Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2024
Needle Arthroscopy Versus Conventional Arthroscopy in the Evaluation of Carpal Pathology: A Comparative Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moses Michael J, Lorentz Nathan A, Azad Ali, Paksima Nader
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The needle scope is a less invasive intervention to evaluate carpal pathology. We hypothesize that there is no difference in the evaluation and diagnostic capability of the needle scope versus the conventional wrist arthroscope.
METHODS: Twenty patients indicated for wrist arthroscopy were prospectively enrolled. Prior to insertion of the 2.7-mm arthroscope, the needle scope evaluated for synovitis; cartilage damage (location and modified Outerbridge classification); integrity of the volar, scapholunate (SL), and lunotriquetral ligaments; and the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC). Following needle scope evaluation, the surgeon completed a survey regarding the visualization and diagnosis. The 2.7-mm arthroscope was then inserted, and the surgeon completed the second portion of the survey. Statistical analysis was then completed to determine statistical significance.
RESULTS: Twelve patients were female (60%), and the mean age was 39.8 years (±11.8 years). Eleven patients underwent arthroscopy for TFCC pathology, 4 patients for SL tearing, and 5 patients for extensive synovitis. There was no difference between the needle scope and wrist arthroscopy diagnosis. There was no difference between radiocarpal and midcarpal visualization. Surgeon-rated ease of use and diagnostic confidence were the same between two groups. The needle scope was better able to visualize the scapho-trapezium-trapezoid and carpometacarpal joints; however, the image was of marginally decreased quality.
CONCLUSION: In this study, there was no difference between radiocarpal or midcarpal visualization and surgeon-rated ease of use, while diagnostic confidence was the same between two groups.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II (prospective cohort study)-Diagnostic.
METHODS: Twenty patients indicated for wrist arthroscopy were prospectively enrolled. Prior to insertion of the 2.7-mm arthroscope, the needle scope evaluated for synovitis; cartilage damage (location and modified Outerbridge classification); integrity of the volar, scapholunate (SL), and lunotriquetral ligaments; and the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC). Following needle scope evaluation, the surgeon completed a survey regarding the visualization and diagnosis. The 2.7-mm arthroscope was then inserted, and the surgeon completed the second portion of the survey. Statistical analysis was then completed to determine statistical significance.
RESULTS: Twelve patients were female (60%), and the mean age was 39.8 years (±11.8 years). Eleven patients underwent arthroscopy for TFCC pathology, 4 patients for SL tearing, and 5 patients for extensive synovitis. There was no difference between the needle scope and wrist arthroscopy diagnosis. There was no difference between radiocarpal and midcarpal visualization. Surgeon-rated ease of use and diagnostic confidence were the same between two groups. The needle scope was better able to visualize the scapho-trapezium-trapezoid and carpometacarpal joints; however, the image was of marginally decreased quality.
CONCLUSION: In this study, there was no difference between radiocarpal or midcarpal visualization and surgeon-rated ease of use, while diagnostic confidence was the same between two groups.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II (prospective cohort study)-Diagnostic.