Variation in definitions of scaphoid fracture on MRI scans for suspected fracture: a systematic review.

IF 1.6
Marouska F van Boxel, Ali Kaplan, David Ring, Emily H Jaarsma, Job N Doornberg, Miryam C Obdeijn
{"title":"Variation in definitions of scaphoid fracture on MRI scans for suspected fracture: a systematic review.","authors":"Marouska F van Boxel, Ali Kaplan, David Ring, Emily H Jaarsma, Job N Doornberg, Miryam C Obdeijn","doi":"10.1177/17531934251367541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We conducted a systematic review of the definition of a scaphoid fracture on MRI scans, examining 58 studies of patients with suspected scaphoid fractures. Nearly half the studies did not report any definition or measurement of fracture. Among those that did, 29 out of 33 studies (88%) described a linear fracture shape, 13 out of 33 studies (39%) reported the extent of the fracture across the scaphoid and none specified the fracture line orientation. Of the 25 studies describing fractures using at least one of the shape and extent groupings, 12 (48%) regarded a linear signal through the cortex as a fracture, five (20%) regarded a linear intramedullary signal in isolation as a fracture and eight (32%) regarded a diffuse intramedullary signal in isolation as a fracture. This review highlights the need for a consensus definition of scaphoid fractures on MRI scans to assess the reliability and diagnostic performance of MRI scans for diagnosing true scaphoid fractures, as well as their potential harms and benefits.<b>Systematic Review (Level III)</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":94237,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of hand surgery, European volume","volume":" ","pages":"17531934251367541"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of hand surgery, European volume","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934251367541","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review of the definition of a scaphoid fracture on MRI scans, examining 58 studies of patients with suspected scaphoid fractures. Nearly half the studies did not report any definition or measurement of fracture. Among those that did, 29 out of 33 studies (88%) described a linear fracture shape, 13 out of 33 studies (39%) reported the extent of the fracture across the scaphoid and none specified the fracture line orientation. Of the 25 studies describing fractures using at least one of the shape and extent groupings, 12 (48%) regarded a linear signal through the cortex as a fracture, five (20%) regarded a linear intramedullary signal in isolation as a fracture and eight (32%) regarded a diffuse intramedullary signal in isolation as a fracture. This review highlights the need for a consensus definition of scaphoid fractures on MRI scans to assess the reliability and diagnostic performance of MRI scans for diagnosing true scaphoid fractures, as well as their potential harms and benefits.Systematic Review (Level III).

疑似骨折的MRI扫描对舟状骨骨折定义的差异:系统回顾。
我们对MRI扫描中舟状骨骨折的定义进行了系统的回顾,检查了58例疑似舟状骨骨折的患者。近一半的研究没有报告任何骨折的定义或测量。在这些研究中,33项研究中有29项(88%)描述了线性骨折的形状,33项研究中有13项(39%)报告了横跨舟骨的骨折程度,没有一项研究明确了骨折线的方向。在使用至少一种形状和程度分组描述骨折的25项研究中,12项(48%)将通过皮质的线性信号视为骨折,5项(20%)将孤立的线性髓内信号视为骨折,8项(32%)将孤立的弥漫性髓内信号视为骨折。这篇综述强调了MRI扫描对舟状骨骨折的共识定义的必要性,以评估MRI扫描诊断真正舟状骨骨折的可靠性和诊断性能,以及它们的潜在危害和益处。系统评价(III级)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信