Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Proportion of fractures involving Lister’s tubercle identified on radiography and US
| Injury type | No of cases identified on radiography | Fracture extends into Lister’s tubercle on radiography | Fracture extends into Lister’s tubercle onUS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undisplaced/minimally displaced distal radius fracture | 6 | 3 | 6 |
| Displaced distal radius fracture | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Non-fracture injury | 3 | – | 1 |
Summary of US findings
| EPL Sonographic findings | Cases |
| Level of rupture | |
| Proximal (Lister's tubercle) | 11 |
| Distal (Distal phalanx) | 0 |
| Tendon end retraction | |
| Gap range (cm) | 1.4-3.6 |
| Gap average (cm) | 2.4 |
| Tendon end state | |
| Enlarged and hypoechoic | 9 |
| Atrophicends | 0 |
| Unremarkable appearances | 2 |
| Tendon sheath | |
| Effusion 3rd compartment | 10 |
| Effusion 2nd compartment | 9 |
| Empty tendon sheath | 1 |
| Tenosynovitis | 2 |
| Lister’s tubercle | |
| Fracture resulting in irregularity | 9 |
| Variant anatomy | 1 |
| Smooth cortex | 1 |
Summary of patient characteristics, time interval of US and surgical procedure
| Patient No. | Age | Gender | Time to US after injury (wks) | Operative technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 23 | F | 14 | EIP to EPL transfer |
| 2 | 25 | M | 4 | EPL repair PL graft |
| 3 | 54 | M | 2 | EIP to EPL transfer |
| 4 | 47 | M | 4 | No operation |
| 5 | 61 | F | 4 | No operation |
| 6 | 35 | F | 2 | EIP to EPL transfer |
| 7 | 71 | F | 3 | EIP to EPL transfer |
| 8 | 70 | F | <1 | EIP to EPL transfer |
| 9 | 63 | F | 4 | No operation |
| 10 | 48 | F | 4 | EPL repair PL graft |
| 11 | 65 | f | 8 | EIP to EPL transfer |