The Journal of hand surgery · 2020
Ultrasonographic Classification of Scapholunate Interosseous Ligament Injury Associated With Distal Radius Fracture.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kashiyama Takahiro, Miura Toshiki, Sugawara Runa, Uehara Kosuke
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Although scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL) injury is often associated with distal radius fracture, it is frequently missed in x-rays. The purpose of this study was to develop a diagnostic classification based on ultrasonography for SLIL injury and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy.
METHODS: Patients who required surgery for distal radius fracture were included in this study. Ultrasonography and arthroscopy were performed in all patients. The original ultrasonography-based classification of the dorsal part of SLIL was developed as follows: for type A, the SLIL surface was outlined clearly as a continuous flat line; for type B, the SLIL surface was outlined clearly as a continuous bulged line; and for type C, the SLIL surface was not continuous, smooth, or outlined clearly. Arthroscopy was performed at the time of osteosynthesis. We classified its findings according to the arthroscopic classification system of Geissler et al and evaluated interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities for our classification on ultrasonography. We also studied the relationship between the ultrasonographic and arthroscopic classifications.
RESULTS: In total, 40 patients were included in this study. Weighted κ values for interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities for our ultrasonographic classification were 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96) and 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.99), respectively. There were 17 patients with type A, 14 with type B, and 9 with type C on ultrasonography. Ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 64% and specificity of 93% for the assumption that type C on ultrasonography corresponded to Geissler grades 3 and 4 on arthroscopy. No patient with type A on ultrasonography was classified as Geissler grades 3 and 4 on arthroscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that ultrasonography has a high specificity but low sensitivity for the diagnosis of SLIL injury.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Ⅱ.
METHODS: Patients who required surgery for distal radius fracture were included in this study. Ultrasonography and arthroscopy were performed in all patients. The original ultrasonography-based classification of the dorsal part of SLIL was developed as follows: for type A, the SLIL surface was outlined clearly as a continuous flat line; for type B, the SLIL surface was outlined clearly as a continuous bulged line; and for type C, the SLIL surface was not continuous, smooth, or outlined clearly. Arthroscopy was performed at the time of osteosynthesis. We classified its findings according to the arthroscopic classification system of Geissler et al and evaluated interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities for our classification on ultrasonography. We also studied the relationship between the ultrasonographic and arthroscopic classifications.
RESULTS: In total, 40 patients were included in this study. Weighted κ values for interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities for our ultrasonographic classification were 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96) and 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.99), respectively. There were 17 patients with type A, 14 with type B, and 9 with type C on ultrasonography. Ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 64% and specificity of 93% for the assumption that type C on ultrasonography corresponded to Geissler grades 3 and 4 on arthroscopy. No patient with type A on ultrasonography was classified as Geissler grades 3 and 4 on arthroscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that ultrasonography has a high specificity but low sensitivity for the diagnosis of SLIL injury.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Ⅱ.