4.5 Review

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Adult Post-Ganglionic Brachial Plexus Traumatic Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11020173

关键词

brachial plexus; MRI scan; MRI diffusion weighted; nervous system traumas; peripheral nerves

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in identifying post-ganglionic lesions in traumatic brachial plexus injuries in adults, and found that MRI can be considered the gold standard exam in diagnosing post-ganglionic traumatic injuries despite some limitations.
Background: Traumatic brachial plexus injuries are rare but serious consequences of major traumas. Pre-ganglionic lesions are considered irreparable, while post-ganglionic injuries can be potentially treated if an early diagnosis is available. Pre-surgical diagnosis is important to distinguish low-grade from high-grade lesions and to identify their location. The aim of the review is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the identification of adult post-ganglionic lesions due to traumatic brachial plexus injuries, compared to intraoperative findings. Methods: Research on the main scientific electronic databases was conducted. Studies of adults with traumatic post-ganglionic brachial plexus injuries were included. The index test was preoperative MRI and the reference standard was surgical exploration. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results: Four studies were included for the systematic review, of which three articles met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity values resulted high. The sensitivity value is associated with a high heterogeneity index of the selected literature. Conclusion: MRI can be considered, despite the limits, the gold standard exam in morphological evaluation of brachial plexus injuries, particularly in the diagnosis of post-ganglionic traumatic injuries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据