What Is the Diagnostic Performance of Conventional Radiographs and Clinical Reassessment Compared With HR-pQCT Scaphoid Fracture Diagnosis?

BACKGROUND: Conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment are considered guides in managing clinically suspected scaphoid fractures. This is a unique study as it assessed the value of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment in a cohort of patients, all of whom underwent additional imaging, regardless of the outcome of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the diagnostic performance of conventional radiographs in patients with a clinically suspected scaphoid fracture compared with high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT)? (2) What is the diagnostic performance of clinical reassessment in patients with a clinically suspected scaphoid fracture compared with HR-pQCT? (3) What is the diagnostic performance of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment combined compared with HR-pQCT?

METHODS: Between December 2017 and October 2018, 162 patients with a clinically suspected scaphoid fracture presented to the emergency department (ED). Forty-six patients were excluded and another 25 were not willing or able to participate, which resulted in 91 included patients. All patients underwent conventional radiography in the ED and clinical reassessment 7 to 14 days later, together with CT and HR-pQCT. The diagnostic performance characteristics and accuracy of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment were compared with those of HR-pQCT for the diagnosis of fractures since this was proven to be superior to CT scaphoid fracture detection. The cohort included 45 men and 46 women with a median (IQR) age of 52 years (29 to 67). Twenty-four patients with a median age of 44 years (35 to 65) were diagnosed with a scaphoid fracture on HR-pQCT.

RESULTS: When compared with HR-pQCT, conventional radiographs alone had a sensitivity of 67% (95% CI 45% to 84%), specificity of 85% (95% CI 74% to 93%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 62% (95% CI 46% to 75%), negative predictive value (NPV) of 88% (95% CI 80% to 93%), and a positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 4.5 (95% CI 2.4 to 8.5) and 0.4 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.7), respectively. Compared with HR-pQCT, clinical reassessment alone resulted in a sensitivity of 58% (95% CI 37% to 78%), specificity of 42% (95% CI 30% to 54%), PPV of 26% (95% CI 19% to 35%), NPV of 74% (95% CI 62% to 83%), as well as a positive and negative LR of 1.0 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.5) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.7), respectively. Combining clinical examination with conventional radiography produced a sensitivity of 50% (95% CI 29% to 71%), specificity of 91% (95% CI 82% to 97%), PPV of 67% (95% CI 46% to 83%), NPV of 84% (95% CI 77% to 88%), as well as a positive and negative LR of 5.6 (95% CI 2.4 to 13.2) and 0.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.8), respectively.

CONCLUSION: The accuracy of conventional radiographs (80% compared with HR-pQCT) and clinical reassessment (46% compared with HR-pQCT) indicate that the value of clinical reassessment is limited in diagnosing scaphoid fractures and cannot be considered directive in managing scaphoid fractures. The combination of conventional radiographs and clinical reassessment does not increase the accuracy of these diagnostic tests compared with the accuracy of conventional radiographs alone and is therefore also limited in diagnosing scaphoid fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.