Wrist arthrography versus arthroscopy: a comparative study of 150 cases

One hundred fifty patients with suspected wrist ligamentous injuries were studied with both triple injection wrist arthrography and arthroscopy. The diagnoses obtained by these two techniques were compared to determine the differences between these two modalities. All the patients in this study had both the clinical diagnosis of ligamentous injuries of the wrist and normal findings on x-ray films. Intercarpal abnormalities were found in 106 patients (71%) at wrist arthrography and in 136 patients (91%) at arthroscopy. There was only 42% agreement (63 patients) between the arthrographic and arthroscopic diagnoses. Eighty-seven patients (58%) had alterations of their arthrographic diagnoses following arthroscopy. For patients with normal arthrographic findings (44 patients), 88% underwent arthroscopy because there was insufficient correlation between the physical examination findings and the arthroscopic findings. Out of the 44 patients with normal arthrographic findings, 35 patients (80% of the subgroup) had injuries found at arthroscopy. Over half of the patients had alterations in their arthrographic diagnoses following arthroscopy. In a patient with suspected ligamentous injury of the wrist, wrist arthroscopy may be the most efficient method in arriving at a definitive diagnosis.