Reliability of high-resolution ultrasound and magnetic resonance arthrography of the shoulder in patients with sports-related shoulder injuries.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Arthrography
/ methods
Athletic Injuries
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Rotator Cuff
/ diagnostic imaging
Rotator Cuff Injuries
/ diagnostic imaging
Shoulder Injuries
/ diagnostic imaging
Shoulder Joint
/ diagnostic imaging
Ultrasonography
/ methods
Young Adult
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
28
06
2019
accepted:
21
08
2019
entrez:
24
9
2019
pubmed:
24
9
2019
medline:
17
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The shoulder, a very complex joint, offers a wide range of pathologies. Intraarticular abnormalities and rotator cuff injuries are mainly assessed and diagnosed by magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA). In contrast to this well-established gold standard, high-resolution ultrasound (US) offers an additional easy and excellent modality to assess the shoulder joint. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate in which anatomic structures and pathologies comparable results of US and MRA could be achieved. In this IRB-approved prospective study 67 patients with clinically suspected labral lesions, rotator cuff rupture, or injury of the long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon were enrolled. Each participant was examined with high resolution US, and directly followed by MRA at 3 Tesla with a standard sequence protocol. To evaluate the agreement of the diagnostic performance between US and MRA a weighted kappa statistic was used. Both of the investigated modalities yielded a moderate to almost perfect agreement in assessing a wide range of shoulder joint pathologies. For the rotator cuff, consistency was found in 71.64% for the supraspinatus tendon, in 95.52% for the infraspinatus tendon, in 83.58% for the subscapularis tendon, and in 98.51% for the teres minor tendon. The diagnostic accuracy between both modalities was 80.60% for the LHB tendon, 77.61% for the posterior labroligamentous complex, 83.58% for the acromioclavicular joint, and 91.04% for the assessment of osseous irregularities and impaction fractures. High resolution US is a reliable imaging modality for the rotator cuff, the LHB tendon, and the acromioclavicular joint, so for these structures we recommend a preference for US over MRA based on its diagnostic accuracy, comfortability, cost effectiveness, and availability. If the diagnosis remains elusive, for all other intraarticular structures we recommend MRA for further diagnostic assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31545834
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222783
pii: PONE-D-19-18321
pmc: PMC6756526
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0222783Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Pol J Radiol. 2016 Oct 19;81:491-497
pubmed: 27800039
Injury. 2013 Sep;44 Suppl 3:S26-32
pubmed: 24060014
Pan Afr Med J. 2016 Jul 13;24:235
pubmed: 27800090
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(29):iii, 1-166
pubmed: 14567906
Orthopedics. 2013 Mar;36(3):e337-42
pubmed: 23464954
Acta Orthop. 2012 Jun;83(3):267-70
pubmed: 22401678
Ann Rheum Dis. 2002 Feb;61(2):132-6
pubmed: 11796399
Ann Transl Med. 2016 Nov;4(21):419
pubmed: 27942510
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017 Dec;10(4):425-433
pubmed: 28965317
Ann Fam Med. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):53-5
pubmed: 25583893
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 24;(9):CD009020
pubmed: 24065456
Acta Radiol. 1999 May;40(3):296-302
pubmed: 10335968
Open Orthop J. 2013 Sep 06;7:338-46
pubmed: 24082972
Skeletal Radiol. 2017 Feb;46(2):149-160
pubmed: 27826700
Radiographics. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):791-810
pubmed: 21571657
Fam Med. 2005 May;37(5):360-3
pubmed: 15883903
BMC Fam Pract. 2014 Jun 10;15:115
pubmed: 24916105
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Apr;82(4):651-7
pubmed: 23287711
Eur J Radiol. 1998 May;27 Suppl 1:S31-8
pubmed: 9652499
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Oct;68(1):16-24
pubmed: 18511227
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jun;192(6):1701-7
pubmed: 19457838
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Oct;91(10):1616-25
pubmed: 20875523
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jan;184(1):180-4
pubmed: 15615971
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Oct;49(20):1316-28
pubmed: 25677796