• Arthroscopy · Oct 2015

    Review

    Efficacy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Tests in Diagnostics of Wrist Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review.

    • Jonny K Andersson, Daniel Andernord, Jón Karlsson, and Jan Fridén.
    • Department of Hand Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: jonny_a@telia.com.
    • Arthroscopy. 2015 Oct 1; 31 (10): 2014-20.e2.

    PurposeTo investigate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical provocative tests on injuries to the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC), the scapholunate (SL) ligament, and the lunotriquetral (LT) ligament.MethodsAn electronic literature search of articles published between January 1, 2000, and February 28, 2014, in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was carried out in April 2014. Only studies of the diagnostic performance of MRI and clinical provocation tests using wrist arthroscopy as the gold standard were eligible for inclusion. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist guided the extraction and reporting of data. The methodologic quality of the included articles was assessed with the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The primary outcome measure was the negative predictive value (NPV) of wrist MRI and provocative wrist tests, which was defined as the probability of an intact wrist ligament given a negative investigation. The question was whether negative results of MRI or provocative tests were enough to safely discontinue further investigation with arthroscopy. A minimum NPV of 95% was considered a clinically relevant cutoff value. The secondary outcome measures were the positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity.ResultsA total of 7 articles (327 patients with MRI and 105 patients with clinical tests) were included in this systematic review. The included articles displayed heterogeneity regarding participants, diagnostic methods, and study design. Seven articles investigated the diagnostic performance of MRI, whereas 1 article investigated clinical testing. The NPVs of MRI were as follows: TFCC, 37% to 90%; SL ligament, 72% to 94%; and LT ligament, 74% to 95%. The NPVs of clinical tests were 55%, 74%, and 94% for the TFCC, SL ligament, and LT ligament, respectively. Only 1 study reached the predetermined cutoff value for the primary outcome measure (NPV ≥95%) but only for MRI of the LT ligament; this study also reached a borderline-cutoff NPV of 94% for MRI of the SL ligament. Another study reached borderline-cutoff NPVs of 94% both for MRI and for clinical tests of the LT ligament.ConclusionsA negative result from MRI is unable to rule out the possibility of a clinically relevant injury to the TFCC, SL ligament, or LT ligament of the wrist. Clinical provocation wrist tests were of limited diagnostic value. The current gold standard--wrist arthroscopy--remains the preferred diagnostic technique with sufficient conclusive properties when it comes to wrist ligament injuries.Level Of EvidenceLevel II, systematic review of Level II diagnostic studies.Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…