Introduction
Triquetral, or pyramidal, bone fractures are the second most common carpal fracture
after scaphoid fractures.[1] These fractures are classified into three groups: triquetral dorsal cortical, body,
and volar cortical fractures.[2]
[3]
The detection of triquetral with plain radiography can be difficult, challenging their
initial diagnosis in Emergency Services. As such, they may go unnoticed and identified
later, delaying treatment. In addition, depending on the fracture type, there may
be associated complications, including painful pseudoarthrosis, persistent carpal
instabilities, and pisotriquetral joint arthritis.[3] Several papers report age as a poor prognostic factor regarding general bone healing
in fractures, which can take longer in older adults. However, information in the scientific
literature to explain the consolidation delay in triquetral bone fractures remains
scarce.[3] In contrast, carpal instability is the first suspicion in young people with poor
evolution. In other words, the patient profile based on age and trauma context may
condition the type of fracture, potential complications, and its management.
Triquetral fractures are usually treated satisfactorily with immobilization, except
in very complex cases, those with associated complications, or both.[4] The few reported cases and the low evidence level in the literature result in little
updated evidence on diagnostic-therapeutic algorithms. This is especially true regarding
imaging tests with higher input resolution, identification of associated lesions,
and the adaptation of the type of conservative treatment according to the patient
to optimize the outcomes of this rare condition.
Discussion
Biomechanics and classification:
As mentioned, there are three types of triquetral fractures, and we can infer the
potential diagnostic and therapeutic adaptations according to the suspected associated
lesions. The dorsal cortical fractures are the most common type, as in our case, and
result from an avulsion or shear mechanism. This mechanism may be against the ulnar
styloid in extension trauma and ulnar deviation of the wrist; the positive length
of the ulnar styloid process is a risk factor (cubitus plus).[5] Another mechanism is against the hamate after trauma with the wrist in forced dorsal
extension and a pronated forearm. Bece et al. used MRI images to analyze 21 with dorsal
triquetrum cortical fractures.[6] Their case series employed a more accurate diagnostic technique (i.e., MRI), and
fractures caused by impaction were the most common. This finding contrasts the fact
that, classically, the most frequent cause is ligament avulsion (dorsal radiotriquetral
or navicular-triquetral ligaments).[6]
Triquetral body fractures (sagittal, transverse, or comminuted) represent the second
most common type.[2] Their diagnosis often occurs in complex carpal fracture-dislocations due to high-energy
trauma, such as lunate fractures, present in 12% to 25% of these injuries.[3] Because of the usual request for a complete imaging study (i.e., CT), they seldom
go unnoticed. Both situations show how supplementary tests with a highest diagnostic
power are one of the reasons why these lesions are more often diagnosed and considered
the most frequent.
The third group consists of volar cortical fractures, the least frequent of these
injuries. They can be caused by the avulsion of the volar lunotriquetral or scaphoid-triquetral
ligaments, which is much less powerful than their dorsal counterparts.[2]
[3] As such, an associate carpal instability may be present.
Clinical and radiological diagnosis:
The clinical picture for suspicion is pain at the ulnar surface of the wrist characterized
as the “pyramidal point” worsening with wrist flexion and extension, inflammation,
and limited mobility. However, this picture is not pathognomonic.[3]
[7] The differential diagnosis is very broad, including TFCC and lunotriquetral ligament
lesions and hamate and lunate fractures, which frequently have a higher acute level
of symptoms.[8]
In patients with pain from a previous chronic process, one must consider extensor
carpi or flexor carpi ulnaris tendinitis, Guyon canal syndrome, impaction syndromes
(ulnocarpal and ulnar styloid), and hamate proximal pole chondromalacia.[8] This may justify the slower evolution in older patients, as in the third case presented
here. A slower rehabilitation process is common in this patient profile. We wonder
if limiting immobilization times in these patients would be indicated to avoid secondary
complications due to rigidity or CRPS risk. On the other hand, there is a risk of
increasing the consolidation delay of osteoporotic bone in patients with expected
poor bone quality, such as postmenopausal women. We have not found scientific evidence
regarding whether we should adjust the immobilization times according to the patient
profile.
Regarding radiological diagnosis in the emergency room, there is no gold standard
view for these lesions. As such, always request the three classic views of the wrist
(anteroposterior, lateral, and pronated oblique).[9] The 45-degree pronated oblique and the lateral views are the best views for dorsal
cortical fractures.[2] One of the characteristic radiological signs of dorsal fractures is the “pooping
duck” sign, in which the fractured and avulsed fragment of the dorsal triquetrum cortex
projects itself along the dorsal border of the carpus.[10] We observed this sign in all our cases.
CT and MRI gained significance to diagnose these lesions. It is critical to know the
clinical picture and have a high diagnostic suspicion; even so, plain radiography
is not powerful enough in some cases. CT is helpful and widely available to detect
occult triquetral fractures when clinical suspicion is high.3 MRI, not as widely available
in emergency rooms, is reserved for the study of associated injuries in cases with
poor evolution, including carpal instability, extrinsic carpal ligament injuries,
and occult triquetral fractures that were not evident in a CT scan.11 They also help to rule out chronic injuries that worsen after trauma and potentially
justify a slow evolution. In fact, in our second case, we can precisely appreciate
how supplementary tests confirmed some associated lesions that may justify a more
torpid evolution. In conclusion, when faced with a case of post-traumatic ulnar pain,
one must always maintain a high suspicion for associated lesions, requesting other
tests if necessary, such as CT, MRI, dynamic radiology, ultrasound, or arthroscopy.4,7 Likewise, contextualize the condition, age, type of associated lesion, and patient
profile to propose definitive treatments in line not only with the findings of supplementary
tests but also with the clinical status of the subject.
Treatment and complications:
Up to the generalization of CT availability, there has been some limitation in classifying
these fractures in the emergency room. Conservative management is universally recommended
for most triquetral bone fractures, especially for dorsal cortical lesions (as in
our case), non-displaced fractures with no associated lesions, or both.[2] William et al. recommend splint immobilization for approximately 4 to 6 weeks as
the first-line treatment.[2] Surgery must be the initial treatment for fractures with significant displacement
or carpal fracture-dislocation.[1]
Here, we have described how each subtype can be associated with different complications
requiring specific management.[2] However, the publications we found do not have sufficient power since outcomes based
on the fracture type and potential associated injuries are not usually presented,
except for large carpal fracture-dislocations.[12] This limits us when establishing a diagnostic-therapeutic algorithm for emergencies
and complications. We believe that even though this initial classification did not
change treatment because of the good outcomes reported by previous studies, it can
help us to individualize management, predict potential complications, refer for associated
surgical procedures, and explore new paradigms as to which cases could benefit from
early surgical treatment.
In this context, our study is especially interesting for several reasons. First, it
is one of the few works with a case series with an N > 1.[3]
[5]
[13]
[14] In fact, we have found only one paper in which this is also true.[15] This allows us to begin to establish some hypotheses regarding treatment individualization.
Second, we collected aspects omitted in many studies, including age, sex, occupation,
patient profile, associated injuries, and fracture subtype. Moreover, we insist on
a consensus with the patient when establishing a surgical salvage or with subjects
who are not realistic concerning outcome expectations.
On the other hand, there is scientific literature to establish recommendations in
cases with poor evolution and residual pain; as such, we need to expand the study
and treat existing associated injuries.[4] For instance, a period of about 6 or 8 weeks of symptom persistence was established
to recommend an MRI scan to investigate a potential ligament injury or TFCC rupture.[2]
[3]
In addition to expanding radiological studies, a torpid evolution led us to reconsider
conservative management resorting to a salvage surgical intervention. In our humble
opinion, the difficulty lies in establishing the exact reason justifying this poor
evolution, how to study it, when to perform new procedures, and which ones to consider
since they may have significant clinical relevance.
For example, a fact with some consensus is that the reference treatment for persistent
pain at the fracture site is open resection of the painful fragment.[4]
However, as shown in this brief case series, clinical persistence cannot always be
attributed to the fracture itself. In this case, it is necessary to emphasize the
importance of a good-regulated clinical examination and the adequate use and application
of supplementary tests. For instance, we can see very flowery radiological outcomes
in the second and third cases that reflect associated, probably chronic, injuries
in patients over 55 years old who recover a high functional profile after a proper
rehabilitation time. These older patients are similar to those with shoulder trauma
resulting in rotator cuff injuries.[16] The much larger experience and literature in rotator cuff injuries allow the establishment
of a more valid recommendation,[17]
[18] i.e., that these lesions are casual findings in which initial rehabilitation treatment
and subsequent surgical salvage are increasingly advocated if necessary.[19]
As reflected in our case series, we propose to consider the type of patient we are
dealing when managing this condition as clinicians. In fact, after reviewing the literature,
we can assert that it is foreseeable that this type of fracture heals more adequately
and faster in young people only using plaster immobilization.[3]
[5]
[13]
[14] The patient in the last case was also a man and, even though he was 75 years old,
the resolution was early and satisfactory. However, as in the second case, delays
in triquetral fracture healing can occur in the presence of osteoporotic bone and
we do not have sufficient information on this hypothesis in the reviewed literature.
Previous chronic injuries may also justify a slower evolution. This may suggest that
we must consider the age and gender of the patient when anticipating a worse bone
quality resulting in consolidation delay.[20] Moreover, we must consider extending immobilization times to the upper limit and
contrast them with the risk of stiffness depending on the patient profile. All these
factors require comparison in studies of high scientific quality, with a larger sample
size (which was very limited in our work) to allow testing these hypotheses.
In conclusion, the early diagnosis and treatment of these lesions based on a sufficient
study of them seems relevant, a fact that does not usually occur in emergency settings.[21] In case of poor evolution, it is critical to propose other diagnoses and therapeutic
procedures if necessary. The growing role of arthroscopy in diagnosing and treating
associated complications is very relevant and helpful in carpal instability lesions,
as comprehensively described by García-Elias et al.[7]
The literature reports that complications seem infrequent or have minor relevance.[4] Most triquetral bone fractures are benign lesions with good clinical outcomes.[4] This may explain why it is often said, in a very superficial way, that treatment
must be conservative without considering early potential complications, as occurs
with other conditions, such as scaphoid fracture, on which there is an immense and
very diverse literature regarding management. Still, these complications do occur.
Fibrous nonunion can happen but is usually asymptomatic. Although symptomatic pseudoarthrosis
is rare, Durbin reports conservative management as inadequate due to the persistent
pain related to this complication.22 It has been previously described that its treatment is the excision of the residual
fragment, as in hamate fractures.22 A review by Niemann et al.25 reports eight cases published since 1950 in which triquetral fractures were surgically
treated (except for the Durbin case from 1950).22 In five cases from this study, fracture treatment used internal fixation with or
without bone graft. In the last two cases, treatment was the excision of small, distally
located fragments. Conservative treatment resulted in the only case with unfavorable
evolution. In addition, this review presents fractures with medial or distal involvement
of the triquetral body that does not correspond to the fracture pattern shown here.
In the case of persistent ulnar pain, we must remember that dorsal cortical fractures
can be associated with TFCC lesions.8 In other words, the fracture pattern can guide which complication justifies this
persistent pain and how to address it. As such, we should not limit ourselves to simply
excising the fragment since an excision does not always assure a satisfactory resolution
in all cases of persistent ulnar pain after a triquetrum fracture.
The management of TFCC injuries is widely described and detailed in the literature,
highlighting the review article by Dr. Esplugas.[26] If these lesions have a chronic profile or low repair viability (joint degeneration,
signs of ulnocarpal impingement, non-repairable fibrocartilage lesion, etc.), as in
the second case, the initial management is conservative. If symptoms persist, the
salvage treatment is surgical. We need to inform the patient about the expectations
related to this type of injury since we will surely face a chronic exacerbated condition,
considering palliative measures in a previously injured tissue, joint, or both. Several
types of repair have been proposed to alleviate symptoms, including synovectomy, debridement,
arthroscopic ulnar shortening techniques (which allow a more precise evaluation and
complete management), or open procedures in case of symptom persistence.[27] If they present characteristics of being a repairable lesion (for example, absence
of chondral lesion, presence of viable tissue) we should be inclined towards surgical
rescue, especially in young patients and in symptomatic lesions, with multiple options
depending on the lesion and good outcomes.[26]
[28] Another condition to consider is pisotriquetral osteoarthritis, which could be previous
or de novo resulting from a fracture extending into this joint. Depending on the type
and symptoms, pisotriquetral osteoarthritis treatment may involve debridement, fragment
excision, or even arthrodesis.[29] The arthroscopic technique has good outcomes in treating this condition.[30]