AC Portal
Document Navigator

Osteomyelitis or Septic Arthritis-Child (Excluding Axial Skeleton)

Variant: 1   Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Peds Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest Usually Appropriate O
Radiography area of interest Usually Appropriate Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI whole body without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) O
MRI whole body without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
3-phase bone scan area of interest Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Variant: 2   Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Peds Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest Usually Appropriate O
Image-guided aspiration area of interest Usually Appropriate Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRI area of interest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI whole body without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI whole body without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CT area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Variant: 3   Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Peds Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest Usually Appropriate O
Radiography area of interest Usually Appropriate Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRI whole body without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI whole body without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
3-phase bone scan area of interest Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Variant: 4   Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Peds Relative Radiation Level
Image-guided aspiration area of interest Usually Appropriate Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
US area of interest May Be Appropriate O
Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
3-phase bone scan area of interest May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRI whole body without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI whole body without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Variant: 5   Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Peds Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest Usually Appropriate O
Image-guided aspiration area of interest Usually Appropriate Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI extremity area of interest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRI whole body without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI whole body without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
3-phase bone scan area of interest Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Panel Members
Narendra S. Shet, MDa; Ramesh S. Iyer, MD, MBAb; Sherwin S. Chan, MD, PhDc; Keith Baldwin, MDd; Tushar Chandra, MBBS, MDe; Jimmy Chen, MDf; Matthew L. Cooper, MDg; C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPHh; Anne E. Gill, MDi; Terry L. Levin, MDj; Michael M. Moore, MDk; Helen R. Nadel, MDl; Mohsen Saidinejad, MD, MBAm; Gary R. Schooler, MDn; Judy H. Squires, MDo; David W. Swenson, MDp; Cynthia K. Rigsby, MDq.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Special Imaging Considerations
Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

  • There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

OR

  • There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
A. 3-phase bone scan area of interest
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
B. Bone scan whole body
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
C. Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
D. CT area of interest 
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Area of Interest
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Extremity Area of Interest
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Whole Body
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
H. Radiography Area of Interest
Variant 1: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
I. US Area of Interest
Variant 2: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
Variant 2: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest
Variant 2: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
B. CT area of interest with IV contrast
Variant 2: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
C. Image-Guided Aspiration Area of Interest
Variant 2: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
D. MRI Area of Interest
Variant 2: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
E. MRI Extremity Area of Interest
Variant 2: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
F. MRI Whole Body
Variant 2: Child. Younger than 5 years of age. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
G. US Area of Interest
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
A. 3-phase bone scan area of interest
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
B. Bone scan whole body
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
C. Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
D. CT area of interest 
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Area of Interest
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Extremity Area of Interest
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Whole Body
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
H. Radiography Area of Interest
Variant 3: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial imaging.
I. US Area of Interest
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
A. 3-phase bone scan area of interest
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
B. Bone scan whole body
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
C. Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
D. CT area of interest 
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
E. Image-Guided Aspiration Area of Interest
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
F. MRI Area of Interest
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
G. MRI Extremity Area of Interest
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
H. MRI Whole Body
Variant 4: Child. 5 years of age or older. Concern for osteomyelitis or septic arthritis involving an extremity. Initial radiographs normal, or with findings suggestive of osteomyelitis. Next imaging study.
I. US Area of Interest
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
A. 3-phase bone scan area of interest
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
B. Bone scan whole body
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
C. Bone scan whole body and 3-phase bone scan area of interest
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
D. CTA area of interest 
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
E. Image-Guided Aspiration Area of Interest
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
F. MRI Area of Interest
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
G. MRI Extremity Area of Interest
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
H. MRI Whole Body
Variant 5: Child. With one or more clinical signs concerning for septic arthritis. Initial radiographs normal or demonstrating possible joint effusion. Next imaging study.
I. US Area of Interest
Summary of Recommendations
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. Dodwell ER.. Osteomyelitis and septic arthritis in children: current concepts. [Review]. Curr Opin Pediatr. 25(1):58-63, 2013 Feb.
2. Gafur OA, Copley LA, Hollmig ST, Browne RH, Thornton LA, Crawford SE. The impact of the current epidemiology of pediatric musculoskeletal infection on evaluation and treatment guidelines. J Pediatr Orthop 2008;28:777-85.
3. Jaramillo D.. Infection: musculoskeletal. [Review]. Pediatr Radiol. 41 Suppl 1:S127-34, 2011 May.
4. Riise OR, Kirkhus E, Handeland KS, et al. Childhood osteomyelitis-incidence and differentiation from other acute onset musculoskeletal features in a population-based study. BMC Pediatr 2008;8:45.
5. Chen WL, Chang WN, Chen YS, et al. Acute community-acquired osteoarticular infections in children: high incidence of concomitant bone and joint involvement. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2010;43:332-8.
6. Monsalve J, Kan JH, Schallert EK, Bisset GS, Zhang W, Rosenfeld SB. Septic arthritis in children: frequency of coexisting unsuspected osteomyelitis and implications on imaging work-up and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 204(6):1289-95, 2015 Jun.
7. Rosenfeld S, Bernstein DT, Daram S, Dawson J, Zhang W. Predicting the Presence of Adjacent Infections in Septic Arthritis in Children. J Pediatr Orthop. 36(1):70-4, 2016 Jan.
8. Guillerman RP.. Osteomyelitis and beyond. Pediatr Radiol. 43 Suppl 1:S193-203, 2013 Mar.
9. Jaimes C, Chauvin NA, Delgado J, Jaramillo D. MR imaging of normal epiphyseal development and common epiphyseal disorders. Radiographics 2014;34:449-71.
10. Gilbertson-Dahdal D, Wright JE, Krupinski E, McCurdy WE, Taljanovic MS. Transphyseal involvement of pyogenic osteomyelitis is considerably more common than classically taught. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(1):190-5, 2014 Jul.
11. Dolitsky R, DePaola K, Fernicola J, Collins C. Pediatric Musculoskeletal Infections. Pediatr Clin North Am 2020;67:59-69.
12. Sadat-Ali M. The status of acute osteomyelitis in sickle cell disease. A 15-year review. Int Surg 1998;83:84-7.
13. Jaramillo D, Dormans JP, Delgado J, Laor T, St Geme JW 3rd. Hematogenous Osteomyelitis in Infants and Children: Imaging of a Changing Disease. [Review]. Radiology. 283(3):629-643, 2017 06.
14. Kocher MS, Zurakowski D, Kasser JR. Differentiating between septic arthritis and transient synovitis of the hip in children: an evidence-based clinical prediction algorithm. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81(12):1662-1670.
15. Caird MS, Flynn JM, Leung YL, Millman JE, D'Italia JG, Dormans JP. Factors distinguishing septic arthritis from transient synovitis of the hip in children. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(6):1251-1257.
16. Ernat J, Riccio AI, Fitzpatrick K, Jo C, Wimberly RL. Osteomyelitis is Commonly Associated With Septic Arthritis of the Shoulder in Children. J Pediatr Orthop. 37(8):547-552, 2017 Dec.
17. Manz N, Krieg AH, Heininger U, Ritz N. Evaluation of the current use of imaging modalities and pathogen detection in children with acute osteomyelitis and septic arthritis. Eur J Pediatr. 177(7):1071-1080, 2018 Jul.
18. Nduaguba AM, Flynn JM, Sankar WN. Septic Arthritis of the Elbow in Children: Clinical Presentation and Microbiological Profile. J Pediatr Orthop. 36(1):75-9, 2016 Jan.
19. Refakis CA, Arkader A, Baldwin KD, Spiegel DA, Sankar WN. Predicting Periarticular Infection in Children With Septic Arthritis of the Hip: Regionally Derived Criteria May Not Apply to All Populations. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics. 39(5):268-274, 2019 May/Jun.
20. Schallert EK, Kan JH, Monsalve J, Zhang W, Bisset GS 3rd, Rosenfeld S. Metaphyseal osteomyelitis in children: how often does MRI-documented joint effusion or epiphyseal extension of edema indicate coexisting septic arthritis?. Pediatr Radiol. 45(8):1174-81, 2015 Jul.
21. Montgomery NI, Epps HR. Pediatric Septic Arthritis. [Review]. Orthop Clin North Am. 48(2):209-216, 2017 Apr.
22. Booth TN, Iyer RS, Falcone RA, Jr., et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Back Pain-Child. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S13-S24.
23. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 2004;24:1679-91.
24. Katsura M, Sato J, Akahane M, Kunimatsu A, Abe O. Current and Novel Techniques for Metal Artifact Reduction at CT: Practical Guide for Radiologists. Radiographics 2018;38:450-61.
25. Talbot BS, Weinberg EP. MR Imaging with Metal-suppression Sequences for Evaluation of Total Joint Arthroplasty. [Review]. Radiographics. 36(1):209-25, 2016 Jan-Feb.
26. Frank G, Mahoney HM, Eppes SC. Musculoskeletal infections in children. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2005; 52(4):1083-1106, ix.
27. Safdar NM, Rigsby CK, Iyer RS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acutely Limping Child Up To Age 5. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S252-S62.
28. Erdman WA, Tamburro F, Jayson HT, Weatherall PT, Ferry KB, Peshock RM. Osteomyelitis: characteristics and pitfalls of diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 1991;180:533-9.
29. Jaramillo D, Treves ST, Kasser JR, Harper M, Sundel R, Laor T. Osteomyelitis and septic arthritis in children: appropriate use of imaging to guide treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:399-403.
30. Karmazyn B.. Imaging approach to acute hematogenous osteomyelitis in children: an update. [Review] [28 refs]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 31(2):100-6, 2010 Apr.
31. Pineda C, Vargas A, Rodriguez AV. Imaging of osteomyelitis: current concepts. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2006;20:789-825.
32. Markhardt BK, Woo K, Nguyen JC. Evaluation of suspected musculoskeletal infection in children over 2 years of age using only fluid-sensitive sequences at MRI. Eur Radiol. 29(10):5682-5690, 2019 Oct.
33. Delgado J, Bedoya MA, Green AM, Jaramillo D, Ho-Fung V. Utility of unenhanced fat-suppressed T1-weighted MRI in children with sickle cell disease -- can it differentiate bone infarcts from acute osteomyelitis?. Pediatr Radiol. 45(13):1981-7, 2015 Dec.
34. Ahmad S, Khan ZA, Rehmani R, Sheikh MY. Diagnostic dilemma in sicklers with acute bone crisis: role of subperiosteal fluid collection on MRI in resolving this issue. JPMA J Pak Med Assoc. 60(10):819-22, 2010 Oct.
35. Henninger B, Glodny B, Rudisch A, et al. Ewing sarcoma versus osteomyelitis: differential diagnosis with magnetic resonance imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 42(8):1097-104, 2013 Aug.
36. McCarville MB, Chen JY, Coleman JL, et al. Distinguishing Osteomyelitis From Ewing Sarcoma on Radiography and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 205(3):640-50; quiz 651, 2015 Sep.
37. Averill LW, Hernandez A, Gonzalez L, Pena AH, Jaramillo D. Diagnosis of osteomyelitis in children: utility of fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192(5):1232-1238.
38. Kan JH, Young RS, Yu C, Hernanz-Schulman M. Clinical impact of gadolinium in the MRI diagnosis of musculoskeletal infection in children. Pediatr Radiol. 40(7):1197-205, 2010 Jul.
39. Kim EY, Kwack KS, Cho JH, Lee DH, Yoon SH. Usefulness of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in differentiating between septic arthritis and transient synovitis in the hip joint. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 198(2):428-33, 2012 Feb.
40. Merlini L, Anooshiravani M, Ceroni D. Concomitant septic arthritis and osteomyelitis of the hip in young children; a new pathophysiological hypothesis suggested by MRI enhancement pattern. BMC med. imaging. 15:17, 2015 May 19.
41. Browne LP, Guillerman RP, Orth RC, Patel J, Mason EO, Kaplan SL. Community-acquired staphylococcal musculoskeletal infection in infants and young children: necessity of contrast-enhanced MRI for the diagnosis of growth cartilage involvement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 198(1):194-9, 2012 Jan.
42. Johnson DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Martus JE, Lovejoy SA, Yu C, Kan JH. Significance of epiphyseal cartilage enhancement defects in pediatric osteomyelitis identified by MRI with surgical correlation. Pediatr Radiol. 41(3):355-61, 2011 Mar.
43. Metwalli ZA, Kan JH, Munjal KA, Orth RC, Zhang W, Guillerman RP. MRI of suspected lower extremity musculoskeletal infection in the pediatric patient: how useful is bilateral imaging?. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 201(2):427-32, 2013 Aug.
44. Lindsay AJ, Delgado J, Jaramillo D, Chauvin NA. Extended field of view magnetic resonance imaging for suspected osteomyelitis in very young children: is it useful?. Pediatr Radiol. 49(3):379-386, 2019 03.
45. Nguyen JC, Lee KS, Thapa MM, Rosas HG. US Evaluation of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and Osteoarticular Infection. [Review]. Radiographics. 37(4):1181-1201, 2017 Jul-Aug.
46. Tordjman D, Holvoet L, Benkerrou M, et al. Hematogenous osteoarticular infections of the hand and the wrist in children with sickle cell anemia: preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop. 34(1):123-8, 2014 Jan.
47. Volberg FM, Sumner TE, Abramson JS, Winchester PH. Unreliability of radiographic diagnosis of septic hip in children. Pediatrics 1984;74:118-20.
48. Zawin JK, Hoffer FA, Rand FF, Teele RL. Joint effusion in children with an irritable hip: US diagnosis and aspiration. Radiology. 1993; 187(2):459-463.
49. Zieger MM, Dorr U, Schulz RD. Ultrasonography of hip joint effusions. Skeletal Radiol 1987;16:607-11.
50. Laine JC, Denning JR, Riccio AI, Jo C, Joglar JM, Wimberly RL. The use of ultrasound in the management of septic arthritis of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B. 24(2):95-8, 2015 Mar.
51. Gordon JE, Huang M, Dobbs M, Luhmann SJ, Szymanski DA, Schoenecker PL. Causes of false-negative ultrasound scans in the diagnosis of septic arthritis of the hip in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002; 22(3):312-316.
52. Vieira RL, Levy JA. Bedside ultrasonography to identify hip effusions in pediatric patients. Ann Emerg Med. 55(3):284-9, 2010 Mar.
53. Inusa BP, Oyewo A, Brokke F, Santhikumaran G, Jogeesvaran KH. Dilemma in differentiating between acute osteomyelitis and bone infarction in children with sickle cell disease: the role of ultrasound. PLoS ONE. 8(6):e65001, 2013.
54. Mah ET, LeQuesne GW, Gent RJ, Paterson DC. Ultrasonic features of acute osteomyelitis in children. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994;76:969-74.
55. Gilday DL, Paul DJ, Paterson J. Diagnosis of osteomyelitis in children by combined blood pool and bone imaging. Radiology 1975;117:331-5.
56. Howman-Giles R, Uren R. Multifocal osteomyelitis in childhood. Review by radionuclide bone scan. Clin Nucl Med 1992;17:274-8.
57. Andersen JB, Mortensen J, Bech BH, Hojgaard L, Borgwardt L. First experiences from Copenhagen with paediatric single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography. Nucl Med Commun. 32(5):356-62, 2011 May.
58. DiPoce J, Jbara ME, Brenner AI. Pediatric osteomyelitis: a scintigraphic case-based review. Radiographics 2012;32:865-78.
59. Tuson CE, Hoffman EB, Mann MD. Isotope bone scanning for acute osteomyelitis and septic arthritis in children. Journal of Bone &#38; Joint Surgery - British Volume. 76(2):306-10, 1994 Mar.
60. Treves S, Khettry J, Broker FH, Wilkinson RH, Watts H. Osteomyelitis: early scintigraphic detection in children. Pediatrics 1976;57:173-86.
61. Connolly LP, Connolly SA, Drubach LA, Jaramillo D, Treves ST. Acute hematogenous osteomyelitis of children: assessment of skeletal scintigraphy-based diagnosis in the era of MRI. J Nucl Med. 2002; 43(10):1310-1316.
62. Majd M, Frankel RS. Radionclide imaging in skeletal inflammatory and ischemic disease in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1976;126:832-41.
63. Linke R, Kuwert T, Uder M, Forst R, Wuest W. Skeletal SPECT/CT of the peripheral extremities. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 194(4):W329-35, 2010 Apr.
64. Liberman B, Herman A, Schindler A, Sherr-Lurie N, Ganel A, Givon U. The value of hip aspiration in pediatric transient synovitis. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics. 33(2):124-7, 2013 Mar.
65. Kotlarsky P, Shavit I, Kassis I, Eidelman M. Treatment of septic hip in a pediatric ED: a retrospective case series analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 34(3):602-5, 2016 Mar.
66. Schlung JE, Bastrom TP, Roocroft JH, Newton PO, Mubarak SJ, Upasani VV. Femoral Neck Aspiration Aids in the Diagnosis of Osteomyelitis In Children With Septic Hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 38(10):532-536, 2018 Nov/Dec.
67. Courtney PM, Flynn JM, Jaramillo D, Horn BD, Calabro K, Spiegel DA. Clinical indications for repeat MRI in children with acute hematogenous osteomyelitis. J Pediatr Orthop. 30(8):883-7, 2010 Dec.
68. Montgomery CO, Siegel E, Blasier RD, Suva LJ. Concurrent septic arthritis and osteomyelitis in children. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics. 33(4):464-7, 2013 Jun.
69. Welling BD, Haruno LS, Rosenfeld SB. Validating an Algorithm to Predict Adjacent Musculoskeletal Infections in Pediatric Patients With Septic Arthritis. Clin Orthop. 476(1):153-159, 2018 01.
70. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.