Acute Hand and Wrist Trauma Wrist trauma, first examination.

You are here:
< Back
Date of origin: 1998
Last review date: 2013
American College of Radiology
ACR Appropriateness Criteria®
Clinical Condition: Acute Hand and Wrist Trauma
Variant 1: Wrist trauma, first examination.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
X-ray wrist 9
CT wrist without IV contrast 1
CT wrist with IV contrast 1
CT wrist without and with IV contrast 1
MRI wrist without IV contrast 1 O
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast 1 O
Tc-99m bone scan wrist 1 ☢☢☢
US wrist 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level
Variant 2: Suspect acute distal radius fracture. Radiographs normal. Next procedure.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
Cast and repeat x-ray wrist in 10-14 days 8
MRI wrist without IV contrast 8 O
CT wrist without IV contrast 7
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast 1 O
CT wrist with IV contrast 1
CT wrist without and with IV contrast 1
Tc-99m bone scan wrist 1 ☢☢☢
US wrist 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

 

 

 

Clinical Condition: Acute Hand and Wrist Trauma
Variant 3: Comminuted, intra-articular distal radius fracture on radiographs. Surgical planning.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
CT wrist without IV contrast 9 This procedure is especially useful if 3-D
reconstruction is available.
MRI wrist without IV contrast 5 This procedure may be helpful to diagnose O
for ligament or soft-tissue injuries.
CT wrist with IV contrast 1
CT wrist without and with IV contrast 1
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast 1 O
Tc-99m bone scan wrist 1 ☢☢☢
US wrist 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

Variant 4: Suspect acute scaphoid fracture, first examination.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
X-ray wrist 9
CT wrist without IV contrast 1
CT wrist with IV contrast 1
CT wrist without and with IV contrast 1
MRI wrist without IV contrast 1 O
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast 1 O
Tc-99m bone scan wrist 1 ☢☢☢
US wrist 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

 

 

Clinical Condition: Acute Hand and Wrist Trauma
Variant 5: Suspect acute scaphoid fracture. Radiographs normal. Next procedure.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MRI wrist without IV contrast 9 O
Cast and repeat x-ray wrist in 10-14 days 8
CT wrist without IV contrast 7
Tc-99m bone scan wrist 3 This procedure may be useful with ☢☢☢
SPECT/CT.
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast 1 O
CT wrist with IV contrast 1
CT wrist without and with IV contrast 1
US wrist 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level
Variant 6: Suspected occult scaphoid fracture. Initial radiographs and repeat radiographs after 10–14
days of casting are normal. Continued clinical suspicion of scaphoid fracture. Next
procedure.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MRI wrist without IV contrast 9 O
CT wrist without IV contrast 8
Tc-99m bone scan wrist 4 SPECT/CT greatly enhances the utility of ☢☢☢
this procedure.
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast 1 O
CT wrist with IV contrast 1
CT wrist without and with IV contrast 1
US wrist 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

Clinical Condition: Acute Hand and Wrist Trauma
Variant 7: Suspect distal radioulnar joint subluxation.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
X-ray wrist 9
This procedure is especially useful if 3-D
CT wrist without IV contrast bilateral 9 reconstruction is available. Bilateral wrist
CT (pronated and supinated) is indicated.
MRI wrist without IV contrast 5 O
CT wrist with IV contrast bilateral 1
CT wrist without and with IV contrast 1
bilateral
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast 1 O
Tc-99m bone scan wrist 1 ☢☢☢
US wrist 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

Variant 8: Suspect hook of the hamate fracture. Initial radiographs normal or equivocal.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
Additional views such as hamate or carpal
X-ray wrist additional views 9 tunnel are indicated when using this
procedure.
CT wrist without IV contrast 9
MRI wrist without IV contrast 5 O
CT wrist with IV contrast 1
CT wrist without and with IV contrast 1
Tc-99m bone scan wrist 1 ☢☢☢
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast 1 O
US wrist 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

Clinical Condition: Acute Hand and Wrist Trauma
Variant 9: Suspect metacarpal fracture or dislocation.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
X-ray hand 9 Use this procedure for the initial study.
Use this procedure for surgical planning or
CT hand without IV contrast 7 if there is high suspicion and a negative
radiograph.
CT hand with IV contrast 1
CT hand without and with IV contrast 1
MRI hand without IV contrast 1 O
MRI hand without and with IV contrast 1 O
Tc-99m bone scan hand 1 ☢☢☢
US hand 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

Variant 10: Suspect phalangeal fracture or dislocation.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
X-ray finger 9
CT finger without IV contrast 2
CT finger with IV contrast 1
CT finger without and with IV contrast 1
Tc-99m bone scan hand 1 ☢☢☢
MRI finger without IV contrast 1 O
MRI finger without and with IV contrast 1 O
US finger 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

Clinical Condition: Acute Hand and Wrist Trauma
Variant 11: Suspect thumb fracture or dislocation.
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
X-ray thumb 9 Consider this procedure for the initial
study.
CT thumb without IV contrast 5 Consider this procedure if radiographs
negative and/or for surgical planning.
MRI thumb without IV contrast 5 Consider this procedure if radiographs O
negative.
CT thumb with IV contrast 1
CT thumb without and with IV contrast 1
MRI thumb without and with IV contrast 1 O
Tc-99m bone scan hand 1 ☢☢☢
US thumb 1 O
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

Variant 12: Suspect gamekeeper injury (thumb metacarpophalangeal ulnar collateral ligament injury).
Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
X-ray thumb 9
MRI thumb without IV contrast 9 O
Perform this procedure in specialized
US thumb 8 centers where the requisite level of O
expertise is available.
This procedure may be diagnostically
X-ray thumb with valgus stress and appropriate but is a painful examination
5 and puts the patient at risk for worsening
contralateral comparison
injury. Recommend consultation with
treating physician.
MR arthrography thumb 2 O
MRI thumb without and with IV contrast 1 O
X-ray arthrography thumb 1
CT thumb without IV contrast 1
CT thumb with IV contrast 1
CT thumb without and with IV contrast 1
Tc-99m bone scan hand 1 ☢☢☢
Rating Scale: 1,2,3 Usually not appropriate; 4,5,6 May be appropriate; 7,8,9 Usually appropriate *Relative
Radiation Level

 

ACUTE HAND AND WRIST TRAUMA

 

Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging: Michael A. Bruno, MD1; Barbara N. Weissman, MD2; Mark J. Kransdorf, MD3; Ronald Adler, MD, PhD4; Marc Appel, MD5; Francesca D. Beaman, MD6; Stephanie A. Bernard, MD7; Ian Blair Fries, MD8; Viviane Khoury, MD9; Timothy J. Mosher, MD10; Catherine C. Roberts, MD11; Stephen C. Scharf, MD12; Michael J. Tuite, MD13; Robert J. Ward, MD14; Adam C. Zoga, MD.15

 

Summary of Literature Review

 

Introduction/Background

 

The hand and wrist are, arguably, the most active and complex components of the upper extremity, and, as such, are highly vulnerable to injuries with significant long -term consequences if diagnosis is delayed or incorrect. Hand and wrist fractures and fracture- dislocations are more common than those of any other part of the body [1,2]. For most patients with trauma to the hand, wrist, or both, radiographs provide adequate diagnostic information and guidance for the treating physician. However, in one large study, wrist fractures, especially those of the distal radius and scaphoid, accounted for more delayed diagnoses than any other traumatized region in patients with initially normal emergency room radiographs [3]. Thus, when initial radiographs are negative, or in the presence of certain clinical or radiographic findings, further imaging is appropriate. This may be as simple as additional radiographic projections, or it may include sonography, bone scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Sonography, in particular, has played a small role in the evaluation of acute hand and wrist trauma in the past but is increasingly utilized in the evaluation of acute hand and wrist trauma in specialized centers and has been demonstrated in recent studies to discriminate fine ligamentous structures stabilizing the wrist joints [4]; however, such use requires a level of expertise that is not uniformly available. The use of sonography for the initial evaluation of acute hand and wrist injury and instability may therefore be appropriate in those centers where the requisite level of expertise is available.

 

Distal Radius Fracture

 

As is true for many joints of the extremities, a 2-view radiographic examination is not adequate for detecting fracture in the wrist, hand, or fingers [5]. In most patients with suspected distal radius fractures, a 3-view radiographic examination (posteroanterior [PA], lateral, and 45° semipronated oblique) suffices [6], whereas one study [7] suggests that the routine addition of a fourth projection—a semisupinated oblique projection—would increase the yield for distal radius fractures, which may be visible only on this fourth view. Nevertheless, when high-field or low -field MRI is performed in addition to radiographs, radiographically occult fractures of the distal radius as well as unsuspected fractures of the carpal bones are frequently demonstrated [8-11]. In injured wrists with normal or suspicious radiographic findings that do not account for the clinical symptoms, MRI results in a change in diagnosis in 55% of cases and a change in management in 66% of cases [9]. However, a randomized controlled trial showed that routine performance of an immediate, abbreviated, low-field MRI study in acutely injured wrists did not predict the need for further treatment any better than the combination of physical examination and radiography [10]. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes measures—including quality of life, time lost from work, and total costs—with this strategy compared to performing radiographs alone [12]. In addition to MRI, multidetector CT (MDCT) can show radiographically occult carpal fractures and exclude or confirm suspected fractures when initial radiographs are equivocal [13]. MRI is a more appropriate modality to use before CT if there are no contraindications to MRI [14]. CT has an important role in treatment planning when initial radiographs show a complex fracture-dislocation of the carpus.

 

Successful treatment of distal radius fractures is predicated on the re-establishment of radial length, inclination, and tilt, as well as the restoration of the articular surfaces [6,15]. Specifically, the presence of a coronally oriented fracture line, die-punch depression, and more than 3 articular surface fragments may indicate the need for operative reduction [16]. Less than 2 mm residual step-off of the distal radial articular surface is considered a congruent reduction necessary for good long-term outcome [9,15]. Most patients with intra-articular fractures of the distal radius develop radiographic radiocarpal osteoarthritis that progresses over time, even when the original fracture was treated with open reduction and internal fixation; however, the development of radiographic osteoarthritis does not correlate with function even 15 years after initial injury [17]. CT examination reveals involvement of the radiocarpal and distal radioulnar articular surfaces, intra-articular displacements and depressions, and comminution more accurately than radiographs [15,18,19].

 

Measurements of articular surface gap and step-off are more reproducible when performed by comparing CT to radiographs. For displacements >2 mm, there is poor correlation between radiographic and CT findings [18]. Thus, in distal radius fractures where there is a high likelihood of intra- articular incongruence (eg, fractures in young adults, which frequently result from high-energy impact loading), selective or even routine use of CT to supplement the standard radiographic examination is warranted. The distal radial articular surface is best evaluated by MDCT with multiplanar reformatted images; if MDCT is not available, direct sagittal images can be obtained, but the imaging process may be difficult if the patient has a cast or external fixator. The addition of 3-D surface -rendered reconstructions to the standard 2-D CT images may increase interobserver agreement and will change planned management of intra-articular distal radius fractures in up to 48% of cases [16]. MRI also shows intra-articular extension of distal radius fractures more frequently than does radiography and demonstrates concomitant intra-articular soft-tissue injuries—predominantly tears of the scapholunate interosseous ligament— that may affect surgical treatment [20,21]. However, current evidence suggests that MRI performed immediately at the time of injury has no added value for predicting whether additional treatment will be necessary for soft-tissue injuries [10]. CT is recommended over MRI for surgical planning of complex, intra-articular distal radius fractures.

 

Distal Radioulnar Joint Subluxation

 

The diagnosis of distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) subluxation is problematic. The symptoms and physical findings are often nonspecific, and the condition is difficult to confirm radiographically. Traumatic subluxation or dislocation of the DRUJ may occur as an isolated injury or be associated with other conditions. If optimum positioning of the wrist is not possible because of the injury or overlying cast, CT scanning is recommended [22-24]. Both wrists should be scanned simultaneously in both pronated and supinated positions [24]. Although this examination can also be performed with MRI, repositioning the patient and scanning both wrists is logistically more complex, more time-consuming, and less comfortable with MRI compared to CT.

 

Scaphoid Fracture

 

An additional fourth radiographic projection—an elongated PA view with approximately 30° of cephalad beam angulation and the wrist positioned in 10°–15° of ulnar deviation—is routinely recommended whenever there is clinical suspicion of a scaphoid fracture [6,25]. However, scaphoid fractures are notoriously difficult to see on initial radiographs (regardless of the views) and are radiographically occult in up to 20% of cases. Standard practice in patients with clinically suspected scaphoid fractures but normal initial radiographs is to apply a cast and to repeat the clinical evaluation and radiographs in 10–14 days when resorption at the fracture line may make previously occult fractures visible. If the repeat radiographs are still normal or equivocal at that time and there continues to be a strong clinical suspicion of scaphoid fracture, imaging with a second modality—bone scintigraphy, CT, or MRI—is indicated. There is little evidence favoring either scintigraphy or CT in this scenario [26,27], although a recent meta-analysis found that MRI is superior to scintigraphy for showing occult scaphoid fractures [28]. A survey of worldwide institutions found that MRI is most commonly used in these cases, although many hospitals still perform CT or scintigraphy, and the choice of modality often depends on local preferences, expertise, and equipment [29].

 

The role of tomography, ultrasonography, scintigraphy, CT, and MRI (with standard equipment or a dedicated, extremity-only scanner) has been evaluated in uncertain cases of scaphoid fracture at the time of or shortly after the initial injury. If one or more of these studies is sufficiently sensitive and specific, presumptive casting can be eliminated in normal cases, and definitive care can be instituted earlier for fractures [30-37].

 

Bone scintigraphy, with either delayed images or blood pool images, can be used to identify or exclude radiographically occult scaphoid fractures [37,38], but this use of scintigraphy has been largely replaced by MRI, which is both more sensitive and more specific than scintigraphy. Scintigraphic false-positive diagnoses of carpal fractures occur due to bone contusions, osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, and osteomyelitis, any of which may be radiographically occult [39]. MRI evaluation for radiographically occult scaphoid fractures can be performed using high-field or low -field equipment, a whole-body imaging system and appropriate local coil, or a dedicated extremity MR scanner [32,33]. Not only can MRI accurately show scaphoid fractures, but in cases where no scaphoid fracture is present, MRI often demonstrates other unsuspected fractures of the distal radius or carpus or soft-tissue injuries [31-33,36]. In this role, MRI may be cost-effective, especially if immediate MR examination is performed in lieu of presumptive casting, if MRI is done with a limited protocol and at a reduced charge, and if the total cost of presumptive care, including productivity lost from work, is included in the analysis [40]. One recent study suggested that MRI should be used as the “reference standard” for suspected scaphoid fractures, since their study showed the specificity of MRI to be quite high, at 96% [41]; however, this opinion is not universally held. Another recent study rated the positive predictive value of MRI for scaphoid fracture at only 88% [42].

 

Ultrasonography with high-frequency transducers can identify some cases of radiographically occult scaphoid fractures [34,43]; however, the current evidence does not support the routine use of sonography in these cases outside of specialized centers where the appropriate level of expertise is available. Ultrasound (US) is not sensitive enough to preclude presumptive casting when no fracture is seen [43- 45]. Furthermore, US only interrogates the dorsal scaphoid waist, whereas a large proportion of wrists with clinically suspected occult scaphoid fractures in reality have a fracture of the distal radius or other carpal bone (or another portion of the scaphoid); all these cases would be missed if a negative US examination were used as the basis to avoid casting [31-34,36,39]. CT examination is more sensitive and specific than scintigraphy for diagnosing radiographically occult scaphoid fractures [46], though it is less sensitive (and shows fewer additional fractures) than MRI in such a situation [47]. Nevertheless, CT is a reasonable alternative to immediate MRI with a claustrophobic patient or when there is a contraindication to MRI.

 

Accuracy for scaphoid fracture detection according to Ring et al [48] is 99% for MRI, 98%for CT, 93% for bone scintigraphy, and 92%for sonography, although the number of patients studied were relatively few.

 

In summary, radiographically occult scaphoid fractures are relatively common and cause future morbidity when missed. In patients with a strong clinical suspicion of a scaphoid fracture but normal radiographs, either presumptive casting with repeated radiographs in 10–14 days or immediate MRI are equally acceptable strategies. The choice will depend on the age of the fracture, hand dominance, activity level of the patient, the availability of MRI, and local preferences. If repeat radiographs are normal, the patient remains symptomatic, and further imaging is required, MRI is the study of choice. For patients with contraindications to MRI, CT is preferred to scintigraphy. Sonography may be an appropriate alternative in those centers where the appropriate level of expertise is available.

 

For the scaphoid bone, not only is identification of the fracture important, but many surgeons also recommend immediate operative intervention for displaced scaphoid fractures. As little as 1 mm of displacement is important, resulting in a higher rate of nonunion and avascular necrosis [6]. Although CT scanning confined to the direct sagittal plane will underestimate radial or ulnar displacement of scaphoid fractures [49], evaluations with MRI

 

  • or multiplanar and/or 3-D reconstructions from MDCT [51] are more sensitive than standard radiographs for showing small amounts of displacement. In cases where malposition of the scaphoid fracture fragments is suspected despite normal radiographs, CT is recommended. Similarly, CT examination is recommended when there is a question about the age of a scaphoid fracture or its healing.

 

Hook of the Hamate Fracture

 

Compared with the scaphoid, the diagnosis of other carpal bone injuries is less problematic. In specific circumstances, however, supplemental studies in addition to the standard wrist examination are useful. Pisiform fractures are best seen on semisupinated AP or carpal tunnel projections, which project the pisiform volar to the rest of the carpus.

 

The same projections may also demonstrate fractures involving the hook of the hamate that are not visible on the standard radiographs. However, if radiographs fail to show a hamate fracture that is strongly suspected clinically, axial CT examination is indicated [6,52].

 

 

 

Metacarpal and Phalangeal Fracture

 

A standard 3-view radiographic examination will reveal most fractures and dislocations of the metacarpals and phalanges [5]. CT may be useful for surgical planning in fracture-dislocations of the carpometacarpal joints. For phalangeal injuries, some practices include a PA examination of the entire hand, whereas others limit the entire examination to the injured finger. An internally rotated oblique projection in addition to the standard externally rotated oblique may increase diagnostic confidence for phalangeal fractures [53]. Unlike the case for the wrist, low-field MRI is less sensitive than radiographs for hand and finger fractures [11], and its role is limited to cases where specific abnormalities of the soft tissues—including the collateral ligaments, volar plates, tendons, and pulleys—would affect treatment.

 

Thumb Fracture

 

Most fractures of the thumb will be visible on a 2-view radiographic examination, although there is a slight increase in diagnostic yield with the addition of an oblique projection [5], which can be obtained along with a PA examination of the whole hand. Tears of the ulnar collateral ligament of the thumb metacarpophalangeal joint (gamekeeper injury) represent a special problem. Unless there is an associated bony avulsion of the distal metacarpal or proximal phalangeal base, the injury will be radiographically occult. In these cases, a stress examination of the joint with manually applied abduction stress (which can be applied by the patient or the examiner) may show subluxation compared to the contralateral, uninjured side [54,55], although there is a theoretical risk of converting a nondisplaced ulnar collateral ligament tear into a displaced one by a stress examination [55,56]. More important for treatment planning is whether the adductor aponeurosis has become interposed between the torn, displaced ligament and its osseous attachment site—a so-called Stener lesion. Torn ligaments with a Stener lesion require operative repair, although most nondisplaced tears without an interposed aponeurosis will heal with conservative treatment. Conventional arthrography, US, MRI, and MR arthrography have each been advocated to distinguish ulnar collateral ligament tears with and without Stener lesions [55-60]. The choice of which modality to use will depend on local availability and expertise.

 

Summary

 

Radiographs should be the first imaging study in patients with acute wrist, hand, or finger injuries. The examination must include the correct radiographic projections, which in turn depend on an accurate, site-specific clinical history.

 

Nondisplaced wrist fractures, especially those of the distal radius and scaphoid, may be radiographically occult initially; in cases where there is a strong clinical suspicion of a fracture despite normal radiographs, further evaluation with immobilization and repeat radiographs, CT, or MR imaging is indicated, depending on the clinical circumstances.

 

CT has additional roles for evaluating the articular surfaces in intra-articular fractures and for detecting specific injuries, including fractures of the hook of the hamate, subluxations of the distal radioulnar joint, and fractures and dislocations of the metacarpal bases.

 

For many indications, including scaphoid bone injuries and ligament injuries at the base of the thumb, MR imaging is the most sensitive examination.

 

Sonography may also be appropriate in specialized centers, both in detection of fractures and evaluation of injuries to the stabilizing ligaments of the wrist.

 

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, both because of 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 to 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 Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate
Range 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 (eg, region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies”.

 

Supporting Documents

 

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents go to www.acr.org/ac.

 

References

  1. Larsen CF, Lauritsen J. Epidemiology of acute wrist trauma. Int J Epidemiol. 1993;22(5):911-916.
  2. Wallmann HW. Overview of Wrist and Hand Injuries, Pathologies, and Disorders: Part 2. Home Health Care Management & Practice. 2010;23(2):146-148.
  3. Hyland-McGuire P, Guly HR, Hughes PM. Double take–fracture fishing in accident and emergency practice. J Accid Emerg Med. 1997;14(2):84-87.
  4. Moraux A, Vandenbussche L, Demondion X, Gheno R, Pansini V, Cotten A. Anatomical study of the pisotriquetral joint ligaments using ultrasonography. Skeletal Radiol. 2012;41(3):321-328.
  5. De Smet AA, Doherty MP, Norris MA, Hollister MC, Smith DL. Are oblique views needed for trauma radiography of the distal extremities? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(6):1561-1565.
  6. Gilbert TJ, Cohen M. Imaging of acute injuries to the wrist and hand. Radiol Clin North Am. 1997;35(3):701-725.
  7. Russin LD, Bergman G, Miller L, et al. Should the routine wrist examination for trauma be a four-view study, including a semisupinated oblique view? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(5):1235-1238.
  8. Lohman M, Kivisaari A, Vehmas T, et al. MR imaging in suspected acute trauma of wrist bones. Acta Radiol. 1999;40(6):615-618.
  9. Mack MG, Keim S, Balzer JO, et al. Clinical impact of MRI in acute wrist fractures. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(3):612-617.
  10. Nikken JJ, Oei EH, Ginai AZ, et al. Acute wrist trauma: value of a short dedicated extremity MR imaging examination in prediction of need for treatment. 2005;234(1):116-124.
  11. Remplik P, Stabler A, Merl T, Roemer F, Bohndorf K. Diagnosis of acute fractures of the extremities: comparison of low-field MRI and conventional radiography. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(4):625-630.
  12. Nikken JJ, Oei EH, Ginai AZ, et al. Acute peripheral joint injury: cost and effectiveness of low-field-strength MR imaging–results of randomized controlled trial. 2005;236(3):958-967.
  13. Kiuru MJ, Haapamaki VV, Koivikko MP, Koskinen SK. Wrist injuries; diagnosis with multidetector CT. Emerg Radiol. 2004;10(4):182-185.
  14. Tiel-van Buul MM, van Beek EJ, Dijkstra PF, Bakker AJ, Broekhuizen TH, van Royen EA. Significance of a hot spot on the bone scan after carpal injury–evaluation by computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1993;20(2):159-164.
  15. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Management of comminuted fractures of the distal radius in the adult. Conservative or surgical? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998(353):53-62.
  16. Harness NG, Ring D, Zurakowski D, Harris GJ, Jupiter JB. The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography reconstructions on the characterization and treatment of distal radial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 2006;88(6):1315-1323.
  17. Goldfarb CA, Rudzki JR, Catalano LW, Hughes M, Borrelli J, Jr. Fifteen-year outcome of displaced intra-articular fractures of the distal radius. J Hand Surg Am. 2006;31(4):633-639.
  18. Cole RJ, Bindra RR, Evanoff BA, Gilula LA, Yamaguchi K, Gelberman RH. Radiographic evaluation of osseous displacement following intra-articular fractures of the distal radius: reliability of plain radiography versus computed tomography. J Hand Surg Am. 1997;22(5):792-800.
  19. Rozental TD, Bozentka DJ, Katz MA, Steinberg DR, Beredjiklian PK. Evaluation of the sigmoid notch with computed tomography following intra-articular distal radius fracture. J Hand Surg Am. 2001;26(2):244-251.
  20. Catalano LW, 3rd, Barron OA, Glickel SZ. Assessment of articular displacement of distal radius fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004(423):79-84.
  21. Spence LD, Savenor A, Nwachuku I, Tilsley J, Eustace S. MRI of fractures of the distal radius: comparison with conventional radiographs. Skeletal Radiol. 1998;27(5):244-249.
  22. Mino DE, Palmer AK, Levinsohn EM. Radiography and computerized tomography in the diagnosis of incongruity of the distal radio-ulnar joint. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(2):247-252.
  23. Wechsler RJ, Wehbe MA, Rifkin MD, Edeiken J, Branch HM. Computed tomography diagnosis of distal radioulnar subluxation. Skeletal Radiol. 1987;16(1):1-5.
  24. Szabo RM. Distal radioulnar joint instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(4):884-894.
  25. Daffner RH, Emmerling EW, Buterbaugh GA. Proximal and distal oblique radiography of the wrist: value in occult injuries. J Hand Surg Am. 1992;17(3):499-503.
  26. Groves AM, Cheow H, Balan K, Courtney H, Bearcroft P, Dixon A. 16-MDCT in the detection of occult wrist fractures: a comparison with skeletal scintigraphy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(5):1470-1474.
  27. Groves AM, Cheow HK, Balan KK, Bearcroft PW, Dixon AK. 16 detector multislice CT versus skeletal scintigraphy in the diagnosis of wrist fractures: value of quantification of 99Tcm-MDP uptake. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(933):791-795.
  28. Foex B, Speake P, Body R. Best evidence topic report. Magnetic resonance imaging or bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of plain x ray occult scaphoid fractures. Emerg Med J. 2005;22(6):434-435.
  29. Groves AM, Kayani I, Syed R, et al. An international survey of hospital practice in the imaging of acute scaphoid trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(6):1453-1456.
  30. Berna JD, Chavarria G, Albaladejo F, et al. Panoramic versus conventional radiography of scaphoid fractures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(1):155-159.
  31. Breitenseher MJ, Metz VM, Gilula LA, et al. Radiographically occult scaphoid fractures: value of MR imaging in detection. 1997;203(1):245-250.
  32. Bretlau T, Christensen OM, Edstrom P, Thomsen HS, Lausten GS. Diagnosis of scaphoid fracture and dedicated extremity MRI. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70(5):504-508.
  33. Brydie A, Raby N. Early MRI in the management of clinical scaphoid fracture. Br J Radiol. 2003;76(905):296-300.
  34. Hauger O, Bonnefoy O, Moinard M, Bersani D, Diard F. Occult fractures of the waist of the scaphoid: early diagnosis by high-spatial-resolution sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(5):1239-1245.
  35. Hodgkinson DW, Nicholson DA, Stewart G, Sheridan M, Hughes P. Scaphoid fracture: a new method of assessment. Clin Radiol. 1993;48(6):398-401.
  36. Hunter JC, Escobedo EM, Wilson AJ, Hanel DP, Zink-Brody GC, Mann FA. MR imaging of clinically suspected scaphoid fractures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(5):1287-1293.
  37. Tiel-van Buul MM, Broekhuizen TH, van Beek EJ, Bossuyt PM. Choosing a strategy for the diagnostic management of suspected scaphoid fracture: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Nucl Med. 1995;36(1):45-48.
  38. Bayer LR, Widding A, Diemer H. Fifteen minutes bone scintigraphy in patients with clinically suspected scaphoid fracture and normal x-rays. 2000;31(4):243-248.
  39. Fowler C, Sullivan B, Williams LA, McCarthy G, Savage R, Palmer A. A comparison of bone scintigraphy and MRI in the early diagnosis of the occult scaphoid waist fracture. Skeletal Radiol. 1998;27(12):683-687.
  40. Dorsay TA, Major NM, Helms CA. Cost-effectiveness of immediate MR imaging versus traditional follow-up for revealing radiographically occult scaphoid fractures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(6):1257-1263.
  41. De Zwart AD, Beeres FJ, Ring D, et al. MRI as a reference standard for suspected scaphoid fractures. Br J 2012;85(1016):1098-1101.
  42. Duckworth AD, Ring D, McQueen MM. Assessment of the suspected fracture of the scaphoid. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(6):713-719.
  43. Senall JA, Failla JM, Bouffard JA, van Holsbeeck M. Ultrasound for the early diagnosis of clinically suspected scaphoid fracture. J Hand Surg Am. 2004;29(3):400-405.
  44. Herneth AM, Siegmeth A, Bader TR, et al. Scaphoid fractures: evaluation with high-spatial-resolution US initial results. 2001;220(1):231-235.
  45. Munk B, Bolvig L, Kroner K, Christiansen T, Borris L, Boe S. Ultrasound for diagnosis of scaphoid fractures. J Hand Surg Br. 2000;25(4):369-371.
  46. Breederveld RS, Tuinebreijer WE. Investigation of computed tomographic scan concurrent criterion validity in doubtful scaphoid fracture of the wrist. J Trauma. 2004;57(4):851-854.
  47. Memarsadeghi M, Breitenseher MJ, Schaefer-Prokop C, et al. Occult scaphoid fractures: comparison of multidetector CT and MR imaging–initial experience. 2006;240(1):169-176.
  48. Ring D, Lozano-Calderon S, Shin R, Bastian P, Mudgal C, Jupiter J. A prospective randomized controlled trial of injection of dexamethasone versus triamcinolone for idiopathic trigger finger. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(4):516-522; discussion 523-514.
  49. Temple CL, Ross DC, Bennett JD, Garvin GJ, King GJ, Faber KJ. Comparison of sagittal computed tomography and plain film radiography in a scaphoid fracture model. J Hand Surg Am. 2005;30(3):534-542.
  50. Bhat M, McCarthy M, Davis TR, Oni JA, Dawson S. MRI and plain radiography in the assessment of displaced fractures of the waist of the carpal scaphoid. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(5):705-713.
  51. Nakamura R, Imaeda T, Horii E, Miura T, Hayakawa N. Analysis of scaphoid fracture displacement by three-dimensional computed tomography. J Hand Surg Am. 1991;16(3):485-492.
  52. Andresen R, Radmer S, Sparmann M, Bogusch G, Banzer D. Imaging of hamate bone fractures in conventional X-rays and high-resolution computed tomography. An in vitro study. Invest Radiol. 1999;34(1):46-50.
  53. Street JM. Radiographs of phalangeal fractures: importance of the internally rotated oblique projection for diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(3):575-576.
  54. Downey EF, Jr., Curtis DJ. Patient-induced stress test of the first metacarpophalangeal joint: a radiographic assessment of collateral ligament injuries. 1986;158(3):679-683.
  55. Koslowsky TC, Mader K, Gausepohl T, Heidemann J, Pennig D, Koebke J. Ultrasonographic stress test of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004(427):115-119.
  56. Noszian IM, Dinkhauser LM, Orthner E, Straub GM, Csanady M. Ulnar collateral ligament: differentiation of displaced and nondisplaced tears with US. 1995;194(1):61-63.
  57. Ahn JM, Sartoris DJ, Kang HS, et al. Gamekeeper thumb: comparison of MR arthrography with conventional arthrography and MR imaging in cadavers. 1998;206(3):737-744.
  58. Hergan K, Mittler C, Oser W. Ulnar collateral ligament: differentiation of displaced and nondisplaced tears with US and MR imaging. 1995;194(1):65-71.
  59. Hinke DH, Erickson SJ, Chamoy L, Timins ME. Ulnar collateral ligament of the thumb: MR findings in cadavers, volunteers, and patients with ligamentous injury (gamekeeper’s thumb). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;163(6):1431-1434.
  60. O’Callaghan BI, Kohut G, Hoogewoud HM. Gamekeeper thumb: identification of the Stener lesion with US. 1994;192(2):477-480.

 

1Principal Author, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 2Panel Chair, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3Panel Vice-chair, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. 4NYU Center for Musculoskeletal Care, New York, New York. 5Warwick Valley Orthopedic Surgery, Warwick, New York, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 6Univeristy of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 7Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 8Bone, Spine and Hand Surgery, Chartered, Brick, NJ, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 9Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 10Penn State University, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 11Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. 12Lenox Hill Hospital, New Rochelle, New York, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 13University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin. 14Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 15Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The American College of Radiology seeks and encourages collaboration with other organizations on the development of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria through society representation on expert panels. Participation by representatives from collaborating societies on the expert panel does not necessarily imply individual or society endorsement of the final document. Reprint requests to: publications@acr.org

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.