DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplementary Table 1. Diagnosis and Procedure Codes Used For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplementary Table 1. Diagnosis and Procedure Codes Used For Supplementary Table 1. Diagnosis and Procedure Codes Used for Cohort Development ICD-9/ICD-10 code Description Distal Radius Fracture 813.40 Lower end of forearm, unspecified 813.41 Closed Colles fracture 813.42 Other closed fracture of the distal part of the radius, alone 813.44 Radius with ulna, lower end 813.45 Torus fracture of radius S52.50 Unspecified fracture of the lower end of radius S52.5 Fracture of lower end of radius S52.50 Unspecified fracture of the lower end of radius S52.501 A,D,G,K,P,S Unspecified fracture of the lower end of right radius S52.502 A,D,G,K,P,S Unspecified fracture of the lower end of left radius S52.509 A,D,G,K,P,S Unspecified fracture of the lower end of unspecified radius S52.52 Torus fracture of lower end of radius S52.522 A,D,G,K,P,S Torus fracture of lower end of left radius S52.529 A,D,G,K,P,S Torus fracture of lower end of unspecified radius S52.53 Colles' fracture S52.531 A,D,G,K,P,S Colles' fracture of right radius S52.532 A,D,G,K,P,S Colles' fracture of left radius S52.539 A,D,G,K,P,S Colles' fracture of unspecified radius S52.54 Smith's fracture S52.541 A,D,G,K,P,S Smith's fracture of right radius S52.542 A,D,G,K,P,S Smith's fracture of left radius S52.549 A,D,G,K,P,S Smith's fracture of unspecified radius S52.55 Other extraarticular fracture of lower end of radius S52.551 A,D,G,K,P,S Other extraarticular fracture of lower end of right radius S52.552 A,D,G,K,P,S Other extraarticular fracture of lower end of left radius S52.559 A,D,G,K,P,S Other extraarticular fracture of lower end of unspecified radius S52.56 Barton's fracture S52.561 A,D,G,K,P,S Barton's fracture of right radius S52.562 A,D,G,K,P,S Barton's fracture of left radius S52.569 A,D,G,K,P,S Barton's fracture of unspecified radius S52.57 Other intraarticular fracture of lower end of radius S52.571 A,D,G,K,P,S Other intraarticular fracture of lower end of right radius S52.572 A,D,G,K,P,S Other intraarticular fracture of lower end of left radius S52.579 A,D,G,K,P,S Other intraarticular fracture of lower end of unspecified radius S52.59 Other fractures of lower end of radius S52.591 A,D,G,K,P,S Other fractures of lower end of right radius S52.592 A,D,G,K,P,S Other fractures of lower end of left radius S52.599 A,D,G,K,P,S Other fractures of lower end of unspecified radius Bone Cancer 170.9 Malignant neoplasm of bone and articular cartilage, site unspecified 198.5 Secondary malignant neoplasm of bone and bone marrow C40 Malignant neoplasm of bone and articular cartilage of limbs C41 Malignant neoplasm of bone and articular cartilage of other and unspecified sites C79.51 Secondary malignant neoplasm of bone C79.52 Secondary malignant neoplasm of bone marrow CPT code Description External fixation 20690 Application of a uniplane unilateral external fixation system 20692 Application of a multiplane unilateral external fixation system Closed treatment 25600 Closed treatment of distal radial fracture, without manipulation 25605 Closed treatment of distal radial fracture, with manipulation 29065 Application of long arm (shoulder to hand) cast 29075 Application of short arm (elbow to hand) cast 29085 Application of hand and lower forearm cast 29105 Application of long arm splint 29125 Application of short arm static splint 29126 Application of short arm dynamic splint Percutaneous fixation 25611 Percutaneous skeletal fixation of distal radial fracture 25606 Percutaneous fixation distal radius fracture or epiphyseal separation Open treatment 25620 Open treatment of distal radial fracture 25607 Open treatment of extraarticular DRF or epiphyseal separation, with or without internal or external fixation 25608 Open treatment of intraarticular DRF or epiphyseal separation with internal fixation of two fragments 25609 Open treatment of intraarticular DRF or epiphyseal separation with internal fixation of three or more fragments .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Medical Policy Ultrasound Accelerated Fracture Healing Device
    Medical Policy Ultrasound Accelerated Fracture Healing Device Table of Contents Policy: Commercial Coding Information Information Pertaining to All Policies Policy: Medicare Description References Authorization Information Policy History Policy Number: 497 BCBSA Reference Number: 1.01.05 Related Policies Electrical Stimulation of the Spine as an Adjunct to Spinal Fusion Procedures, #498 Electrical Bone Growth Stimulation of the Appendicular Skeleton, #499 Bone Morphogenetic Protein, #097 Policy Commercial Members: Managed Care (HMO and POS), PPO, and Indemnity Members Low-intensity ultrasound treatment may be MEDICALLY NECESSARY when used as an adjunct to conventional management (i.e., closed reduction and cast immobilization) for the treatment of fresh, closed fractures in skeletally mature individuals. Candidates for ultrasound treatment are those at high risk for delayed fracture healing or nonunion. These risk factors may include either locations of fractures or patient comorbidities and include the following: Patient comorbidities: Diabetes, Steroid therapy, Osteoporosis, History of alcoholism, History of smoking. Fracture locations: Jones fracture, Fracture of navicular bone in the wrist (also called the scaphoid), Fracture of metatarsal, Fractures associated with extensive soft tissue or vascular damage. Low-intensity ultrasound treatment may be MEDICALLY NECESSARY as a treatment of delayed union of bones, including delayed union** of previously surgically-treated fractures, and excluding the skull and vertebra. 1 Low-intensity ultrasound treatment may be MEDICALLY NECESSARY as a treatment of fracture nonunions of bones, including nonunion*** of previously surgically-treated fractures, and excluding the skull and vertebra. Other applications of low-intensity ultrasound treatment are INVESTIGATIONAL, including, but not limited to, treatment of congenital pseudarthroses, open fractures, fresh* surgically-treated closed fractures, stress fractures, arthrodesis or failed arthrodesis.
    [Show full text]
  • 6.3.3 Distal Radius and Wrist
    6 Specific fractures 6.3 Forearm and hand 6.3.3 Distal radius and wrist 1 Assessment 657 1.1 Biomechanics 657 1.2 Pathomechanics and classification 657 1.3 Imaging 658 1.4 Associated lesions 659 1.5 Decision making 659 2 Surgical anatomy 660 2.1 Anatomy 660 2.2 Radiographic anatomy 660 2.3 Preoperative planning 661 2.4 Surgical approaches 662 2.4.1 Dorsal approach 2.4.2 Palmar approach 3 Management and surgical treatment 665 3.1 Type A—extraarticular fractures 665 3.2 Type B—partial articular fractures 667 3.3 Type C—complete articular fractures 668 3.4 Ulnar column lesions 672 3.4.1 Ulnar styloid fractures 3.4.2 Ulnar head, neck, and distal shaft fractures 3.5 Postoperative care 674 3.6 Complications 676 3.7 Results 676 4 Bibliography 677 5 Acknowledgment 677 656 PFxM2_Section_6_I.indb 656 9/19/11 2:45:49 PM Authors Daniel A Rikli, Doug A Campbell 6.3.3 Distal radius and wrist of this stable pivot. The TFCC allows independent flexion/ 1 Assessment extension, radial/ulnar deviation, and pronation/supination of the wrist. It therefore plays a crucial role in the stability of 1.1 Biomechanics the carpus and forearm. Significant forces are transmitted across the ulnar column, especially while making a tight fist. The three-column concept (Fig 6.3.3-1) [1] is a helpful bio- mechanical model for understanding the pathomechanics of 1.2 Pathomechanics and classification wrist fractures. The radial column includes the radial styloid and scaphoid fossa, the intermediate column consists of the Virtually all types of distal radial fractures, with the exception lunate fossa and sigmoid notch (distal radioulnar joint, DRUJ), of dorsal rim avulsion fractures, can be produced by hyper- and the ulnar column comprises the distal ulna (DRUJ) with extension forces [2].
    [Show full text]
  • PSI Appendix G Version 6.0 Patient Safety Indicators Appendices
    AHRQ QI™ ICD-9-CM Specification Version 6.0 Patient Safety Indicators Appendices www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov APPENDIX G: Trauma Diagnosis Codes Trauma diagnosis codes: (TRAUMID) 80000 Closed skull vault fx 85184 Brain lac nec-proln coma 80001 Cl skull vlt fx w/o coma 85185 Brain lac nec-deep coma 80002 Cl skull vlt fx-brf coma 85186 Brain lacer nec-coma nos 80003 Cl skull vlt fx-mod coma 85189 Brain lacer nec-concuss 80004 Cl skl vlt fx-proln coma 85190 Brain lac nec w open wnd 80005 Cl skul vlt fx-deep coma 85191 Opn brain lacer w/o coma 80006 Cl skull vlt fx-coma nos 85192 Opn brain lac-brief coma 80009 Cl skl vlt fx-concus nos 85193 Opn brain lacer-mod coma 80010 Cl skl vlt fx/cerebr lac 85194 Opn brain lac-proln coma 80011 Cl skull vlt fx w/o coma 85195 Open brain lac-deep coma 80012 Cl skull vlt fx-brf coma 85196 Opn brain lacer-coma nos 80013 Cl skull vlt fx-mod coma 85199 Open brain lacer-concuss 80014 Cl skl vlt fx-proln coma 85200 Traum subarachnoid hem 80015 Cl skul vlt fx-deep coma 85201 Subarachnoid hem-no coma 80016 Cl skull vlt fx-coma nos 85202 Subarach hem-brief coma 80019 Cl skl vlt fx-concus nos 85203 Subarach hem-mod coma 80020 Cl skl vlt fx/mening hem 85204 Subarach hem-prolng coma 80021 Cl skull vlt fx w/o coma 85205 Subarach hem-deep coma 80022 Cl skull vlt fx-brf coma 85206 Subarach hem-coma nos 80023 Cl skull vlt fx-mod coma 85209 Subarach hem-concussion 80024 Cl skl vlt fx-proln coma 85210 Subarach hem w opn wound 80025 Cl skul vlt fx-deep coma 85211 Opn subarach hem-no coma 80026 Cl skull vlt fx-coma nos 85212
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Pediatric Forearm Torus Fractures: a Systematic
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE Management of Pediatric Forearm Torus Fractures A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Nan Jiang, MD,*† Zhen-hua Cao, MD,*‡ Yun-fei Ma, MD,*† Zhen Lin, MD,§ and Bin Yu, MD*† many disadvantages, such as heavy, bulky, and requires a second Objectives: Pediatric forearm torus fracture, a frequent reason for emer- visit to the hospital for removal. These flaws of cast may bring gency department visits, can be immobilized by both rigid cast and non- inconvenience to children as well as their families. In recent years, rigid methods. However, controversy still exists regarding the optimal many pediatric clinicians reported other methods to instead tradi- treatment of the disease. The aim of this study was to compare, in a system- tionally used cast, including soft cast,9,10 Futuro wrist splint,8,11 atic review, clinical efficacy of rigid cast with nonrigid methods for immo- and double Tubigrip.11 Although patients that suffered from fore- bilization of the pediatric forearm torus fractures. arm torus fractures can be immobilized by both rigid cast and non- Methods: Literature search was performed of PubMed and Cochrane Li- rigid materials, controversy still exists in the optimal treatment of brary by 2 independent reviewers to identify randomized controlled trials this fracture. comparing rigid cast with nonrigid methods for pediatric forearm torus The aim of this study was to, in a systematic review and fractures from inception to December 31, 2013, without limitation of publi- meta-analysis, compare clinical efficacy of recently used nonrigid cation language. Trial quality was assessed using the modified Jadad scale. immobilization methods with rigid cast.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures – Clinical Outcome, Regional Variation and Health Economics
    From THE DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION, SÖDERSJUKHUSET Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden TREATMENT OF DISTAL RADIUS FRACTURES – CLINICAL OUTCOME, REGIONAL VARIATION AND HEALTH ECONOMICS Jenny Saving Stockholm 2019 All previously published papers were reproduced with permission from the publisher. Published by Karolinska Institutet. Printed by Eprint AB 2019 © Jenny Saving, 2019 ISBN 978-91-7831-339-6 Treatment of distal radius fractures – clinical outcome, regional variation and health economics THESIS FOR DOCTORAL DEGREE (Ph.D.) By Jenny Saving, MD Principal Supervisor: Opponent: MD, Associate Professor Anders Enocson MD, Professor Lars Adolfsson Karolinska Institutet University of Linköping Department of Clinical Science and Education Department of Clinical and Experimental Division of Orthopaedics Medicine Södersjukhuset Examination Board: Co-supervisor(s): MD, Professor Hans Mallmin MD, PhD, Cecilia Mellstrand Navarro Uppsala University Karolinska Institutet Department of Surgical Sciences Department of Clinical Science and Education Section of Orthopaedics Division of Hand Surgery Södersjukhuset MD, Associate Professor Rüdiger Weiss Karolinska Institutet MD, Professor Sari Ponzer Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery Karolinska Instiutet Karolinska University Hospital Department of Clinical Science and Education Division of Orthopaedics MD, Professor Olof Nilsson Södersjukhuset Uppsala University Department of Surgical Sciences Section of Orthopaedics To my family 3 4 ABSTRACT A distal radius fracture (DRF) remains the most common fracture encountered in health care. DRFs have traditionally been treated with a plaster or surgically with percutaneous methods. Since the end of the 20th century, when internal fixation with a volar locking plate (VLP) was introduced, the incidence of DRF surgery in general and of plating in particular have increased markedly.
    [Show full text]
  • Vanderbilt Sports Medicine
    Alabama AAP Fall Meeting Sept.19-20, 2009 Pediatric Fracture Care for the Pediatrician Andrew Gregory, MD, FAAP, FACSM Assistant Professor Orthopedics & Pediatrics Program Director, Sports Medicine Fellowship Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt Sports Medicine Disclosure No conflict of interest - unfortunately for me, I have no financial relationships with companies making products regarding this topic to disclose Objectives Review briefly the differences of pediatric bone Review Pediatric Fracture Classification Discuss subtle fractures in kids Discuss a few other pediatric only conditions 1 Pediatric Skeleton Bone is relatively elastic and rubbery Periosteum is quite thick & active Ligaments are strong relative to the bone Presence of the physis - “weak link” Ligament injuries & dislocations are rare – “kids don’t sprain stuff” Fractures heal quickly and have the capacity to remodel Anatomy of Pediatric Bone Epiphysis Physis Metaphysis Diaphysis Apophysis Pediatric Fracture Classification Plastic Deformation – Bowing usually of fibula or ulna Buckle/ Torus – compression, stable Greenstick – unicortical tension Complete – Spiral, Oblique, Transverse Physeal – Salter-Harris Apophyseal avulsion 2 Plastic deformation Bowing without fracture Often deformed requiring reduction Buckle (Torus) Fracture Buckled Periosteum – Metaphyseal/ diaphyseal junction Greenstick Fracture Cortex Broken on Only One Side – Incomplete 3 Complete Fractures Transverse – Perpendicular to the bone Oblique – Across the bone at 45-60 o – Unstable Spiral – Rotational
    [Show full text]
  • Pediatric Orthopedic Injuries… … from an ED State of Mind
    Traumatic Orthopedics Peds RC Exam Review February 28, 2019 Dr. Naminder Sandhu, FRCPC Pediatric Emergency Medicine Objectives to cover today • Normal bone growth and function • Common radiographic abnormalities in MSK diseases • Part 1: Atraumatic – Congenital abnormalities – Joint and limb pain – Joint deformities – MSK infections – Bone tumors – Common gait disorders • Part 2: Traumatic – Common pediatric fractures and soft tissue injuries by site Overview of traumatic MSK pain Acute injuries • Fractures • Joint dislocations – Most common in ED: patella, digits, shoulder, elbow • Muscle strains – Eg. groin/adductors • Ligament sprains – Eg. Ankle, ACL/MCL, acromioclavicular joint separation Chronic/ overuse injuries • Stress fractures • Tendonitis • Bursitis • Fasciitis • Apophysitis Overuse injuries in the athlete WHY do they happen?? Extrinsic factors: • Errors in training • Inappropriate footwear Overuse injuries Intrinsic: • Poor conditioning – increased injuries early in season • Muscle imbalances – Weak muscle near strong (vastus medialus vs lateralus patellofemoral pain) – Excessive tightness: IT band, gastroc/soleus Sever disease • Anatomic misalignments – eg. pes planus, genu valgum or varum • Growth – strength and flexibility imbalances • Nutrition – eg. female athlete triad Misalignment – an intrinsic factor Apophysitis • *Apophysis = natural protruberance from a bone (2ndary ossification centres, often where tendons attach) • Examples – Sever disease (Calcaneal) – Osgood Schlatter disease (Tibial tubercle) – Sinding-Larsen-Johansson
    [Show full text]
  • Metacarpal Fractures
    METACARPAL FRACTURES BY LORYN P. WEINSTEIN, MD, AND DOUGLAS P. HANEL, MD The majority of metacarpal fractures are closed injuries amenable to conservative treatment with external immobilization and subsequent rehabilitation. Internal fixation is favored for unstable fracture patterns and patients who require early motion. Percutaneous pinning usually is successful for metacarpal neck fractures and comminuted head fractures. Shaft and base fractures can be treated with pinning or open reduction and internal fixation; the latter, being more rigid, allows early rehabilitation. External fixation has a limited yet defined role for metacarpal fractures with complex soft-tissue injury and/or segmental bone loss. The recent development of bioabsorbable implants holds promise for skeletal rigidity with minimal soft-tissue morbidity, but long-term in vivo data support- ing the use of these implants is not currently available. Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand arly treatment of metacarpal fractures was lim- Surgical techniques rapidly expanded to include ret- ited to the only tools available: manipulation rograde fracture pinning, intramedullary pinning, and Eand casting. The discovery of percutaneous transfixion pinning. Many of the K-wires in use today fracture fixation near the turn of the century opened have the same diamond-shaped tip and sizing speci- up a new world of possibilities. It was 25 years after fications as the original design. Bennett’s original manuscript that Lambotte de- The first plate and screw set for the hand was scribed the first surgical stabilization of a basilar introduced in the late 1930s. By today’s standards, the thumb fracture by using a thin carpenter’s nail.1 By Hermann Metacarpal Bone Set was quite lean; it 1913, Lambotte had authored a fracture text with included 3 longitudinal plates of 2, 3, and 4 holes, a multiple examples of pinning, wiring, and plating of drill, screwdriver, and 9 screws.1 Improvements in hand fractures.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Management of Comminuted Colles Fracture by Closed Reduction and Ulnocarpal Stabilisation with 2 K-Wires
    IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS) e-ISSN: 2279-0853, p-ISSN: 2279-0861.Volume 14, Issue 4 Ver. IV (Apr. 2015), PP 45-51 www.iosrjournals.org A Study on Management of Comminuted Colles Fracture by Closed Reduction and Ulnocarpal Stabilisation with 2 K-Wires Dr. Addepalli Srinivasa Rao, M.S, M.ch (Ortho), Dr. K.N.Sandeep M.S(Ortho) Department of Orthopaedics, Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, Andhrapradesh ,India 520008 Abstract Background – In comminuted Colles fractures treated by conventional method , malunion during healing due to progressive radial collapse is a common complication. Many modalities of treatment have been described with their merits and demerits. Ulnocarpal stabilization is an effective method to prevent radial collapse and hence this study. Materials And Methods – A prospective study of 100 patients of comminuted Colles fracture between 20-70 years age irrespective of sex treated by closed reduction and percutaneous stabilization of ulnocarpal articulation and above elbow POP cast for 6weeks has been presented. Patients were evaluated at 1 year follow up and functionally by Sarmiento’s modification of Lindstrom criteria and Gartland and Werley’s criteria. Results – Excellent to good results in 92%,fair in 4% and poor in 4% of total cases. Complications observed were malunion (n=6), pin tract infection (n=7), pullout of k-wire (n=5), sudeck’s osteodystrophy (n=7), residual pain (n=4),reduced grip strength (n=8) . Conclusion – Percutaneous pinnng by ulnocarpal stabilization is minimally invasive, yet an effective method to maintain the reduction and stability of distal radioulnar joint and radial collapse during healing ,even when the fracture is grossly comminuted ,intraarticular or unstable .
    [Show full text]
  • Torus (Buckle) Fracture Discharge Advice
    Torus (Buckle) Fracture Discharge Advice Information for you Follow us on Twitter @NHSaaa Find us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/nhsaaa Visit our website: www.nhsaaa.net All our publications are available in other formats What has happened? Your child has sustained a torus fracture, also known as a “buckle” fracture, of the radius and/or ulna (the long bones at the wrist). The bone “buckles” on one side rather than actually breaks and is commonly seen in children as their bones are soft and flexible. Will my child need a cast? Torus fractures heal well without any long-term complications. They do not require any operations or to be placed in a cast. However, using a wrist splint provides comfort and reduces the risk of further injury. It should be worn at all times but can be removed for washing and showering without any risk to the fracture. Simple painkillers such as paracetamol and/or ibuprofen can also be used to reduce discomfort. How long should my child wear the splint for? In general, the older the child is, the longer they will need to wear the splint. We recommend that children under five years old should wear the splint for one week, those age five to ten years should wear it for two weeks and those over ten years should wear it for three weeks. If your child removes the splint before this time but is comfortable and moving their wrist freely then there is no need to insist that they wear the splint for longer. However, if your child is still sore and reluctant to use their wrist when the splint is removed, then you 2 may reapply the splint.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Outcome of Orthogonal Plating in Treatment of Distal
    International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences 2018; 4(2): 78-83 ISSN: 2395-1958 IJOS 2018; 4(2): 78-83 © 2018 IJOS Functional outcome of orthogonal plating in treatment www.orthopaper.com Received: 01-02-2018 of distal humerus fracture Accepted: 05-03-2018 Rajeev Kelkar Rajeev Kelkar and Deepak Singh Rajput Assistant professor, Department of Orthopaedics, MGM Medical College & M.Y. Hospital, Indore, DOI: https://doi.org/10.22271/ortho.2018.v4.i2e.41 M.P, India Abstract Deepak Singh Rajput Background: The study was conducted to evaluate the outcome of orthogonal plating system in distal Resident, Department of humerus intraarticular fracture. Orthopaedics, M.Y. Hospital, Material and Methods: 15 patients of age between 18 to 60 yrs with fracture distal end of humerus with Indore, M.P, India intraarticular extension were evaluated, with the mean age group of 37 to find the functional outcome of Orthogonal plating using olecranon osteotomy approach. Results: The mean union time was 9.53 weeks. The arc of flexion was 99.66o. Average mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) was 83. There were 2 case of infection. One case of implant failure noted secondary to infection leading to implant removal. Discussion and Conclusion: The following results were assessed: operating time, arc of flexion and extension, time to fracture union, functional recovery, and complications. By using proper principles of stable fracture fixation and appropriate exposure in intraarticular fracture (with transolecrenon approach) a good reduction can be achieved which leads to good union, which helps in early mobilization and restoring elbow functions with early intensive physiotherapy. Keywords: Functional outcome, plating, treatment, humerus fracture Introduction Distal Humerus fracture are relatively uncommon and comprise approximately 2-6 % of all fractures [2, 3, 21].
    [Show full text]
  • Musculoskeletal System Imaging
    SUMPh “N. Testemitanu” Radiology and Medical imaging department MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM IMAGING M. Crivceanschii, assistant professor GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • to be aware of the role of modern diagnostic imaging modalities • to be familiar with main radiological signs and syndromes • tips and tricks in musculoskeletal imaging IMAGING MODALITIES • that every student should now IMAGING MODALITIES • Conventional Radiography • Fluoroscopy • Arthrography • Computed Tomography • Magnetic Resonance Imaging • Ultrasound • Scintigraphy PLAIN X-RAY FILM • First line study for most medical issues • Excellent for fractures/bony detail • Very limited for soft tissues (ligaments, tendons, muscles) • Only a screening tool in the spine • The radiologist should obtain at least two (2) views of the bone involved at 90° angles to each other • with each view including two adjacent joints FLUOROSCOPY • Arthrography • Tenography • Arteriography • Percutaneous Bone or Soft Tissue Biopsy CT SCANNING • Excellent for bony structural anatomy in the setting of complicated fracture • Less effective than MR for soft tissues and active processes • High radiation Dose • Interventional options MRI SCANNING • Excellent for soft tissue pathology • Good-excellent for bone pathology • No ionizing radiation • NOT patient friendly • Some absolute and relative contraindications ULTRASOUND • Reproducible in trained hands • Excellent for superficial soft tissue elements including tendons and muscles • No ionizing radiation • Patient friendly SCINTIGRAPHY • Image the entire skeleton at once • It provides a metabolic picture • It is particularly helpful in condition such as fibrous dysplasia, Langerhans Cell Histocytosis or metastatic cancer. CONGENITAL SKELETAL ANOMALIES CONGENITAL SKELETAL ANOMALIES • Chromosomal disorders (e. g. Down’s syndrome, Marfan syndrome, Turner’s syndrome, etc.) • Dwarfism (rhizomelic – proximal segments shortening, mesomelic – middle segments, acromelic – distal segments) • Skeletal dysplasias (e.
    [Show full text]