RESUMO
Background: Currently, invasive dynamic intracompartmental pressure (ICP) measurements are considered the gold standard for diagnosis of chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS). During recent years, different noninvasive imaging modalities have been presented as a possible replacement for ICP measurement. Purpose: To provide an overview of the current state of evidence and possibilities regarding noninvasive diagnostic methods for CECS. Study Design: Scoping review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase databases were searched using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Full-text articles were included if they reported on noninvasive diagnostic methods for CECS, included ≥5 patients with CECS, and were published between 1994 and 2022. Articles not written in English were excluded. Systematic reviews, letters to the editor, and case reports were not eligible for inclusion. Out of 961 articles identified in the initial search, 25 studies (N = 1257 participants) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative (QUADAS-C) tool for comparative studies and the QUADAS-2 tool for noncomparative studies. Narrative synthesis was used to present results. Results: The level of evidence for the 25 studies ranged from 2 to 4. Four studies were classified as having a low risk of bias, 21 studies were classified as being at risk of bias. The following noninvasive diagnostic tools for CECS were reported: magnetic resonance imaging/diffusion tensor imaging (n = 8), near-infrared spectroscopy (n = 6), electromyography (n = 4), single-photon emission computed tomography (n = 5), ultrasound (n = 2), myotonometry (n=1) and predictive clinical model (n = 1). There was insufficient evidence in the literature to support the use of any of these noninvasive diagnostic tools as a gold standard for CECS. Conclusion: Despite the need to replace the controversial use of ICP for the diagnosis of CECS, our review indicated a lack of validity on all discussed noninvasive diagnostic tools as a replacement.
