Barry L Baylosis1, Alexander S McQuiston2, Christopher O Bayne3, Robert M Szabo3, Robert D Boutin4. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5105, USA. 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, 3801 Miranda Ave. Bldg. 710, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UC Davis School of Medicine, 4860 Y St, Ste 3800, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5105, USA. boutin@stanford.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to (1) analyze the imaging modalities utilized pre-operatively that influence surgical decision-making for wrist arthrodesis and carpectomy procedures and (2) determine the type and frequency of these procedures for the treatment of wrist arthritis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was performed according to the guidelines of PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, peer-reviewed literature from 2011 to 2022 was searched for use of imaging in pre-operative decision-making for wrist arthrodesis and carpectomy surgical procedures. Data were compiled to determine the type(s) of imaging modalities used pre-operatively and types of surgical techniques reported in the literature. RESULTS: Of 307 articles identified, 35 articles satisfied eligibility criteria, with a total of 1377 patients (68% men; age mean, 50.9 years [range, 10-81]) and 1428 wrist surgical interventions. Radiography was reported for pre-operative planning in all articles for all patients. Pre-operative cross-sectional imaging was reported in 2 articles (5.7%), but no articles reported detailed data on how CT or MRI influenced pre-operative wrist arthrodesis and carpectomy procedure decision-making. A dozen different types of surgical techniques were reported. The four most common procedures were four-corner arthrodesis with scaphoid excision (846, 59%), proximal row carpectomy (239, 17%), total wrist arthrodesis (130, 9%), and scaphocapitate arthrodesis (53, 4%). CONCLUSION: Radiography is always used in pre-operative decision-making, but the literature lacks data on the influence of CT and MRI for selecting among a dozen different types of wrist arthrodesis and carpectomy procedures.
OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to (1) analyze the imaging modalities utilized pre-operatively that influence surgical decision-making for wrist arthrodesis and carpectomy procedures and (2) determine the type and frequency of these procedures for the treatment of wrist arthritis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was performed according to the guidelines of PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, peer-reviewed literature from 2011 to 2022 was searched for use of imaging in pre-operative decision-making for wrist arthrodesis and carpectomy surgical procedures. Data were compiled to determine the type(s) of imaging modalities used pre-operatively and types of surgical techniques reported in the literature. RESULTS: Of 307 articles identified, 35 articles satisfied eligibility criteria, with a total of 1377 patients (68% men; age mean, 50.9 years [range, 10-81]) and 1428 wrist surgical interventions. Radiography was reported for pre-operative planning in all articles for all patients. Pre-operative cross-sectional imaging was reported in 2 articles (5.7%), but no articles reported detailed data on how CT or MRI influenced pre-operative wrist arthrodesis and carpectomy procedure decision-making. A dozen different types of surgical techniques were reported. The four most common procedures were four-corner arthrodesis with scaphoid excision (846, 59%), proximal row carpectomy (239, 17%), total wrist arthrodesis (130, 9%), and scaphocapitate arthrodesis (53, 4%). CONCLUSION: Radiography is always used in pre-operative decision-making, but the literature lacks data on the influence of CT and MRI for selecting among a dozen different types of wrist arthrodesis and carpectomy procedures.
Authors: Ekaterina Brui; Aleksandr Y Efimtcev; Vladimir A Fokin; Remi Fernandez; Anatoliy G Levchuk; Augustin C Ogier; Alexey A Samsonov; Jean P Mattei; Irina V Melchakova; David Bendahan; Anna Andreychenko Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 4.044