Harts CC, Beutler A, Zimmermann WO. The effectiveness of a 6‐week intervention program aimed at modifying running style in patients with chronic exertional compartment syndrome: results from a series of case studies. Orthop J Sports Med. 2015;3(3):2325967115575691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Isner‐Horobeti ME, Dufour SP, Blaes C, Lecocq J. Intramuscular pressure before and after botulinum toxin in chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg: a preliminary study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2558‐2566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Breen DT, Foster J, Falvey E, Franklyn‐Miller A. Gait re‐training to alleviate the symptoms of anterior exertional lower leg pain: a case series. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015;10(1):85‐94. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Ali T, Mohammed F, Mencia M, Maharaj D, Hoford R. Surgical management of exertional anterior compartment syndrome of the leg. West Indian Med J. 2013;62(6):529‐532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Fronek J, Mubarak SJ, Hargens AR, et al. Management of chronic exertional anterior compartment syndrome of the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;220:217‐227. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Packer JD, Day MS, Nguyen JT, Hobart SJ, Hannafin JA, Metzl JD. Functional outcomes and patient satisfaction after fasciotomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(2):430‐436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. van Zoest WJ, Hoogeveen AR, Scheltinga MR, Sala HA, van Mourik JB, Brink PR. Chronic deep posterior compartment syndrome of the leg in athletes: postoperative results of fasciotomy. Int J Sports Med. 2008;29(5):419‐423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Verleisdonk EJ, van den Helder CJ, Hoogendoorn HA, van der Werken C. Good results of fasciotomy in chronic compartment syndrome of the lower leg. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1996;140(50):2513‐2517. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Biedert RM, Marti B. Intracompartmental pressure before and after fasciotomy in runners with chronic deep posterior compartment syndrome. Int J Sports Med. 1997;18(5):381‐386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Van Den Brand JGH, Verleisdonk EJMM, van der Werken C. Near infrared spectroscopy in the diagnosis of chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(2):452‐456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Thein R, Tilbor I, Rom E, et al. Return to sports after chronic anterior exertional compartment syndrome of the leg: conservative treatment versus surgery. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019;27(2):2309499019835651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Winkes MB, Hoogeveen AR, Scheltinga MR. Is surgery effective for deep posterior compartment syndrome of the leg? A systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(22):1592‐1598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. de Fijter WM, Scheltinga MR, Luiting MG. Minimally invasive fasciotomy in chronic exertional compartment syndrome and fascial hernias of the anterior lower leg: short‐ and long‐term results. Mil Med. 2006;171(5):399‐403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Qvarfordt P, Christenson JT, Eklof B, Ohlin P, Saltin B. Intramuscular pressure, muscle blood flow, and skeletal muscle metabolism in chronic anterior tibial compartment syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;179:284‐290. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Raikin SM, Rapuri VR, Vitanzo P. Bilateral simultaneous fasciotomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(12):1007‐1011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Reneman RS. The anterior and the lateral compartmental syndrome of the leg due to intensive use of muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;113:69‐80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Schepsis AA, Martini D, Corbett M. Surgical management of exertional compartment syndrome of the lower leg. Long‐term follow‐up. Am J Sports Med. 1993;21(6):811‐817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Sebik A, Dogan A. A technique for arthroscopic fasciotomy for the chronic exertional tibialis anterior compartment syndrome. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(5):531‐534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Islam J, Robbs JV. Management of chronic exertional compartment syndrome. S Afr J Surg. 2015;53(2):59‐61. [Google Scholar]
- 40. Porter ME, Larsson S, Lee TH. Standardizing patient outcomes measurement. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(6):504‐506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Ackerman IN, Cavka B, Lippa J, Bucknill A. The feasibility of implementing the ICHOM Standard Set for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: a mixed‐methods evaluation in public and private hospital settings. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2:32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Akermark C, Ljungdahl M, Johansson C. Long‐term results of fasciotomy caused by medial tibial syndromes in athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1991;1(1):59‐61. [Google Scholar]
- 43. Allen MJ, Barnes MR. Exercise pain in the lower leg. Chronic compartment syndrome and medial tibial syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986;68(5):818‐823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Balius R, Bong DA, Ardevol J, Pedret C, Codina D, Dalmau A. Ultrasound‐guided fasciotomy for anterior chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35(4):823‐829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Beck JJ, Tepolt FA, Miller PE, Micheli LJ, Kocher MS. Surgical treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome in pediatric patients. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(10):2644‐2650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Blackman PG, Simmons LR, Crossley KM. Treatment of chronic exertional anterior compartment syndrome with massage: a pilot study. Clin J Sport Med. 1998;8(1):14‐17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Cook S, Bruce G. Fasciotomy for chronic compartment syndrome in the lower limb. ANZ J Surg. 2002;72(10):720‐723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. de Bruijn JA, van Zantvoort APM, Winkes MB, et al. Feasibility and safety of an operative tool for anterior chronic exertional compartment syndrome treatment. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(12):1475‐1482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Detmer DE, Sharpe K, Sufit RL, Girdley FM. Chronic compartment syndrome: diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 1985;13(3):162‐170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Drexler M, Rutenberg TF, Rozen N, et al. Single minimal incision fasciotomy for the treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome: outcomes and complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(1):73‐79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Edmundsson D, Toolanen G, Sojka P. Chronic compartment syndrome also affects nonathletic subjects: a prospective study of 63 cases with exercise‐induced lower leg pain. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(1):136‐142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Gatenby G, Haysom S, Twaddle B, Walsh S. Functional outcomes after the surgical management of isolated anterolateral leg chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(11):2325967117737020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Helmhout PH, Diebal‐Lee MA, Poelsma LR, Harts CC, Zimmermann LW. Modifying marching technique in military service members with chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a case series. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016;11(7):1106‐1124. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Howard JL, Mohtadi NG, Wiley JP. Evaluation of outcomes in patients following surgical treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome in the leg. Clin J Sport Med. 2000;10(3):176‐184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Irion V, Magnussen RA, Miller TL, Kaeding CC. Return to activity following fasciotomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(7):1223‐1228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Jarvinnen M, Aho H, Niittymaki S. Results of the surgical treatment of the medial tibial syndrome in athletes. Int J Sports Med. 1989;10(1):55‐57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Lohrer H, Nauck T. Endoscopically assisted release for exertional compartment syndromes of the lower leg. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127(9):827‐834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Maffulli N, Loppini M, Spiezia F, D'Addona A, Maffulli GD. Single minimal incision fasciotomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the lower leg. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;11(1):61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Maher JM, Brook EM, Chiodo C, Smith J, Bluman EM, Matzkin EG. Patient‐reported outcomes following fasciotomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Foot Ankle Spec. 2018;11(5):471‐477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. McCallum JR, Cook JB, Hines AC, Shaha JS, Jex JW, Orchowski JR. Return to duty after elective fasciotomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(9):871‐875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Moeyersoons JP, Martens M. Chronic compartment syndrome: diagnosis and management. Acta Orthop. 1992;58(1):23‐27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Mouhsine E, Garofalo R, Moretti B, Gremion G, Akiki A. Two minimal incision fasciotomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the lower leg. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(2):193‐197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Orlin JR, Oen J, Andersen JR. Changes in leg pain after bilateral fasciotomy to treat chronic compartment syndrome: a case series study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2013;8:6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Pandya NK, Ganley TJ. Single‐incision endoscopically‐assisted compartment releases for exertional compartment syndrome in pediatric patients. Curr Orthop Pract. 2010;21(2):213‐217. [Google Scholar]
- 65. Pasic N, Bryant D, Willits K, Whitehead D. Assessing outcomes in individuals undergoing fasciotomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):707‐713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Puranen J, Alavaikko A. Intracompartmental pressure increase on exertion in patients with chronic compartment syndrome in the leg. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(8):1304‐1309. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Rettig AC, McCarroll JR, Hahn RG. Chronic compartment syndrome: surgical intervention in 12 cases. Phys Sports Med. 1991;19(4):63‐70. [Google Scholar]
- 68. Roberts AJ, Krishnasamy P, Quayle JM, Houghton JM. Outcomes of surgery for chronic exertional compartment syndrome in a military population. J R Army Med Corps. 2015;161(1):42‐45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Fowler PJ. The surgical treatment of exertional compartment syndrome in athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(9):1245‐1251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Rorabeck CH, Fowler PJ, Nott L. The results of fasciotomy in the management of chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Am J Sports Med. 1988;16(3):224‐227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Schepsis AA, Gill SS, Foster TA. Fasciotomy for exertional anterior compartment syndrome: is lateral compartment release necessary? Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(4):430‐435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Singh N, Sidawy AN, Bottoni CR, et al. Physiological changes in venous hemodynamics associated with elective fasciotomy. Ann Vasc Surg. 2006;20(3):301‐305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Slimmon D, Bennell K, Brukner P, Crossley K, Bell SN. Long‐term outcome of fasciotomy with partial fasciectomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the lower leg. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(4):581‐588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Styf JR, Korner LM. Chronic anterior‐compartment syndrome of the leg. Results of treatment by fasciotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68(9):1338‐1347. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Sudmann E. The painful chronic anterior lower leg syndrome. A prospective clinical and experimental study. Acta Orthop Scand. 1979;50(5):573‐581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Takebayashi S, Takazawa H, Sasaki R, Miki H, Soh R, Nishimura J. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome in lower legs: localization and follow‐up with thallium‐201 SPECT imaging. J Nucl Med. 1997;38(6):972‐976. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Van den Brand JG, Nelson T, Verleisdonk EJ, van der Werken C. The diagnostic value of intracompartmental pressure measurement, magnetic resonance imaging, and near‐infrared spectroscopy in chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a prospective study in 50 patients. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(5):699‐704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. van Zantvoort APM, de Bruijn JA, Hundscheid HPH, Cruijsen‐Raaijmakers M, Teijink JAW, Scheltinga MR. Fasciotomy for lateral lower‐leg chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Int J Sports Med. 2018;39(14):1081‐1087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Waterman BR, Laughlin M, Kilcoyne K, Cameron KL, Owens BD. Surgical treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg: failure rates and postoperative disability in an active patient population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(7):592‐596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Winkes MB, Hoogeveen AR, Houterman S, Giesberts A, Wijn PF, Scheltinga MR. Compartment pressure curves predict surgical outcome in chronic deep posterior compartment syndrome. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(8):1899‐1905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Winkes MB, van Zantvoort APM, de Bruijn JA, et al. Fasciotomy for deep posterior compartment syndrome in the lower leg: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(5):1309‐1316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Wittstein J, Moorman CT III, Levin LS. Endoscopic compartment release for chronic exertional compartment syndrome: surgical technique and results. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(8):1661‐1666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Pedowitz RA, Hargens AR, Mubarak SJ, Gershuni DH. Modified criteria for the objective diagnosis of chronic compartment syndrome of the leg. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(1):35‐40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Appendix S1‐S2