Acute Elbow and Forearm Pain

Variant: 1 Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography area of interest	Usually Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 2 Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography area of interest repeat in 10-14 days	Usually Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 3 Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or muscle injury. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Panel Members

Karen C. Chen, MD^a; Alice S. Ha, MD, MS^b; Roger J. Bartolotta, MD^c; Ryan Avery, MD^d; Matthew D. Bucknor, MD^e; Jonathan Flug, MD, MBA^f; Christian S. Geannette, MD^g; Alexander David Grushky, MD^h; Michal Hose, MDⁱ; Olga Laur, MD^j; Noah M. Raizman, MD^k; Eric Y. Chang, MD^l.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.
A. Bone scan area of interest

Variant 1: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.
B. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.
C. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.
D. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.
E. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.
F. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.
G. Radiography area of interest

Variant 1: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Initial imaging.
H. US area of interest

Variant 2: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan area of interest

Variant 2: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. Radiography area of interest repeat in 10-14 days

Variant 2: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect fracture. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. US area of interest

Variant 3: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or muscle injury. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or muscle injury. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan area of interest

Variant 3: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or muscle injury. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or muscle injury. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or muscle injury. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or muscle injury. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or muscle injury. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute elbow or forearm pain. Suspect tendon or ligament or muscle injury. Radiographs normal or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. US area of interest

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Singer AD, Hanna T, Jose J, Datir A. A systematic, multimodality approach to emergency elbow imaging. [Review]. Clin Imaging. 40(1):13-22, 2016 Jan-Feb.
2.	Pierce JL, Perry MT, Wessell DE, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Osteomyelitis, Septic Arthritis, or Soft Tissue Infection (Excluding Spine and Diabetic Foot): 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2022;19:S473-S87.
3.	Thomas JM, Chang EY, Ha AS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Elbow Pain. J Am Coll Radiol 2022;19:S256-S65.
4.	Schnetzke M, Aytac S, Studier-Fischer S, Grutzner PA, Guehring T. Initial joint stability affects the outcome after conservative treatment of simple elbow dislocations: a retrospective study. J. ORTHOP. SURG.. 10:128, 2015 Aug 20.
5.	Schnetzke M, Bergmann M, Wegmann K, et al. Determination of Elbow Laxity in a Sequential Soft-Tissue Injury Model: A Cadaveric Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 100(7):564-571, 2018 Apr 04.
6.	Acar K, Aksay E, Oray D, Imamoglu T, Gunay E. Utility of Computed Tomography in Elbow Trauma Patients with Normal X-Ray Study and Positive Elbow Extension Test. J Emerg Med. 50(3):444-8, 2016 Mar.
7.	Lee SH, Nam DJ, Yu HK, Kim JW. The lateral ligament is injured preferentially in posterolateral dislocation of the elbow joint. Bone Joint J. 102-B(2):227-231, 2020 Feb.
8.	Lubberts B, Janssen S, Mellema J, Ring D. Quantitative 3-dimensional computed tomography analysis of olecranon fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 25(5):831-6, 2016 May.
9.	Al-Ani Z, Tham JL, Ooi MWX, Wright A, Ricks M, Watts AC. The radiological findings in complex elbow fracture-dislocation injuries. [Review]. Skeletal Radiol. 51(5):891-904, 2022 May.
10.	Pavic R, Margetic P, Hnatesen D. Diagnosis of occult radial head and neck fracture in adults. Injury. 46 Suppl 6:S119-24, 2015 Nov.
11.	Avci M, Kozaci N, Beydilli I, Yilmaz F, Eden AO, Turhan S. The comparison of bedside point-of-care ultrasound and computed tomography in elbow injuries. Am J Emerg Med. 34(11):2186-2190, 2016 Nov.
12.	Barret H, Gastaud O, Laumonerie P, et al. Feasibility and technique of ultrasound traumatic elbow lesion assessment. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 107(2):102836, 2021 04.
13.	Bucknor MD, Stevens KJ, Steinbach LS. Elbow Imaging in Sport: Sports Imaging Series. [Review]. Radiology. 279(1):12-28, 2016 Apr.
14.	Abehsera E, Guerre E, Duriez P, El Rafei M, Fontaine C, Chantelot C. Ligaments injuries check-up and assessment of their healing potential in simple posterolateral elbow dislocation: about 25 cases. Eur. j. orthop. surg. traumatol.. 29(4):785-792, 2019 May.
15.	Dutto E, Artiaco S, Gallo A, Borre A, Sard A, Battiston B. MRI in acute simple elbow dislocations: correlation of preoperative imaging and intraoperative findings of collateral ligaments and associated soft tissue injuries. Musculoskelet Surg. 106(2):127-132, 2022 Jun.
16.	Luokkala T, Temperley D, Basu S, Karjalainen TV, Watts AC. Analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed soft tissue injury pattern in simple elbow dislocations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 28(2):341-348, 2019 Feb.
17.	Schnetzke M, Schuler S, Hoffend J, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of ligamentous injuries on conventional MRI after simple elbow dislocation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 18(1):85, 2017 02 20.
18.	Tarallo L, Merolla G, Porcellini G, et al. Acute elbow dislocation: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and intra-operative finding of ligament injury. Int Orthop. 45(1):265-273, 2021 01.
19.	Demino C, Fowler JR. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings After Elbow Dislocation: A Descriptive Study. Hand. 17(4):730-733, 2022 07.
20.	Alizai H, Engebretsen L, Jarraya M, Roemer FW, Guermazi A. Elbow Injuries Detected on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Athletes Participating in the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Summer Olympic Games. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 43(6):981-985, 2019 Nov/Dec.
21.	Draghi F, Bortolotto C, Ferrozzi G. Distal Biceps Brachii Tendon Insertion: A Simple Method of Ultrasound Evaluation. J Ultrasound Med. 40(4):811-813, 2021 Apr.
22.	Fitzpatrick D, Menashe L. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of the Distal Biceps Tendon. Am J Orthop. 47(5), 2018 May.
23.	Lee JH, Ahn KB, Kwon KR, Kim KC, Rhyou IH. Differences in Rupture Patterns and Associated Lesions Related to Traumatic Distal Triceps Tendon Rupture Between Outstretched Hand and Direct Injuries. Clin Orthop. 479(4):781-789, 2021 Apr 01.
24.	Nicolay RW, Lawton CD, Selley RS, et al. Partial rupture of the distal biceps brachii tendon: a magnetic resonance imaging analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 29(9):1859-1868, 2020 Sep.
25.	Giuffre BM, Moss MJ. Optimal positioning for MRI of the distal biceps brachii tendon: flexed abducted supinated view. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 182(4):944-6, 2004 Apr.
26.	Schenkels E, Caekebeke P, Swinnen L, Peeters J, van Riet R. Is the flexion-abduction-supination magnetic resonance imaging view more accurate than standard magnetic resonance imaging in detecting distal biceps pathology?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 29(12):2654-2660, 2020 Dec.
27.	Tiegs-Heiden CA, Frick MA, Johnson MP, Collins MS. Utility of the FABS MRI sequence in the evaluation of distal biceps pathology. Skeletal Radiol. 50(5):895-902, 2021 May.
28.	Kholinne E, Al-Ramadhan H, Bahkley AM, Alalwan MQ, Jeon IH. MRI overestimates the full-thickness tear of distal triceps tendon rupture. J. ORTHOP. SURG.. 26(2):2309499018778364, 2018 May-Aug.
29.	Al-Ani Z, Lauder J. Ultrasound assessment in distal biceps tendon injuries: Techniques, pearls and pitfalls. [Review]. Clin Imaging. 75:46-54, 2021 Jul.
30.	de la Fuente J, Blasi M, Martinez S, et al. Ultrasound classification of traumatic distal biceps brachii tendon injuries. Skeletal Radiol. 47(4):519-532, 2018 Apr.
31.	Lynch J, Yu CC, Chen C, Muh S. Magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound in diagnosis of distal biceps tendon avulsion. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 105(5):861-866, 2019 09.
32.	Deschrijver M, Hautekiet A, Steyaert A, De Muynck M, Luypaert E. Distal biceps tendon ruptures: more efficient diagnostics for a better outcome. Acta Orthop Belg. 88(1):160-167, 2022 Mar.
33.	Miller TT, Konin GP, Nguyen JT, et al. Ultrasound of the distal biceps brachii tendon using four approaches: reproducibility and reader preference. Skeletal Radiol 2021;50:937-43.
34.	Downey R, Jacobson JA, Fessell DP, Tran N, Morag Y, Kim SM. Sonography of partial-thickness tears of the distal triceps brachii tendon. J Ultrasound Med. 30(10):1351-6, 2011 Oct.
35.	Tagliafico A, Gandolfo N, Michaud J, Perez MM, Palmieri F, Martinoli C. Ultrasound demonstration of distal triceps tendon tears. Eur J Radiol. 81(6):1207-10, 2012 Jun.
36.	Dixit A, Dandu N, Hadley CJ, Nazarian LN, Cohen SB, Ciccotti M. Ultrasonographic Technique, Appearance, and Diagnostic Accuracy for Common Elbow Sports Injuries. [Review]. JBJS rev.. 8(11):e19.00219, 2020 11.
37.	Park JY, Kim H, Lee JH, et al. Valgus stress ultrasound for medial ulnar collateral ligament injuries in athletes: is ultrasound alone enough for diagnosis?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 29(3):578-586, 2020 Mar.
38.	Zaremski JL, Vincent KR, Vincent HK. Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament: Injury, Treatment Options, and Recovery in Overhead Throwing Athletes. Curr Sports Med Rep 2019;18:338-45.
39.	van Duijn AJ, Felton SD. Ultrasound Imaging of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 46(12):1086, 2016 Dec.
40.	Bilger R, Laumonerie P, Barret H, et al. Ultrasonography: an interesting imaging method for ligament assessment during the acute phase of closed elbow injuries. J Med Ultrason (2001). 49(4):739-746, 2022 Oct.
41.	Arrigoni P, Cucchi D, Luceri F, et al. Ultrasound evaluation shows increase in laxity after partial common extensor origin detachment but not after additional lesion of the radial band of the lateral collateral ligament. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 29(12):4067-4074, 2021 Dec.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 29(12):4067-4074, 2021 Dec.
42.	Bachta A, Rowicki K, Kisiel B, et al. Ultrasonography versus magnetic resonance imaging in detecting and grading common extensor tendon tear in chronic lateral epicondylitis. PLoS ONE. 12(7):e0181828, 2017.
43.	Park G, Kwon D, Park J. Diagnostic confidence of sonoelastography as adjunct to greyscale ultrasonography in lateral elbow tendinopathy. Chin Med J. 127(17):3110-5, 2014.
44.	Campbell RE, McGhee AN, Freedman KB, Tjoumakaris FP. Diagnostic Imaging of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injury: A Systematic Review. Am J Sports Med. 48(11):2819-2827, 2020 09.
45.	Sutterer BJ, Boettcher BJ, Payne JM, Camp CL, Sellon JL. The Role of Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Elbow Medial Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries in Throwing Athletes. [Review]. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 15(6):535-546, 2022 Dec.
46.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.