Characteristics of triangular fibrocartilage defects in symptomatic and contralateral asymptomatic wrists.
ABSTRACT To characterize triangular fibrocartilage (TFC) defects in symptomatic and contralateral asymptomatic wrists.
Communicating and noncommunicating defects of the TFC were depicted on bilateral wrist arthrograms in 56 patients with unilateral wrist pain and without associated lesions of the scapholunate or lunotriquetral ligaments. The exact location of each TFC lesion was noted.
Communicating defects were noted in 36 (64%) of 56 symptomatic and in 26 (46%) of 56 asymptomatic wrists. Twenty-five (69%) of 36 communicating defects were bilateral. Except for one defect in each group of symptomatic and asymptomatic wrists, all communicating defects were noted radially. Noncommunicating defects were noted in 28 (50%) of 56 symptomatic wrists and in 15 (27%) of 56 asymptomatic wrists. Eleven (39%) of 28 noncommunicating defects were bilateral. On the symptomatic side, 28 of 36 noncommunicating defects (including eight multiple defects) were located proximally at the ulnar side. On the asymptomatic side, 11 of 17 noncommunicating defects (including two multiple defects) were at or near the ulna.
Noncommunicating TFC defects, which typically are located on the proximal side of the TFC near its ulnar attachment, have a more reliable association with symptomatic wrists than do communicating defects. Radial-sided communicating defects described in the literature (Palmer type 1A and 1D) as posttraumatic commonly are seen bilaterally and in asymptomatic wrists.
- SourceAvailable from: Henri Guerini
Article: Imagerie du poignet du sportif[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Wrist imaging is currently used for diagnosis of sport injuries as part of a global strategy of rapid recovery. Standard x-rays are the first step in this procedure. Although arthrography is still the reference for the diagnosis of intrinsic ligament and cartilaginous lesions, MRI can sometimes be sufficient. Ultrasonography is a dynamic process and is accurate in detecting tendon injuries. Wrist sport injuries are frequent and often asymptomatic. Here we review the usual aspects of bone, ligament, and tendon lesions encountered in each sport, while providing advice on the most appropriate imaging for each clinical symptom.Journal De Radiologie - J RADIOL. 01/2007; 88(1):111-126.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to characterize the appearance of the hamatolunate facet using high-resolution magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography in cadavers and to correlate the presence of this anatomic variant with the presence of osteoarthritis in the wrist. High-resolution MR images of 22 cadaveric wrist specimens were obtained after tri-compartmental arthrography. Two readers in consensus analyzed the MR images and recoded the presence or absence of a hamatolunate facet. Geometric characteristics and cartilage and ligament integrity were analyzed. A third reader, who was blinded to the purpose of the study, recorded cartilage lesions of all the bones of the proximal and distal carpal rows. A hamatolunate facet was present in 11 of 22 wrists (50%). The mean coronal size of the lunate facet at the lunate (type II lunate) was 4.5 mm (range, 2-6 mm). The highest frequencies of cartilage lesions were seen in the scapho-trapezio-trapezoid joint (45.5%) and at the proximal pole of the hamate (54.4% and 40.9% for consensus reading/blinded reading, respectively). In cases with a hamatolunate facet, the frequency of cartilage lesions in the proximal pole of the hamate was 81.8% and 63.6% versus 27.3% and 18.2% without such a facet (chi-squared, P=0.01/ P=0.03). No correlation of the presence of a hamatolunate facet with interosseous ligament tears or lesions of the triangular fibrocartilage was seen. In conclusion, the hamatolunate facet is a very common anatomic variant. The presence of a hamatolunate facet is associated with cartilage damage in the proximal pole of the hamate.Skeletal Radiology 09/2002; 31(8):451-6. · 1.74 Impact Factor
- Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia 01/2008; 48(3). · 0.86 Impact Factor