Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
4.7
3.0
Journals
Diagnostics
Special Issues
Recent Advances in Diagnosis and Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders
share announcement

Recent Advances in Diagnosis and Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders

A special issue of Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418). This special issue belongs to the section "Medical Imaging and Theranostics".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 July 2025 | Viewed by 125

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Antonio Jesús Láinez-Ramos-Bossini

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. Department of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, 18014 Granada, Spain
2. Advanced Imaging Group (TeCe22), Instituto Biosanitario de Granada (ibs.GRANADA), 18016 Granada, Spain
Interests: musculoskeletal radiology; artificial intelligence; evidence-based medicine; precision medicine
Dr. Fernando Ruiz Santiago

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. Department of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, 18014 Granada, Spain
2. Advanced Imaging Group (TeCe22), Instituto Biosanitario de Granada (ibs.GRANADA), 18016 Granada, Spain
Interests: musculoskeletal radiology; diagnosis; interventional procedures; spine

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue aims to provide updated knowledge and novel insights on the diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal disorders. Recent advances in this field, including a wide variety of diagnostic methods and procedures, warrant the need for up-to-date information and high-quality studies to enrich evidence-based decision making. We encourage the submission of original studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on this topic, encompassing any musculoskeletal disorder, including skeletal, muscle, and soft-tissue pathologies. New paradigms such as artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostic methods, novel imaging techniques, and cutting-edge surgical or interventional techniques are particularly welcome. 

Dr. Antonio Jesús Láinez-Ramos-Bossini
Dr. Fernando Ruiz Santiago
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Diagnostics is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • musculoskeletal disorder
  • radiology
  • interventional procedure
  • surgery
  • artificial intelligence

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (2 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

10 pages, 2100 KiB  
Article
A Comparative Analysis of International Classification Systems to Predict the Risk of Collapse in Single-Level Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures
by Antonio Jesús Láinez Ramos-Bossini, Paula María Jiménez Gutiérrez, David Luengo Gómez, Mario Rivera Izquierdo, José Manuel Benítez and Fernando Ruiz Santiago
Diagnostics 2024, 14(19), 2152; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14192152 - 27 Sep 2024
Abstract
Introduction: Various classifications for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) have been introduced to enhance patient care and facilitate clinical communication. However, there is limited evidence of their effectiveness in predicting vertebral collapse, and very few studies have compared this association across different classification systems. [...] Read more.
Introduction: Various classifications for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) have been introduced to enhance patient care and facilitate clinical communication. However, there is limited evidence of their effectiveness in predicting vertebral collapse, and very few studies have compared this association across different classification systems. This study aims to investigate the association between OVF categories, according to the most widely used classification systems, and vertebral collapse. Patients and Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted involving patients diagnosed with acute OVFs at the emergency department of a tertiary-level academic hospital with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Vertebral fractures were independently classified by two radiologists according to several classification systems, including those proposed by Genant, Sugita, the German Society for Orthopedics and Trauma (DGOU), and the AO Spine. Associations between vertebral collapse and OVF classification systems were analyzed using bivariate and logistic regression analyses. Results: This study included 208 patients (82.7% females; mean age of 72.6 ± 9.2 years). The median follow-up time was 15 months, with L1 being the most common fracture site (47.6%). The most frequent OVF types observed, according to Genant’s morphological, Genant’s quantitative, Sugita ’s, DGOU’s, and AO Spine’s classifications, were biconcave (50%), grade 0.5 (47.6%), bow-shaped (61.5%), OF2 (74%), and A1 (61.5%), respectively. All classifications, except for Genant’s quantitative system, were significantly associated with vertebral collapse in bivariate analyses. Logistic regression analyses showed a significant association (p = 0.002) between the AO Spine classification and vertebral collapse, with 85.7% of A4 fractures developing collapse on follow-up. Conclusions: The AO Spine classification showed the highest predictive capacity for vertebral collapse. Specifically, A4 fracture types showed a very high risk of vertebral collapse, confirming the need for non-conservative management of these fractures. Further multicentric and prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Diagnosis and Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

9 pages, 2473 KiB  
Article
Reliability and Validity of Ultrasound in Identifying Anatomical Landmarks for Diagnosing A2 Pulley Ruptures: A Cadaveric Study
by Xeber Iruretagoiena, Volker Schöffl, Ramón Balius, Marc Blasi, Fernando Dávila, Xavier Sala-Blanch, Asier Dorronsoro and Javier de la Fuente
Diagnostics 2024, 14(19), 2149; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14192149 - 27 Sep 2024
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Rock climbing is becoming more popular, leading to an increased focus on diagnosing and treating related injuries. Finger pulley and flexor tendon injuries are common among climbers, with the A2 pulley being the most frequently affected. High-resolution ultrasound (US) is the [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Rock climbing is becoming more popular, leading to an increased focus on diagnosing and treating related injuries. Finger pulley and flexor tendon injuries are common among climbers, with the A2 pulley being the most frequently affected. High-resolution ultrasound (US) is the preferred method for detecting pulley injuries. This study aimed to determine the reliability and validity of US in identifying anatomical landmarks for diagnosing A2 pulley ruptures. Methods: This study was cross-sectional, involving 36 fingers from 4 cadaver arms. A Canon Aplio i800 US machine was used to measure two anatomical landmarks: the midpoint of the proximal phalanx and the distal edge of the A2 pulley. For the first anatomical landmark, the length of the proximal phalanx (PP distance), and for the second landmark, the distance between the distal edges of the proximal phalanx and the A2 pulley (“A” distance), were measured. Measurements were performed by two sonographers and compared to a digital caliper measurement taken post-cadaver dissection. Observers were blinded during measurements to ensure unbiased results. Results: Overall PP distance measured by US (O1: 37.5 ± 5.3 mm, O2: 37.8 ± 5.4 mm) tended to be shorter than caliper measurements (O3: 39.5 ± 5.5 mm). The differences between sonographers were minimal, but larger when compared to caliper measurements. High reliability for PP distance measurement was observed, especially between sonographers, with an ICC average of 0.99 (0.98, 1.00). However, reliability was lower for the “A” distance, with significant differences between US and caliper measurements. Regarding validity, US measurements were valid when compared to caliper measurements for PP distance, but not as reliable for the “A” due to wider confidence intervals. While US can substitute caliper measurements for PP distance (LR, Y:O2, X:O3, −0.70 (−3.28–1.38), 0.98 (0.93 ± 1.04)), its validity for “A” distance is lower (LR, Y:O2, X:O3, −2.37 (−13.53–4.83), 1.02 (0.62–1.75)). Conclusions: US is a reliable and valid tool in identifying anatomical landmarks for diagnosing A2 pulley ruptures, particularly for detecting the midpoint of the proximal phalanx. This is important to differentiate between complete and partial A2 pulley tears. However, the measurement of the “A” distance requires further refinement. These findings support efforts to standardize US examination protocols and promote consensus in diagnostic methodology, though further research is needed to address the remaining challenges. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Diagnosis and Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-2
Back to TopTop