Table 4. Studies reporting on the sensitivity for detection of dorsal screw penetration.
| Study | N | Design | Reference a | Lateral | AP | Pronation | Supination | DTV a | CST | RGV | 360/3D | US | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cadavers/patients | Screws | |||||||||||||
| Cadaveric | Cha and Shin (2017) b | 4 | 32 | Cadaveric | Direct visualization | Depending on angle and position | 88% | 63% | ||||||
| Vernet et al (2017) | 10 | 40 | Cadaveric survey | Not described | 97.0% | 43.3% | ||||||||
| Stoops et al (2017) b | 7 | 126–231 | Cadaveric survey | Direct visualization | 75% | 86% | ||||||||
| Giugale et al (2017) | 2 | 32 | Cadaveric survey | Direct visualization | 96.4% | 97.2% | ||||||||
| Poole et al (2016) | 1 | 10 | Cadaveric survey | Direct visualization | 16% | 12% | 12% | 40% | 51% | 78% | ||||
| Williams et al (2016) | 4 | 16 | Cadaveric | Direct visualization | 100% | |||||||||
| Gurbuz et al (2017) b c | 10 | 40 | Cadaveric survey | Direct visualization | 100% | 100% | ||||||||
| Watchmaker et al (2016) | 5 | 33 | Cadaveric + prospective series | Direct visualization | 18.2% (incl. oblique) | 63.3% | ||||||||
| Hill et al (2015) | 21 | 252 | Cadaveric survey | Direct visualization | 58.7% | 54.4% | 88.2% | 66.5% | ||||||
| Dolce et al (2014) | 8 | 128 | Cadaveric | Direct visualization | 24.5% | 100% | ||||||||
| Haug et al (2013) | 6 | 25 | Cadaveric survey | Direct visualization/CT | 96% | |||||||||
| Ozer et al( 2012) b c | 10 | 40 | Cadaveric survey | Not described | 80% (inc. oblique) | 65% (4th comp 93%) | 0% (2nd comp 92%) | 95% | ||||||
| Riddick et al (2012) | 1 | 14 | Cadaveric survey | Direct visualization | 66% | 64% | 83% | |||||||
| Thomas and Greenberg (2009) c | Indeterminate | 4/cad | Cadaveric survey | Direct visualization | 77% | |||||||||
| Clinical | Oc et al (2018) | 47 | Indeterminate | Retrospective cohort | US | 41.2% | 16.2% | 50.0% | 58.3% | |||||
| Kiyak (2018) | 10 | Case series | Surgery | 70% | ||||||||||
| Ganesh et al (2016) | 25 | 175 | Retrospective cohort | CT | 66.7% | |||||||||
| Bianchi et al (2008) | 9 symptomatic patients | Indeterminate | Case series | Surgery | 100% | 100% | ||||||||
| Lee et al (2013) | 93 | Indeterminate | Indeterminate | CT | 95% | |||||||||
Abbreviations: 360/3D, 360 degrees or three-dimensional fluoroscopy; AP, anteroposterior; CST, carpal shoot through view; DTV, dorsal tangential view; N , number; RGV, radial groove view; US, ultrasound.
We interpreted the Hoya view, skyline view, and dorsal horizon view to be the same as the dorsal tangential view.
In case sensitivity in studies was given per amount of DSP and could not be recalculated, 2 mm DSP was chosen (because less is irrelevant due to manufactured length interval of 2 mm). These studies are not included in the meta-analysis unless they gave exact numbers with which overall sensitivity could be calculated.
In case, sensitivity in studies was given per compartment/region and overall sensitivity could not be calculated, the central region or third compartment were chosen (because EPL rupture is most relevant complication described in the literature). These studies are not included in the meta-analysis unless they gave exact numbers with which overall sensitivity could be calculated.