Browse > Article

Comparison of Compliance, Time Required for Diagnosis and Pain of Patients with Finger Tendon Injury Between Gross and Ultrasonographic Confirmation  

Lee, Seo-Woo (Department of Emergency Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital)
Park, Hyun-Jae (Department of Emergency Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital)
Lee, Jung-Won (Department of Emergency Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital)
Park, Sae-Hoon (Department of Emergency Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital)
Kim, Jae-Woo (Department of Emergency Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital)
Publication Information
Journal of Trauma and Injury / v.23, no.2, 2010 , pp. 83-88 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: It is not always easy to determine the existence of tendon injuries when it comes to patients with finger lacerations. Thus, we tried to find the difference in effectiveness and in compliance of patients when we employed two different types of diagnosis, conventional gross confirmation and ultrasonographic confirmation. Methods: From December 2009 to March 2010, we enrolled 14 patients with finger tendon injury at Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital. The median age of the patients was $35.9{\pm}14.4$, and the ratio of females to males was 1:2.5 We evaluated the compliance of each patient by measuring four different categories (level of cooperativeness in showing their wound and in following the instructions, level of movement of their fingers during the diagnosis and total number of attempts to diagnose) by using a score from 1 to 3 for each category, for a total possible score of 12 for each patient. We also measured the painfulness of each patient by using a score of 1 to 10 and the time required for each diagnosis. Results: The levels of patients' compliance was $8.9{\pm}2.1$ when diagnosed with gross confirmation and $9.8{\pm}2.1$ when diagnosed with ultrasonographic confirmation (p value=0.042). The pain score of the patients was $3.7{\pm}1.7$ with gross confirmation and $2.9{\pm}1.2$ with ultrasonographic confirmation (p value=0.020). The median duration of time in each test was $6.7{\pm}4.8$ minutes with gross confirmation and $10.5{\pm}4.2$ minutes with ultrasonography (p value=0.006). Conclusion: Comparing gross confirmation and ultrasonographic confirmation, gross confirmation is a better method than ultrasonography because of time efficiency. However, ultrasonographic confirmation has advantages over gross confirmation in pain scale and better compliance of patients. Emergency physicians generally employ gross confirmation rather than ultrasonography in determining the existence of tendon injury in patients. In patients with finger lacerations without bone injury, ultrasonography can be considered as a secondary diagnostic tool, especially when patients have much pain.
Keywords
Ultrasonography; Tendons; Finger;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Jacobson JA. Musculoskeletal ultrasound and MRI: which do I choose? Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2005;9:135-49.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Choi CY, Lee HJ, Choi HJ, Kim MS. The Usefulness of Ultrasound Diagnosis of Acute Tendon Injury in Hand. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;35:729- 34.
3 Park JR, Youn CS, So BH, Kim JH, Kim HM, Park KN, et al. The Efficacy of Ultrasound Diagnosis of a Partial Tendon Injury by Emergency Doctors Using a Swine Model. J Korean Soc Emerg Med 2010;21:82-7.
4 Campbell RS, Grainger AJ. Current concepts in imaging of tendinopathy. Clin Radiol 2001;56:253-67.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Wong DC, Wansaicheong GK, Tsou IY. Ultrasonography of the hand and wrist. Singapore Med J 2009;50:219-25.
6 Bianchi S, Cohen M, Jacob D. Tendons: traumatic lesions. J Radiol 2005;86:1845-57.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Bianchi S, Martinoli C, Abdelwahab IF. Ultrasound of tendon tears. Part 1: general considerations and upper extremity. Skeletal Radiol 2005;34:500-12.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Swen WA, Jacobs JW, Hubach PC, Klasens JH, Algra PR, Bijlsma JW. Comparison of sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of partial tears of finger extensor tendons in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology(Oxford) 2000;39:55-62.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Daenen B, Houben G, Bauduin E, Debry R, Magotteaux P. Sonography in wrist tendon pathology. J Clin Ultrasound 2004;32:462.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Khaleghian R, Tonkin LJ, De Geus JJ, Lee JP. Ultrasonic examination of the flexor tendons of the fingers. J Clin Ultrasound 1984;12:547-51.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Moschilla G, Breidahl W. Sonography of the finger. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1451-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 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, patternbased approach, and differential diagnosis. Radiographics 2006;26:1007-20.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 De Maeseneer M, Marcelis S, Osteaux M, Jager T, Machiels F, Van Roy P. Sonography of a rupture of the tendon of the extensor pollicis longus muscle: initial clinical experience and correlation with findings at cadaveric dissection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:175.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Wang PT, Bonavita JA, Delone FX Jr, McClellan RM, Witham RS. Ultrasonic assistance in the diagnosis of hand flexor tendon injuries. Ann Plast Surg 1999;42:403.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Zanetti M, Hodler J. Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance tomography of tendon injuries. Orthopade 1995;24:200-8.
16 Rockwell WB, Butler PN, Byrne BA. Extensor tendon: anatomy, injury and reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:1592-603.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Harrison BP, Hilliard MW. Emergency department evaluation and treatment of hand injuries. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1999;17:793-822.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Elson RA. Rupture of the central slip of the extensor hood of the finger. A test for early diagnosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1986;68:229-31.
19 Hart RG, Uehara DT, Kutz JE. Extensor tendon injuries of the hand. Emerg Med Clin North A 1993;11:637-49.
20 Chung MS, Baek GH. Hand Surgery. Seoul: KoonJa: 2005:259-62.