DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2373041450
(Radiology 2005;237:1008-1013.)
© RSNA, 2005
Interosseous Ligament Tears of the Wrist: Comparison of Multi–Detector Row CT Arthrography and MR Imaging1
Marius R. Schmid, MD,
Thomas Schertler, MD,
Christian W. Pfirrmann, MD,
Nadja Saupe, MD,
Mirjana Manestar, MD,
Simon Wildermuth, MD and
Dominik Weishaupt, MD
1 From the Department of Radiology, Balgrist University Hospital, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008 Zurich, Switzerland (M.R.S., C.W.P.); and Departments of Diagnostic Radiology (T.S., N.S., S.W., D.W.) and Anatomy (M.M.), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Received August 20, 2004; revision requested October 29; revision received December 24; accepted January 21, 2005.
Address correspondence to M.R.S. (e-mail: marius.schmid{at}balgrist.ch)
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of multi–detector row computed tomographic (CT) arthrography and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in depicting tears of dorsal, central, and palmar segments of scapholunate (SL) and lunotriquetral (LT) ligaments in cadavers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cadaver wrists were obtained and used according to institutional guidelines and with informed consent of donors prior to death. Nine cadaver wrists of eight subjects were evaluated. MR images were obtained with a 1.5-T MR unit. Imaging protocol included intermediate-weighted coronal and transverse fast spin-echo and coronal three-dimensional gradient-echo sequences. Multi–detector row CT arthrography was performed after tricompartmental injection of 3–6 mL of contrast material with a concentration of 160 mg per milliliter of iodine. Palmar, dorsal, and central segments of both ligaments were analyzed on transverse and coronal MR images and multiplanar multi–detector row CT reconstructions by two musculoskeletal radiologists working independently. Open inspection of the wrists was the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated from the imaging and gross pathologic readings. Statistical significance was calculated with the McNemar test. Weighted 
values for interobserver agreement were calculated for both imaging modalities.
RESULTS: All ligament segments could be visualized in all cases with both imaging modalities. CT arthrography was more sensitive (100%) than MR imaging (60%) in detection of palmar segment tears (P = .62); specificity of both imaging modalities was 77%. Sensitivity (CT arthrography, 86%; MR imaging, 79%) and specificity (CT arthrography, 50%; MR imaging, 25%) for detection of the central segment tears were determined. Dorsal segment tears were detected only with CT arthrography, while all tears were missed with MR imaging (P = .02). Interobserver agreement was better for multi–detector row CT arthrography ( = 0.37–0.78) than for MR imaging ( = –0.33 to –0.10).
CONCLUSION: Performance in depiction of palmar and central segment tears of SL and LT ligaments is almost equal for multi–detector row CT arthrography and MR imaging, with much higher interobserver reliability for CT arthrography. CT arthrography is significantly superior to MR imaging in the detection of dorsal segment tears of SL and LT ligaments.
© RSNA, 2005
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
The scapholunate (SL) and lunotriquetral (LT) ligaments are important stabilizers of the wrist. Anatomically, both ligaments are composed of three distinct components: The volar and dorsal portions are composed of transversely oriented collagen fibers that connect the scaphoid and lunate bones (SL ligament) and the lunate and triquetral bones (LT ligament), respectively (1). The largest component of the ligament is the central segment, which is also known as the proximal or membranous segment (1).
From a clinical point of view, knowledge of the particular anatomy of these ligaments is important for the radiologist, since the site and extent of a disrupted ligament segment may be used to differentiate between a traumatic tear and a degenerative change, which can occur as senescent changes in asymptomatic wrists (2). In addition, the dorsal and palmar segments of both ligaments are more important functionally than is the central segment (3). Dorsal and palmar segments of both ligaments are true ligaments, in contrast with the central segments of both ligaments (4).
Traditionally, conventional wrist arthrography, which—to our knowledge—was first described in 1961 by Kessler and Silberman (5), has been used in the assessment of SL and LT ligament tears. With use of multiple projections, conventional wrist arthrography can enable differentiation of different ligament segments and associated abnormalities (6,7).
In the past, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with (9–14) and without (15–18) arthrography and computed tomographic (CT) arthrography (19) have been advocated for assessment of SL and LT ligament tears. In almost all of these studies, which were performed to assess the diagnostic performance of an imaging modality with regard to the detection of tears (7,9–11,13,15,17,18), the SL and LT ligaments were considered a single unit, without taking into account the fact that both ligaments are composed of different ligamentous segments. The segmental anatomy of the interosseous ligaments and their abnormalities are potentially important with regard to the distinction between traumatic tears and, most often, centrally located degenerative tears (20). To our knowledge, in no study have investigators directly compared the diagnostic performance of CT arthrography with that of MR imaging with regard to the assessment of SL and LT ligaments, particularly with regard to the assessment of the different segments of these ligaments. Thus, the purpose of our study was to compare the accuracy of multi–detector row CT arthrography and MR imaging in the depiction of tears of dorsal, central, and palmar segments of the SL and LT ligaments in cadaver wrists.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
|---|
Specimens
Nine cadaver wrists from eight subjects (four women, four men; mean age, 83 years; age range, 65–99 years) were evaluated between March and April 2003. All cadavers were randomly selected by an anatomist (M.M.). No conventional radiographs were obtained before or after selection of the cadaver wrists. Clinical history, including prior trauma, was unavailable for all subjects. All specimens were exarticulated in the elbow joint and consisted of a whole forearm, including the wrist and hand. All specimens were perfused with a mixture of formalin, chloral hydrate, calcium chloride, Almudor (mixture of formalin, glyoxale, and glutaraldehyde), and water. This mixture contains an overall formalin concentration of 2.8%.
The cadaver hands were obtained and used according to institutional guidelines. Prior to death, donors consented to the use of their bodies for research purposes.
Imaging
Nine cadaver wrists were examined with MR imaging by using a 1.5-T unit (Signa Horizon; GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis) with a dedicated quadrature wrist coil. A fat-suppressed intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo sequence (repetition time msec/echo time msec, 1800/24; field of view, 8 x 8 cm; section thickness, 2 mm; intersection gap, 0.5 mm; image matrix, 512 x 256; four signals acquired; echo train length, four) was performed in the coronal and transverse planes. A fat-suppressed coronal three-dimensional gradient-recalled-echo sequence (40–45/12–15; flip angle, 25°; matrix, 512 x 256; field of view, 8 x 8 cm; four signals acquired; section thickness, 1 mm; no intersection gap; image matrix, 512 x 256) and an intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo sequence without fat suppression (1800/24; field of view, 8 x 8 cm; section thickness, 2 mm; intersection gap, 0.5 mm; image matrix, 512 x 256; four signals acquired; echo train length, four) were performed in the transverse plane.
After MR imaging, CT arthrography was performed. All nine specimens were examined with a 16–detector row CT scanner (Sensation 16; Siemens Medical Systems, Forchheim, Germany). Intraarticular injection of contrast material was performed immediately before imaging with the multi–detector row CT unit. With CT guidance, a 1:1 mixture of iodixanol (320 mg of iodine per milliliter) (Visipaque 320; Amersham Health, Buckinghamshire, England) and saline was injected into the distal radioulnar joint. If necessary (ie, no perforation of the triangular fibrocartilage complex or the SL or LT ligaments was present), additional injections into the radiocarpal and midcarpal compartments were performed. All injections were performed by the same musculoskeletal radiologist (M.R.S.). Mean volume of contrast material injected at tricompartmental arthrography was 4 mL (range, 3–6 mL).
Immediately after contrast agent injection, CT arthrography was performed. First, a scout view of the cadaver hand was used to plan multi–detector row CT data acquisition.
For data acquisition, section collimation of 16 x 0.75 mm, section width of 0.75 mm, and reconstruction increment of 0.3 mm were used. Tube current was 120 mAs, and tube voltage was 120 kV.
Image Analysis
Two musculoskeletal radiologists (C.W.P., D.W.) with 10 and 11 years of CT arthrography experience, respectively, who were not involved in image acquisition or gross anatomic inspection interpreted data obtained with both imaging modalities for all nine specimens separately. Consensus was obtained in case of disagreement. Interpretation of images obtained with both modalities was performed separately, with an interval of at least 2 weeks between the reading sessions. For review of MR data, all MR images were available on a workstation (Advantage Windowing Workstation; GE Medical Systems Europe, Buc, France). For CT arthrogram review, the data set was uploaded on a Volume Zoom Wizard workstation (Siemens Medical Solutions); analysis of the data was performed by using multiplanar reformations. All multiplanar reformations were reconstructed on the workstation by the readers themselves. Multiplanar reformation included routine coronal and transverse reformations of the wrist. The window settings for assessment of the multiplanar reformations were adjusted for each patient individually by both radiologists who performed image analysis.
Palmar, central, and dorsal segments of the SL and LT ligaments were evaluated separately in the coronal (Fig 1) and transverse (Fig 2) planes by using multiplanar reformation CT images and MR images. Visibility of the three segments of both ligaments was rated as visible or not visible, and each ligament segment was judged to be intact or torn. For multi–detector row CT arthrography, ligament tear was defined as communication of intraarticular contrast material through any segment of the ligaments. For MR imaging, a tear was diagnosed if there was discontinuity of any part of the ligament or presence of fluid-type signal intensity within the substance of the SL or LT ligaments. Each reader assessed the ligament status separately, with subsequent consensus reading in cases of disagreement.
View larger version (100K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 1. Coronal diagram of central segments of SL and LT ligaments. Central segments of SL (left arrow) and LT (right arrow) ligaments are typically triangular on coronal images. L = lunate, S = scaphoid, T = triquetrum.
|
|
View larger version (45K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 2. Transverse diagram of palmar and dorsal segments of SL and LT ligaments. Palmar segments of SL (straight white arrow) and LT (curved white arrow) ligaments and dorsal segments of SL (straight black arrow) and LT (curved black arrow) ligaments are best visualized on transverse images. The lunate (L), radius (R), scaphoid (S), and triquetrum (T) are visible on the most proximal transverse sections.
|
|
Standard of Reference
Within 1 month of imaging, all cadaver wrists were inspected by an experienced anatomist (M.M., more than 25 years of experience) and a radiologist (M.R.S., more than 6 years of experience in musculoskeletal radiology), who assessed the SL and LT ligament status in consensus. During this time, the specimens were again fixed in the mixture that was mentioned previously. All wrists were inspected from the proximal point of view after exarticulation in the radiocarpal joint. Palmar and dorsal anatomic preparation allowed optimal inspection of the palmar and dorsal segments of both ligaments. All three segments of both ligaments were identified as either intact or torn. Both examiners were unaware of the imaging findings. This gross pathologic inspection served as the reference standard.
Statistical Analysis
Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated from the imaging findings and gross pathologic readings. Statistically significant differences were calculated with the McNemar test. Statistical significance was set at a P value of less than .05. Both ligaments were analyzed together. This combination of segments of SL and LT ligaments seems acceptable, since SL and LT ligaments are identical in anatomic construction, with thick palmar and dorsal segments composed of oriented collagen fascicles and the weaker central segment composed of fibrocartilage without collagen orientation (4).
Weighted values for interobserver agreement were calculated for both imaging modalities with statistical software (SPSS, version 11.0; SPSS, Chicago, Ill). According to Landis and Koch (21), a value of 0.00–0.20 indicated poor agreement, 0.21–0.40 indicated fair agreement, 0.41–0.60 indicated moderate agreement, 0.61–0.80 indicated good agreement, and 0.81–1.00 indicated excellent agreement.
|
RESULTS
|
|---|
Tears
MR imaging and CT arthrography clearly depicted the different segments of the SL and LT ligaments in all nine wrists. Gross pathologic analysis showed five tears of the palmar segment, 14 tears of the central segment, and four tears of the dorsal segment. There was only one case of a complete tear of all three segments of the SL ligament (Fig 3). In seven ligaments, tears involving two segments of either the SL or the LT ligament occurred concomitantly. Tears of the palmar (n = 5) and dorsal (n = 4) segments were combined with tears of the central segment in each instance. The remaining six of 14 tears of the central segment were not combined with tears of the palmar or dorsal segments.
View larger version (157K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 3a. Palmar, central, and dorsal SL and central LT ligament tears. (a) Proximal gross anatomic specimen obtained in a 99-year-old woman with tears of the palmar (large straight white arrow), central (small straight white arrows), and dorsal (curved arrow) segments of the SL ligament and of the central segment of the LT ligament (black arrow). Tears of the central segments of SL (small arrows) and LT ligaments (large arrow) are visible on (b) coronal multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography and (c) fat-suppressed coronal intermediate-weighted MR image (1800/24). (d) Palmar (straight arrow) and dorsal (curved arrow) segment tears of the SL ligament are sharply demarcated by intraarticular contrast agent on transverse multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography. (e) On transverse intermediate-weighted (1800/24) fat-suppressed MR image, the dorsal segment of the SL ligament appears intact (arrowheads), while the palmar segment tear (arrow) is recognizable.
|
|
View larger version (159K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 3b. Palmar, central, and dorsal SL and central LT ligament tears. (a) Proximal gross anatomic specimen obtained in a 99-year-old woman with tears of the palmar (large straight white arrow), central (small straight white arrows), and dorsal (curved arrow) segments of the SL ligament and of the central segment of the LT ligament (black arrow). Tears of the central segments of SL (small arrows) and LT ligaments (large arrow) are visible on (b) coronal multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography and (c) fat-suppressed coronal intermediate-weighted MR image (1800/24). (d) Palmar (straight arrow) and dorsal (curved arrow) segment tears of the SL ligament are sharply demarcated by intraarticular contrast agent on transverse multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography. (e) On transverse intermediate-weighted (1800/24) fat-suppressed MR image, the dorsal segment of the SL ligament appears intact (arrowheads), while the palmar segment tear (arrow) is recognizable.
|
|
View larger version (167K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 3c. Palmar, central, and dorsal SL and central LT ligament tears. (a) Proximal gross anatomic specimen obtained in a 99-year-old woman with tears of the palmar (large straight white arrow), central (small straight white arrows), and dorsal (curved arrow) segments of the SL ligament and of the central segment of the LT ligament (black arrow). Tears of the central segments of SL (small arrows) and LT ligaments (large arrow) are visible on (b) coronal multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography and (c) fat-suppressed coronal intermediate-weighted MR image (1800/24). (d) Palmar (straight arrow) and dorsal (curved arrow) segment tears of the SL ligament are sharply demarcated by intraarticular contrast agent on transverse multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography. (e) On transverse intermediate-weighted (1800/24) fat-suppressed MR image, the dorsal segment of the SL ligament appears intact (arrowheads), while the palmar segment tear (arrow) is recognizable.
|
|
View larger version (102K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 3d. Palmar, central, and dorsal SL and central LT ligament tears. (a) Proximal gross anatomic specimen obtained in a 99-year-old woman with tears of the palmar (large straight white arrow), central (small straight white arrows), and dorsal (curved arrow) segments of the SL ligament and of the central segment of the LT ligament (black arrow). Tears of the central segments of SL (small arrows) and LT ligaments (large arrow) are visible on (b) coronal multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography and (c) fat-suppressed coronal intermediate-weighted MR image (1800/24). (d) Palmar (straight arrow) and dorsal (curved arrow) segment tears of the SL ligament are sharply demarcated by intraarticular contrast agent on transverse multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography. (e) On transverse intermediate-weighted (1800/24) fat-suppressed MR image, the dorsal segment of the SL ligament appears intact (arrowheads), while the palmar segment tear (arrow) is recognizable.
|
|
View larger version (118K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 3e. Palmar, central, and dorsal SL and central LT ligament tears. (a) Proximal gross anatomic specimen obtained in a 99-year-old woman with tears of the palmar (large straight white arrow), central (small straight white arrows), and dorsal (curved arrow) segments of the SL ligament and of the central segment of the LT ligament (black arrow). Tears of the central segments of SL (small arrows) and LT ligaments (large arrow) are visible on (b) coronal multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography and (c) fat-suppressed coronal intermediate-weighted MR image (1800/24). (d) Palmar (straight arrow) and dorsal (curved arrow) segment tears of the SL ligament are sharply demarcated by intraarticular contrast agent on transverse multiplanar reformation image obtained with multi–detector row CT arthrography. (e) On transverse intermediate-weighted (1800/24) fat-suppressed MR image, the dorsal segment of the SL ligament appears intact (arrowheads), while the palmar segment tear (arrow) is recognizable.
|
|
Statistical Comparisons
Consensus decisions were necessary regarding nine (17%) of 54 ligament segments at CT, compared with 24 (38%) of 54 ligament segments at MR imaging. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MR imaging in the detection of tears were 79%, 25%, and 67%, respectively, in the central segment and 60%, 77%, and 72%, respectively, in the palmar segment (Table). Corresponding sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values for CT arthrography were 86%, 50%, and 78%, respectively, in the central segment and 100%, 77%, and 83%, respectively, in the palmar segment (Table). With regard to sensitivity and specificity, these differences were not statistically significant (P = .62). All four tears of the dorsal segment of both ligaments were missed with MR imaging, thus resulting in a sensitivity of 0%, whereas all tears involving the dorsal segment were correctly detected with CT. This difference was statistically significant (P = .02). The specificity of MR imaging was higher (ie, 100%) than that of CT arthrography (ie, 79%) in the detection of tears in the dorsal ligament segments.
Interobserver agreement for multi–detector row CT arthrography was fair to excellent, with values of 0.38, 0.67, and 0.78 for the central, palmar, and dorsal segments, respectively. Poor interobserver agreement was found for MR imaging in all three segments (central segment, = –0.33; palmar segment, = –0.22; dorsal segment, = –0.10).
|
DISCUSSION
|
|---|
SL and LT ligaments are composed of three different segments (1,4,22). The dorsal and volar segments of the SL and LT ligaments exhibit the greatest yield strength (3) compared with that of the central segment, which has less biomechanical importance. Both ligaments are horseshoe shaped, with the palmar and dorsal segments thicker than the central segment (4,22). In our study population, gross pathologic analysis showed that palmar and dorsal segment tears were always combined with central segment tears, while central segment tears were seen without palmar or dorsal segment tears in six of 16 cases. This observation strengthens the theory that palmar and dorsal segments are more important for stability of the SL and LT ligaments than is the central segment (3,4). These numbers indicate that if a palmar or dorsal segment is torn, the central segment will also rupture; however, the opposite scenario (ie, central segment tear that causes a tear of the dorsal or palmar segment) seems less likely.
As proposed in earlier studies (2,20), degenerative tears of the SL and LT ligaments are usually located in the central segment. Exact examination and analysis of all three segments of both ligaments are important because dorsal and palmar segment tears indicate a potential traumatic cause of a ligament tear.
SL and LT ligaments can be depicted with several imaging modalities, including conventional arthrography, MR imaging (with and without intraarticular contrast agent administration), and CT arthrography. The role of these imaging modalities, particularly MR imaging and CT, in the visualization and assessment of segmental anatomy of the SL and LT ligaments is not well investigated in the literature. In conventional arthrography, these three ligament segments can be differentiated by an experienced radiologist using oblique views of the wrist (6) in half and full flexion in the supinated position and half and full extension in the pronated position. To our knowledge, there are only two studies in which the ability of MR imaging to depict the segmental anatomy of the interosseous SL ligament has been investigated (12,16). In the study of Scheck et al (12), three-compartment MR arthrography was performed in 41 wrists of patients with wrist pain. In their investigation, arthroscopy served as the reference standard. Scheck et al (12) demonstrated that the three segments of the SL ligament can be depicted by using MR arthrography with coronal thin-section gradient-recalled-echo imaging. Scheck et al (12) used this technique to clearly delineate dorsal, central, and palmar segments of the SL ligament in 95% of the cases. In the study of Totterman and Miller (16), normal appearance of dorsal, central, and palmar segments of the SL ligament in 14 asymptomatic volunteers and five cadavers with an intact SL ligament was depicted with a coronal three-dimensional gradient-recalled-echo sequence. To our knowledge, the ability of CT or CT arthrography to depict different segments of the interosseous ligaments has not yet been demonstrated.
In accordance with previously published findings for MR imaging (16) and MR arthrography (12), we have shown that all three segments of the SL and LT ligaments may be demonstrated with either MR imaging or CT arthrography to good advantage. Our results showed almost equal detectability of palmar and central segment tears of both ligaments with CT arthrography and MR imaging. No statistically significant differences between imaging modalities were found. When compared with gross pathologic analysis, MR imaging did not depict four dorsal segment tears in our study group. This difference was statistically significant. MR arthrography has proved superior to standard MR imaging in the detection of ligament tears in the wrist (12); therefore, it also could be superior to MR imaging in the detection of dorsal segment tears.
With the exception of reports published by Scheck et al (12) and Totterman and Miller (16), all other reports on the diagnostic performance of MR imaging in the detection of interosseous ligament tears of the wrist did not differentiate this segmental anatomy of the SL and LT ligaments. Several reports have been published on the diagnostic performance of MR imaging with regard to the detection of interosseous ligament tears, irrespective of the segmental anatomy; therefore, a comparison of their results with ours is difficult. Manton et al (17) used standard MR imaging and indirect MR arthrography and found sensitivity and specificity values for detection of SL ligament tears of 42%–69% and 32%–81%, respectively; in the same study, these researchers found sensitivity and specificity values for detection of LT ligament tears of 25%–36% and 68%–84%, respectively. In the study of Manton et al (17), secondary signs, such as focal osseous offset, arc disruption, and focal osteoarthritis, increased specificity of ligament tear detection. High sensitivity (SL ligament, 93%; LT ligament, 56%) and specificity (SL ligament, 89%; LT ligament, 90%) in ligament tear detection were also found in the study of Zlatkin et al (23), in which the results of standard MR examinations of 43 patients with 24 tears of the SL ligament and seven tears of the LT ligament were analyzed.
In the literature, we found only one study (19) in which CT arthrography was used to detect intrinsic ligament injury of the wrist. Theumann et al (19) evaluated 36 wrists with conventional arthrography and CT arthrography for the presence of SL and LT ligament tears. In their study (19), sensitivity and specificity values for conventional arthrography were 85% and 100% for SL ligament tears and 80% and 100% for LT ligament tears. With CT arthrography, sensitivity and specificity values were both 100% for SL ligament tears and 85% and 100%, respectively, for LT ligament tears (19). Although mentioned in the report of Theumann et al (19), the three individual segments of the two ligaments were not discussed further in their article.
A limitation of our study was the small number of wrists that were evaluated. Thus, we performed a combined evaluation of both ligaments. This combination seems appropriate because both ligaments are very similar anatomically, with thicker dorsal and palmar segments composed of transversely oriented collagen fascicles (4) and a central segment composed of fibrocartilage, with no collagen orientation (4). Another limitation of our study was the fact that MR images were obtained without intraarticular contrast material administration contrary to CT, in which CT arthrography was performed. We used this study setup because the time delay for both examinations would have resulted in a substantial diffusion of intraarticular contrast material within the ligaments. Diffusion of contrast material within the ligament would have hampered analysis of the images, which would have been performed subsequent to intraarticular administration of contrast material. Moreover, in clinical practice, MR imaging of the wrist is performed without intraarticular contrast agent administration in most institutions. Finally, this study was performed in cadaver wrists; thus, no clinical data about potential wrist pain and its duration was available.
In conclusion, we have shown that, in cadaver wrists, both standard MR imaging and CT arthrography are able to demonstrate the three different segments of the SL and LT ligaments. A precise segmental evaluation of the two ligaments is important because dorsal and palmar segments of both ligaments are functionally more important than the central segment (3,4). In all three segments, interobserver reliability for tear detection with CT arthrography is much higher than interobserver reliability for tear detection with MR imaging. CT arthrography seems to be superior to standard MR imaging in the detection of tears involving the dorsal segment of the SL and LT ligaments.
|
FOOTNOTES
|
|---|
Abbreviations: LT = lunotriquetral • SL = scapholunate
Authors stated no financial relationship to disclose.
Author contributions: Guarantors of integrity of entire study, M.R.S., C.W.P., D.W.; study concepts/study design or data acquisition or data analysis/interpretation, all authors; manuscript drafting or manuscript revision for important intellectual content, all authors; approval of final version of submitted manuscript, all authors; literature research, M.R.S., M.M., S.W.; experimental studies, T.S., N.S.; statistical analysis, C.W.P.; and manuscript editing, M.R.S., T.S., C.W.P., N.S., S.W., D.W.
|
References
|
|---|
- Lichtmann DM, Alexander AH. The wrist and its disorders. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders, 1996; 91–106, 268–314.
- Viegas SF, Ballantyne G. Attritional lesions of the wrist joint. J Hand Surg [Am] 1987;12:1025–1029.[Medline]
- Berger RA, Imeada T, Berglund L, An KN. Constraint and material properties of the subregions of the scapholunate interosseous ligament. J Hand Surg [Am] 1999;24:953–962.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Berger RA. The anatomy of the ligaments of the wrist and distal radioulnar joints. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001;383:32–40.
- Kessler I, Silberman Z. An experimental study of the radiocarpal joint by arthrography. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1961;112:33–40.[Medline]
- Linkous MD, Pierce SD, Gilula LA. Scapholunate ligamentous communicating defects in symptomatic and asymptomatic wrists: characteristics. Radiology 2000;216:846–850.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Schmitt R, Christopoulos G, Meier R, et al. Direct MR arthrography of the wrist in comparison with arthroscopy: a prospective study on 125 patients. Rofo 2003;175:911–919.[Medline]
- Gilula LA, Hardy DC, Totty WG, Reinus WR. Fluoroscopic identification of torn intercarpal ligaments after injection of contrast material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;149:761–764.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Schweitzer ME, Brahme SK, Hodler J, et al. Chronic wrist pain: spin-echo and short tau inversion recovery MR imaging and conventional and MR arthrography. Radiology 1992;182:205–211.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Zanetti M, Bram J, Hodler J. Triangular fibrocartilage and intercarpal ligaments of the wrist: does MR arthrography improve standard MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:590–594.[Medline]
- Scheck RJ, Romagnolo A, Hierner R, Pfluger T, Wilhelm K, Hahn K. The carpal ligaments in MR arthrography of the wrist: correlation with standard MRI and wrist arthroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;9:468–474.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Scheck RJ, Kubitzek C, Hierner R, et al. The scapholunate interosseous ligament in MR arthrography of the wrist: correlation with non-enhanced MRI and wrist arthroscopy. Skeletal Radiol 1997;26:263–271.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Haims AH, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB, et al. Internal derangement of the wrist: indirect MR arthrography versus unenhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;227:701–707.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Schweitzer ME, Natale P, Winalski CS, Culp R. Indirect wrist MR arthrography: the effect of passive motion versus active exercise. Skeletal Radiol 2000;29:10–14.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Gundry CR, Kursunoglu-Brahme S, Schwaighofer B, Kang HS, Sartoris DJ, Resnick D. Is MR better than arthrography for evaluating the ligaments of the wrist? in vitro study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:337–341.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Totterman SM, Miller RJ. Scapholunate ligament: normal MR appearance on three-dimensional gradient-recalled-echo images. Radiology 1996;200:237–241.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Manton GL, Schweitzer ME, Weishaupt D, et al. Partial interosseous ligament tears of the wrist: difficulty in utilizing either primary or secondary MRI signs. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25:671–676.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Stabler A, Spieker A, Bonel H, et al. MRI of the wrist: comparison of high resolution pulse sequences and different fat-suppression techniques. Rofo 2000;172:168–174.[Medline]
- Theumann N, Favarger N, Schnyder P, Meuli R. Wrist ligament injuries: value of post-arthrography computed tomography. Skeletal Radiol 2001;30:88–93.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Wright TW, Del Charco M, Wheeler D. Incidence of ligament lesions and associated degenerative changes in the elderly wrist. J Hand Surg [Am] 1994;19:313–318.[Medline]
- Landis JR, Koch GC. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Boabighi A, Kuhlmann JN, Kenesi C. The distal ligamentous complex of the scaphoid and the scapho-lunate ligament: an anatomic, histological and biomechanical study. J Hand Surg [Br] 1993;18:65–69.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Zlatkin MB, Chao PC, Osterman AL, Schnall MD, Dalinka MK, Kressel HY. Chronic wrist pain: evaluation with high-resolution MR imaging. Radiology 1989;173:723–729.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
T. Moser, J.-C. Dosch, A. Moussaoui, X. Buy, A. Gangi, and J.-L. Dietemann
Multidetector CT Arthrography of the Wrist Joint: How to Do It
RadioGraphics,
May 1, 2008;
28(3):
787 - 800.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
