Acute Hand and Wrist Trauma

Variant: 1 Acute blunt or penetrating trauma to the hand or wrist. 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 Suspect acute hand or wrist trauma. Initial radiographs negative or equivocal. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography area of interest repeat in 10-14 days	Usually Appropriate	Varies
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
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
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 Acute wrist fracture on radiographs. Suspect wrist tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US wrist	Usually Appropriate	O
MR arthrography wrist	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI wrist without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT arthrography wrist	Usually Appropriate	☢
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT wrist with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
CT wrist without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
CT wrist without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
Bone scan wrist	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Initial radiographs showing distal radioulnar joint or carpal malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MR arthrography wrist	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI wrist without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT wrist without IV contrast bilateral	Usually Appropriate	☢
CT arthrography wrist	May Be Appropriate	☢
US wrist	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI wrist without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT wrist with IV contrast bilateral	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
CT wrist without and with IV contrast bilateral	Usually Not Appropriate	☢
Bone scan wrist	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 5 Acute hand fracture on radiographs. Suspect hand tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.

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

Variant: 6 Initial radiographs showing metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, or distal interphalangeal joint malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.

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

Variant: 7 Suspect penetrating trauma with a foreign body in the soft tissues in the hand or wrist. Initial radiographs are negative. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest	Usually Appropriate	O
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	Varies
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	May Be 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

Panel Members

Leon Lenchik, MD^a; Maha Torabi, MD^b; Francesca D. Beaman, MD^c; Daniel E. Wessell, MD, PhD^d; Jennifer K. Bussell, MD^e; R. Carter Cassidy, MD^f; Gregory J. Czuczman, MD^g; Jennifer L. Demertzis, MD^h; Bharti Khurana, MDⁱ; Alan K. Klitzke, MD^j; Kambiz Motamedi, MD^k; Jennifer L. Pierce, MD^l; Akash Sharma, MD, PhD, MBA^m; Eric A. Walker, MD, MHAⁿ; Mark J. Kransdorf, MD^o.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Acute blunt or penetrating trauma to the hand or wrist. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Acute blunt or penetrating trauma to the hand or wrist. Initial imaging.
A. Bone scan area of interest

Variant 1: Acute blunt or penetrating trauma to the hand or wrist. Initial imaging.
B. CT area of interest

Variant 1: Acute blunt or penetrating trauma to the hand or wrist. Initial imaging.
C. MRI area of interest

Variant 1: Acute blunt or penetrating trauma to the hand or wrist. Initial imaging.
D. Radiography area of interest

Variant 1: Acute blunt or penetrating trauma to the hand or wrist. Initial imaging.
E. US area of interest

Variant 2: Suspect acute hand or wrist trauma. Initial radiographs negative or equivocal. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Suspect acute hand or wrist trauma. Initial radiographs negative or equivocal. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan area of interest

Variant 2: Suspect acute hand or wrist trauma. Initial radiographs negative or equivocal. Next imaging study.
B. CT area of interest

Variant 2: Suspect acute hand or wrist trauma. Initial radiographs negative or equivocal. Next imaging study.
C. MRI area of interest

Variant 2: Suspect acute hand or wrist trauma. Initial radiographs negative or equivocal. Next imaging study.
D. Radiography area of interest repeat in 10-14 days

Variant 2: Suspect acute hand or wrist trauma. Initial radiographs negative or equivocal. Next imaging study.
E. US area of interest

Variant 3: Acute wrist fracture on radiographs. Suspect wrist tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Acute wrist fracture on radiographs. Suspect wrist tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan wrist

Variant 3: Acute wrist fracture on radiographs. Suspect wrist tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
B. CT arthrography wrist

Variant 3: Acute wrist fracture on radiographs. Suspect wrist tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
C. CT wrist

Variant 3: Acute wrist fracture on radiographs. Suspect wrist tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
D. MR arthrography wrist

Variant 3: Acute wrist fracture on radiographs. Suspect wrist tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
E. MRI wrist

Variant 3: Acute wrist fracture on radiographs. Suspect wrist tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
F. US wrist

Variant 4: Initial radiographs showing distal radioulnar joint or carpal malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.

Variant 4: Initial radiographs showing distal radioulnar joint or carpal malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan wrist

Variant 4: Initial radiographs showing distal radioulnar joint or carpal malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.
B. CT arthrography wrist

Variant 4: Initial radiographs showing distal radioulnar joint or carpal malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.
C. CT wrist

Variant 4: Initial radiographs showing distal radioulnar joint or carpal malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.
D. MR arthrography wrist

Variant 4: Initial radiographs showing distal radioulnar joint or carpal malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.
E. MRI wrist

Variant 4: Initial radiographs showing distal radioulnar joint or carpal malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.
F. US wrist

Variant 5: Acute hand fracture on radiographs. Suspect hand tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.

Variant 5: Acute hand fracture on radiographs. Suspect hand tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan hand

Variant 5: Acute hand fracture on radiographs. Suspect hand tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
B. CT hand

Variant 5: Acute hand fracture on radiographs. Suspect hand tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
C. MRI hand

Variant 5: Acute hand fracture on radiographs. Suspect hand tendon or ligament trauma. Next imaging study.
D. US hand

Variant 6: Initial radiographs showing metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, or distal interphalangeal joint malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.

Variant 6: Initial radiographs showing metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, or distal interphalangeal joint malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan hand

Variant 6: Initial radiographs showing metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, or distal interphalangeal joint malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.
B. CT hand

Variant 6: Initial radiographs showing metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, or distal interphalangeal joint malalignment in the absence of fracture. Next imaging study.
D. US hand

Variant 7: Suspect penetrating trauma with a foreign body in the soft tissues in the hand or wrist. Initial radiographs are negative. Next imaging study.

Variant 7: Suspect penetrating trauma with a foreign body in the soft tissues in the hand or wrist. Initial radiographs are negative. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan area of interest

Variant 7: Suspect penetrating trauma with a foreign body in the soft tissues in the hand or wrist. Initial radiographs are negative. Next imaging study.
B. CT area of interest

Variant 7: Suspect penetrating trauma with a foreign body in the soft tissues in the hand or wrist. Initial radiographs are negative. Next imaging study.
C. MRI area of interest

Variant 7: Suspect penetrating trauma with a foreign body in the soft tissues in the hand or wrist. Initial radiographs are negative. Next imaging study.
D. 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.	Jarvik JG, Dalinka MK, Kneeland JB. Hand injuries in adults. Semin Roentgenol. 1991;26(4):282-299.
2.	Chung KC, Spilson SV. The frequency and epidemiology of hand and forearm fractures in the United States. J Hand Surg Am. 2001;26(5):908-915.
3.	Nellans KW, Kowalski E, Chung KC. The epidemiology of distal radius fractures. Hand Clin. 2012;28(2):113-125.
4.	Thompson PW, Taylor J, Dawson A. The annual incidence and seasonal variation of fractures of the distal radius in men and women over 25 years in Dorset, UK. Injury. 2004;35(5):462-466.
5.	Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Yin H. The relationship between ASSH membership and the treatment of distal radius fracture in the United States Medicare population. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(8):1288-1293.
6.	Hyland-McGuire P, Guly HR, Hughes PM. Double take--fracture fishing in accident and emergency practice. J Accid Emerg Med. 1997; 14(2):84-87.
7.	Cole RJ, Bindra RR, Evanoff BA, Gilula LA, Yamaguchi K, Gelberman RH. Radiographic evaluation of osseous displacement following intra-articular fractures of the distal radius: reliability of plain radiography versus computed tomography. J Hand Surg Am. 1997; 22(5):792-800.
8.	Harness NG, Ring D, Zurakowski D, Harris GJ, Jupiter JB. The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography reconstructions on the characterization and treatment of distal radial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(6):1315-1323.
9.	Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Management of comminuted fractures of the distal radius in the adult. Conservative or surgical? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; (353):53-62.
10.	Rozental TD, Bozentka DJ, Katz MA, Steinberg DR, Beredjiklian PK. Evaluation of the sigmoid notch with computed tomography following intra-articular distal radius fracture. J Hand Surg Am. 2001; 26(2):244-251.
11.	Gilbert TJ, Cohen M. Imaging of acute injuries to the wrist and hand. Radiol Clin North Am. 1997; 35(3):701-725.
12.	Mack MG, Keim S, Balzer JO, et al. Clinical impact of MRI in acute wrist fractures. Eur Radiol. 2003; 13(3):612-617.
13.	De Smet AA, Doherty MP, Norris MA, Hollister MC, Smith DL. Are oblique views needed for trauma radiography of the distal extremities? AJR Am J Roentgenol.1999; 172(6):1561-1565.
14.	Russin LD, Bergman G, Miller L, et al. Should the routine wrist examination for trauma be a four-view study, including a semisupinated oblique view? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181(5):1235-1238.
15.	Street JM. Radiographs of phalangeal fractures: importance of the internally rotated oblique projection for diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993; 160(3):575-576.
16.	Scalcione LR, Pathria MN, Chung CB. The athlete's hand: ligament and tendon injury. [Review]. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 16(4):338-49, 2012 Sep.
17.	McMurtry JT, Isaacs J. Extensor tendons injuries. Clin Sports Med. 2015;34(1):167-180.
18.	Kiuru MJ, Haapamaki VV, Koivikko MP, Koskinen SK. Wrist injuries; diagnosis with multidetector CT. Emerg Radiol. 2004; 10(4):182-185.
19.	Fowler JR, Hughes TB. Scaphoid fractures. Clin Sports Med. 2015;34(1):37-50.
20.	Khalid M, Jummani ZR, Kanagaraj K, Hussain A, Robinson D, Walker R. Role of MRI in the diagnosis of clinically suspected scaphoid fracture: analysis of 611 consecutive cases and literature review. Emerg Med J. 2010;27(4):266-269.
21.	Rettig AC. Athletic injuries of the wrist and hand. Part I: traumatic injuries of the wrist. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(6):1038-1048.
22.	Shaftel ND, Capo JT. Fractures of the digits and metacarpals: when to splint and when to repair? Sports Med Arthrosc. 2014;22(1):2-11.
23.	Nikken JJ, Oei EH, Ginai AZ, et al. Acute wrist trauma: value of a short dedicated extremity MR imaging examination in prediction of need for treatment. Radiology. 2005; 234(1):116-124.
24.	Nikken JJ, Oei EH, Ginai AZ, et al. Acute peripheral joint injury: cost and effectiveness of low-field-strength MR imaging--results of randomized controlled trial. Radiology. 2005; 236(3):958-967.
25.	Remplik P, Stabler A, Merl T, Roemer F, Bohndorf K. Diagnosis of acute fractures of the extremities: comparison of low-field MRI and conventional radiography. Eur Radiol. 2004; 14(4):625-630.
26.	Catalano LW, 3rd, Barron OA, Glickel SZ. Assessment of articular displacement of distal radius fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; (423):79-84.
27.	Spence LD, Savenor A, Nwachuku I, Tilsley J, Eustace S. MRI of fractures of the distal radius: comparison with conventional radiographs. Skeletal Radiol. 1998; 27(5):244-249.
28.	Christiansen TG, Rude C, Lauridsen KK, Christensen OM. Diagnostic value of ultrasound in scaphoid fractures. Injury. 1991;22(5):397-399.
29.	Hauger O, Bonnefoy O, Moinard M, Bersani D, Diard F. Occult fractures of the waist of the scaphoid: early diagnosis by high-spatial-resolution sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 178(5):1239-1245.
30.	Ramamurthy NK, Chojnowski AJ, Toms AP. Imaging in carpal instability. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2016;41(1):22-34.
31.	Tischler BT, Diaz LE, Murakami AM, et al. Scapholunate advanced collapse: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2014;5(4):407-417.
32.	Moser T, Dosch JC, Moussaoui A, Buy X, Gangi A, Dietemann JL. Multidetector CT arthrography of the wrist joint: how to do it. Radiographics. 2008;28(3):787-800; quiz 911.
33.	Moser T, Dosch JC, Moussaoui A, Dietemann JL. Wrist ligament tears: evaluation of MRI and combined MDCT and MR arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1278-86.
34.	Bille B, Harley B, Cohen H. A comparison of CT arthrography of the wrist to findings during wrist arthroscopy. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(6):834-841.
35.	Schmitt R, Froehner S, Coblenz G, Christopoulos G. Carpal instability. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(10):2161-2178.
36.	Lee YH, Choi YR, Kim S, Song HT, Suh JS. Intrinsic ligament and triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) tears of the wrist: comparison of isovolumetric 3D-THRIVE sequence MR arthrography and conventional MR image at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31(2):221-226.
37.	Toms AP, Chojnowski A, Cahir JG. Midcarpal instability: a radiological perspective. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(5):533-541.
38.	Chhabra A, Soldatos T, Thawait GK, et al. Current perspectives on the advantages of 3-T MR imaging of the wrist. Radiographics. 2012;32(3):879-896.
39.	Hobby JL, Tom BD, Bearcroft PW, Dixon AK. Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist: diagnostic performance statistics. Clin Radiol. 2001;56(1):50-57.
40.	Anderson ML, Skinner JA, Felmlee JP, Berger RA, Amrami KK. Diagnostic comparison of 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla preoperative MRI of the wrist in patients with ulnar-sided wrist pain. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(7):1153-1159.
41.	Magee T. Comparison of 3-T MRI and arthroscopy of intrinsic wrist ligament and TFCC tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(1):80-85.
42.	Spaans AJ, Minnen P, Prins HJ, Korteweg MA, Schuurman AH. The value of 3.0-tesla MRI in diagnosing scapholunate ligament injury. J Wrist Surg. 2013;2(1):69-72.
43.	Watanabe A, Souza F, Vezeridis PS, Blazar P, Yoshioka H. Ulnar-sided wrist pain. II. Clinical imaging and treatment. Skeletal Radiol. 2010;39(9):837-857.
44.	Plotkin B, Sampath SC, Sampath SC, Motamedi K. MR Imaging and US of the Wrist Tendons. [Review]. Radiographics. 36(6):1688-1700, 2016 Oct.
45.	Haims AH, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB, et al. Internal derangement of the wrist: indirect MR arthrography versus unenhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2003;227(3):701-707.
46.	Scheck RJ, Romagnolo A, Hierner R, Pfluger T, Wilhelm K, Hahn K. The carpal ligaments in MR arthrography of the wrist: correlation with standard MRI and wrist arthroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9(3):468-474.
47.	Braun H, Kenn W, Schneider S, Graf M, Sandstede J, Hahn D. [Direct MR arthrography of the wrist- value in detecting complete and partial defects of intrinsic ligaments and the TFCC in comparison with arthroscopy]. Rofo. 2003;175(11):1515-1524.
48.	Manton GL, Schweitzer ME, Weishaupt D, et al. Partial interosseous ligament tears of the wrist: difficulty in utilizing either primary or secondary MRI signs. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2001;25(5):671-676.
49.	Boutry N, Lapegue F, Masi L, Claret A, Demondion X, Cotten A. Ultrasonographic evaluation of normal extrinsic and intrinsic carpal ligaments: preliminary experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2005;34(9):513-521.
50.	Taljanovic MS, Goldberg MR, Sheppard JE, Rogers LF. US of the intrinsic and extrinsic wrist ligaments and triangular fibrocartilage complex--normal anatomy and imaging technique. Radiographics. 2011;31(1):e44.
51.	Dao KD, Solomon DJ, Shin AY, Puckett ML. The efficacy of ultrasound in the evaluation of dynamic scapholunate ligamentous instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(7):1473-1478.
52.	Finlay K, Lee R, Friedman L. Ultrasound of intrinsic wrist ligament and triangular fibrocartilage injuries. Skeletal Radiol. 2004;33(2):85-90.
53.	Taljanovic MS, Sheppard JE, Jones MD, Switlick DN, Hunter TB, Rogers LF. Sonography and sonoarthrography of the scapholunate and lunotriquetral ligaments and triangular fibrocartilage disk: initial experience and correlation with arthrography and magnetic resonance arthrography. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(2):179-191.
54.	Squires JH, England E, Mehta K, Wissman RD. The role of imaging in diagnosing diseases of the distal radioulnar joint, triangular fibrocartilage complex, and distal ulna. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(1):146-153.
55.	Scalcione LR, Gimber LH, Ho AM, Johnston SS, Sheppard JE, Taljanovic MS. Spectrum of carpal dislocations and fracture-dislocations: imaging and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(3):541-550.
56.	Cerezal L, de Dios Berna-Mestre J, Canga A, et al. MR and CT arthrography of the wrist. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2012;16(1):27-41.
57.	Cockenpot E, Lefebvre G, Demondion X, Chantelot C, Cotten A. Imaging of Sports-related Hand and Wrist Injuries: Sports Imaging Series. Radiology. 279(3):674-92, 2016 Jun.
58.	Drape JL, Tardif-Chastenet de Gery S, Silbermann-Hoffman O, et al. Closed ruptures of the flexor digitorum tendons: MRI evaluation. Skeletal Radiol. 1998;27(11):617-624.
59.	Rawat U, Pierce JL, Evans S, Chhabra AB, Nacey NC. High-Resolution MR Imaging and US Anatomy of the Thumb. Radiographics 2016;36:1701-16.
60.	Hinke DH, Erickson SJ, Chamoy L, Timins ME. Ulnar collateral ligament of the thumb: MR findings in cadavers, volunteers, and patients with ligamentous injury (gamekeeper's thumb). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994; 163(6):1431-1434.
61.	Parellada JA, Balkissoon AR, Hayes CW, Conway WF. Bowstring injury of the flexor tendon pulley system: MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(2):347-349.
62.	Hergan K, Mittler C, Oser W. Ulnar collateral ligament: differentiation of displaced and nondisplaced tears with US and MR imaging. Radiology. 1995; 194(1):65-71.
63.	Spaeth HJ, Abrams RA, Bock GW, et al. Gamekeeper thumb: differentiation of nondisplaced and displaced tears of the ulnar collateral ligament with MR imaging. Work in progress. Radiology. 1993;188(2):553-556.
64.	Ebrahim FS, De Maeseneer M, Jager T, Marcelis S, Jamadar DA, Jacobson JA. US diagnosis of UCL tears of the thumb and Stener lesions: technique, pattern-based approach, and differential diagnosis. Radiographics. 2006;26(4):1007-1020.
65.	Martinoli C, Perez MM, Bignotti B, et al. Imaging finger joint instability with ultrasound. [Review]. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 17(5):466-76, 2013 Nov.
66.	Klauser A, Frauscher F, Bodner G, et al. Finger pulley injuries in extreme rock climbers: depiction with dynamic US. Radiology. 2002;222(3):755-761.
67.	Martinoli C, Bianchi S, Cotten A. Imaging of rock climbing injuries. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2005;9(4):334-345.
68.	Connell DA, Pike J, Koulouris G, van Wettering N, Hoy G. MR imaging of thumb carpometacarpal joint ligament injuries. J Hand Surg Br. 2004;29(1):46-54.
69.	Rubin DA, Kneeland JB, Kitay GS, Naranja RJ, Jr. Flexor tendon tears in the hand: use of MR imaging to diagnose degree of injury in a cadaver model. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166(3):615-620.
70.	Hauger O, Chung CB, Lektrakul N, et al. Pulley system in the fingers: normal anatomy and simulated lesions in cadavers at MR imaging, CT, and US with and without contrast material distention of the tendon sheath. Radiology. 2000;217(1):201-212.
71.	Clavero JA, Alomar X, Monill JM, et al. MR imaging of ligament and tendon injuries of the fingers. [Review] [50 refs]. Radiographics. 22(2):237-56, 2002 Mar-Apr.
72.	Prucz RB, Friedrich JB. Finger joint injuries. Clin Sports Med. 2015;34(1):99-116.
73.	Drape JL, Dubert T, Silbermann O, Thelen P, Thivet A, Benacerraf R. Acute trauma of the extensor hood of the metacarpophalangeal joint: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1994;192(2):469-476.
74.	Pfirrmann CW, Theumann NH, Botte MJ, Drape JL, Trudell DJ, Resnick D. MR imaging of the metacarpophalangeal joints of the fingers: part II. Detection of simulated injuries in cadavers. Radiology. 222(2):447-52, 2002 Feb.
75.	Lopez-Ben R, Lee DH, Nicolodi DJ. Boxer knuckle (injury of the extensor hood with extensor tendon subluxation): diagnosis with dynamic US--report of three cases. Radiology. 2003;228(3):642-646.
76.	Lee DH, Robbin ML, Galliott R, Graveman VA. Ultrasound evaluation of flexor tendon lacerations. J Hand Surg Am. 2000;25(2):236-241.
77.	Jarraya M, Hayashi D, de Villiers RV, et al. Multimodality imaging of foreign bodies of the musculoskeletal system. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(1):W92-102, 2014 Jul.
78.	Panigrahi R, Dash SK, Palo N, Priyadarshi A, Sahu SK, Biswal MR. Foreign Body Detection in Musculoskeletal Injuries: A In Vitro Blinded Study Comparing sensitivity among Digital radiography, Ultrasonography, CT and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Musculoskeletal Regeneration 2015;1:e649.
79.	Valizadeh S, Pouraliakbar H, Kiani L, Safi Y, Alibakhshi L. Evaluation of Visibility of Foreign Bodies in the Maxillofacial Region: Comparison of Computed Tomography, Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Iran J Radiol. 2016;13(4):e37265.
80.	Pattamapaspong N, Srisuwan T, Sivasomboon C, et al. Accuracy of radiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing foreign bodies in the foot. Radiol Med (Torino). 118(2):303-10, 2013 Mar.
81.	Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging:, Beaman FD, von Herrmann PF, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Suspected Osteomyelitis, Septic Arthritis, or Soft Tissue Infection (Excluding Spine and Diabetic Foot). [Review]. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 14(5S):S326-S337, 2017 May.
82.	Bao H, Wang S, Wang G, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR neurography of median and ulnar nerves in the wrist and palm. Eur Radiol. 27(6):2359-2366, 2017 Jun.
83.	Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarci M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(2):72-78.
84.	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.