The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:1582-1588.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.01042
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exam for this article:
 CME 3: July, August, September 2006 (publication date October 5, 2006; expi...
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dumont, C. E.
Right arrow Articles by Nagy, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dumont, C. E.
Right arrow Articles by Nagy, L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Basic Science
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Assessment of Radial and Ulnar Torsion Profiles with Cross-Sectional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

A Study of Volunteers

Charles E. Dumont, MD, PhD1, Christian W.A. Pfirrmann, MD1, Dirk Ziegler, MD2 and Ladislav Nagy, MD1

1 Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery (C.E.D. and L.N.) and Radiology (C.W.A.P.), University of Zürich, Uniklinik Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, 8008 Zürich, Switzerland. E-mail address for C.E. Dumont: charles.dumont{at}balgrist.ch
2 Klinik für Handchirurgie, Salzburger Leite 1, 97616 Bad Neustadt/Saale, Germany

Investigation performed at the Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery and Radiology, University of Zürich, Uniklinik Balgrist, Zürich, SwitzerlandThe authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: We determined whether the torsion profiles of the radius and ulna could be reliably assessed with cross-sectional magnetic resonance imaging and whether these torsion profiles were comparable on the two sides of volunteers.

Methods: We assessed magnetic resonance imaging cross sections of the left and right forearms of twenty-four asymptomatic volunteers. The torsion profile of the ulna was defined as the angle formed between a line tangential to the volar cortical surface of the distal part of the humerus and a line connecting the center of the ulnar head and the center of the ulnar styloid. Use of paired proximal and distal landmarks resulted in five different methods of assessment of the radial torsion profile. Intrarater and interrater reliabilities and side-to-side variability were assessed.

Results: This method of assessment of the ulnar torsion profile had intraclass and interclass coefficients of 0.95 and 0.91, respectively. A method previously described by Bindra et al. had the best combined intrarater and interrater reliabilities for assessment of the radius. The mean differences between the right and left sides of the volunteers were the lowest with the use of these two methods; nevertheless, the maximum side-to-side difference was >30° with techniques.

Conclusions: Torsion-profile assessment with cross-sectional magnetic resonance imaging had high intrarater and interrater reliabilities. However, individual side-to-side variations in the radial and ulnar profiles are important considerations.

Clinical Relevance: Cross-sectional magnetic resonance imaging is currently the only available method to quantify rotational malunion of the radius and ulna. Its low side-to-side reliability warrants comparison between the imaging results and the clinical findings. A side-to-side difference in the rotation profile may serve as a reason to perform an axial osteotomy when the results of the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging assessments are consistent with each other.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?