You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PhD Academy Award
Chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the deep posterior lower leg
  1. Michiel B Winkes,
  2. Marc R Scheltinga
  1. Department of General Surgery, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michiel B Winkes, Department of General Surgery, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands; m.winkes{at}mmc.nl

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098002

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    What did I do?

    The general aim was to study several aspects of diagnosis and treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the deep posterior lower leg (dp-CECS) and to identify possible causes for poor outcome after surgery.1 First, we performed a review of current practice regarding dp-CECS. Second, we sought to establish a relationship between elevated intracompartmental muscle pressures (being the gold diagnostic standard of CECS at present) and postoperative outcome.2 Third, the accuracy of catheter placement for intracompartmental pressure measurements was studied.3 Finally, patients with isolated dp-CECS were prospectively studied 3 and 12 months after surgery whereas reasons for an unsuccessful response were identified.4

    Why did I do it?

    Up to 27 per cent of healthy individuals presenting with exertional leg pain may suffer from CECS. Roughly half harbour a dp-CECS. Symptoms are often so disabling that sports activities are impossible. In …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.