Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.
Copyright © 2016 The Korean Fracture Society. All rights reserved.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Clinical test | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
---|---|---|
Effusion | 50 | 91 |
Tenderness on scaphoid tubercle | 87 | 57 |
Snuff box tenderness | 90 | 40 |
Scaphoid compression test | 94 | 92 |
Combined | 100 | 74 |
Item | Finding | Describing |
---|---|---|
Short arm thumb spica splint, after 2 weeks, rechecking simple Xrays16) | Bone resorption or early callus formation adjacent to the fracture site | Low cost, possible time wasting |
High-resolution ultrasound17,18) | Cortical step-off, cortical interruption, radiocarpal effusion, scaphotrapeziotrapezoidal joint effusion | Sensitivity 78%, specificity 89%, relatively low cost, early detection |
Bone scan19,20) | Hot uptake | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 90%, useful in multiple fracture-patient and unconsciousness patient |
Computed tomography21,22) | The better diagnostic performance in reformations along the long axis of the scaphoid than the planes of the wrist | Very effective in detection for nondisplaced scaphoid fractures, useful in evaluation for scaphoid union or eformation or scaphoid nonunion status |
Magnetic resonance imaging23,24) | Acute fracture, normal or decreased signal in T1 and increased signal in T2; nonunion or avascular necrosis, decreased signal in T1 and T2 | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 90%, useful in detection for ligament injuries or other concomitant injuries |
Data from the article of Haisman et al. (J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:2750-2758).31)
Clinical test | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
---|---|---|
Effusion | 50 | 91 |
Tenderness on scaphoid tubercle | 87 | 57 |
Snuff box tenderness | 90 | 40 |
Scaphoid compression test | 94 | 92 |
Combined | 100 | 74 |
Item | Finding | Describing |
---|---|---|
Short arm thumb spica splint, after 2 weeks, rechecking simple Xrays16) | Bone resorption or early callus formation adjacent to the fracture site | Low cost, possible time wasting |
High-resolution ultrasound17,18) | Cortical step-off, cortical interruption, radiocarpal effusion, scaphotrapeziotrapezoidal joint effusion | Sensitivity 78%, specificity 89%, relatively low cost, early detection |
Bone scan19,20) | Hot uptake | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 90%, useful in multiple fracture-patient and unconsciousness patient |
Computed tomography21,22) | The better diagnostic performance in reformations along the long axis of the scaphoid than the planes of the wrist | Very effective in detection for nondisplaced scaphoid fractures, useful in evaluation for scaphoid union or eformation or scaphoid nonunion status |
Magnetic resonance imaging23,24) | Acute fracture, normal or decreased signal in T1 and increased signal in T2; nonunion or avascular necrosis, decreased signal in T1 and T2 | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 90%, useful in detection for ligament injuries or other concomitant injuries |
Item | Criteria |
---|---|
Displacement or step-off | >1 mm |
Angular displacement | >10° |
Comminuted fracture | |
Scapholunate angle | >60° |
Radiolunate angle | >15° |
Intra-scaphoid angle in wrist postero-anterior view | >40° |
Intra-scaphoid angle in wrist lateral view | >30° |
Data from the article of Haisman et al. (J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:2750-2758).31)
Comparison point | Volar approach | Dorsal approach |
---|---|---|
Scaphoid circulation preserving | Superior | Inferior |
Applicable fracture sites | Fractures in scaphoid waist and distal, humpback deformity correction | Fracture in scaphoid proximal |
Screw fixation along scaphoid long axis center | Relatively difficult (partial removal of trapezium volar portion) | Easy |
Radiocarpal ligament injury | Yes | No |
Data from the article of Haisman et al. (J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:2750-2758).