English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background and Aims:   Patients with acute or chronic wrist pain often undergo wrist arthroscopy for evaluation of chondral and ligamentous abnormalities. The purpose of this study was to compare findings of wrist arthroscopy with cone beam computed tomography arthrography and magnetic resonance arthrography.Materials and Methods:   Altogether, 21 patients with wrist pain underwent cone beam computed tomography arthrography, magnetic resonance arthrography, and wrist arthroscopy. Chondral surfaces of the scaphoid, lunate, and radius facing the scaphoid and lunate were evaluated. The scapholunate ligament, the lunotriquetral ligament, and the triangular fibrocartilage complex were classified as either intact or torn. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy with 95% confidence intervals were assessed.Results:   For chondral lesions (n = 10), cone beam computed tomography arthrograms showed slightly higher specificity than magnetic resonance arthrography. The sensitivity of cone beam computed tomography arthrography was also better for these lesions, except for those on the chondral surface of the lunate. For triangular fibrocartilage complex injuries (n = 9), cone beam computed tomography arthrography showed a better specificity and sensitivity than magnetic resonance arthrography. For ligamentous injuries (n = 6), cone beam computed tomography arthrograms were more sensitive, but less specific than magnetic resonance arthrography images. However, the number of lesions was very small and the 95% confidence intervals are overlapping.Conclusion:   Cone beam computed tomography is an emerging imaging modality that offers several advantages over computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Its usefulness particularly in ligamentous injuries should be further explored in a larger study. Cone beam computed tomography arthrography seems to offer similar sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared to magnetic resonance arthrography and therefore serves as a valuable option in evaluating patients with wrist pain.

Radiocarpal Injuries: Cone Beam Computed Tomography Arthrography, Magnetic Resonance Arthrography, and Arthroscopic Correlation among 21 Patients