Multimodal Ultrasound Versus MRI for the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Achilles Tendinopathy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.
Achilles tendinopathy
Achilles tendon
diagnostic ultrasound
imaging
magnetic resonance
shear wave elastography
ultrasound tissue characterization
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
20
01
2021
accepted:
08
02
2021
entrez:
29
4
2021
pubmed:
30
4
2021
medline:
30
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The diagnosis and monitoring of Achilles tendinopathy with imaging are challenging. There is a lack of studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), brightness mode ultrasound (B-mode), and power Doppler ultrasound with recent technologies such as ultrasound tissue characterization (UTC) and shear wave elastography (SWE). To assess whether SWE and UTC, which offer quantitative values, show a superior diagnostic accuracy and capacity to detect structural improvement in Achilles tendinopathy compared with MRI, B-mode, or power Doppler. Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Patients with insertional (n = 28) and midportion (n = 38) Achilles tendinopathy were evaluated at baseline and 6-month follow-up using MRI, B-mode, power Doppler, SWE, and UTC. Asymptomatic controls (n = 37) were evaluated at For diagnosing insertional Achilles tendinopathy, semiquantitative MRI and power Doppler were most favorable (diagnostic accuracy, 95%), while the cross-sectional area of MRI revealed 89% accuracy in the ROC analyses (area under the curve [AUC], 0.911; There was no statistically significant difference in favor of one imaging modality over the others, but MRI revealed the highest overall diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of both insertional and midportion Achilles tendinopathy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis and monitoring of Achilles tendinopathy with imaging are challenging. There is a lack of studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), brightness mode ultrasound (B-mode), and power Doppler ultrasound with recent technologies such as ultrasound tissue characterization (UTC) and shear wave elastography (SWE).
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether SWE and UTC, which offer quantitative values, show a superior diagnostic accuracy and capacity to detect structural improvement in Achilles tendinopathy compared with MRI, B-mode, or power Doppler.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with insertional (n = 28) and midportion (n = 38) Achilles tendinopathy were evaluated at baseline and 6-month follow-up using MRI, B-mode, power Doppler, SWE, and UTC. Asymptomatic controls (n = 37) were evaluated at
RESULTS
RESULTS
For diagnosing insertional Achilles tendinopathy, semiquantitative MRI and power Doppler were most favorable (diagnostic accuracy, 95%), while the cross-sectional area of MRI revealed 89% accuracy in the ROC analyses (area under the curve [AUC], 0.911;
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
There was no statistically significant difference in favor of one imaging modality over the others, but MRI revealed the highest overall diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of both insertional and midportion Achilles tendinopathy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33912619
doi: 10.1177/23259671211006826
pii: 10.1177_23259671211006826
pmc: PMC8047827
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671211006826Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflicts of interest or source of funding: This study was supported by the START and Clinician Scientist program of the Medical Faculty of RWTH University Aachen (to M.G.). AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Br J Sports Med. 2010 Dec;44(16):1153-9
pubmed: 19666626
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Sep;134(9):1205-10
pubmed: 25012530
Br J Sports Med. 2002 Jun;36(3):173-5; discussion 176-7
pubmed: 12055110
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Mar;37(3):463-70
pubmed: 19088057
Am J Sports Med. 2004 Jul-Aug;32(5):1286-96
pubmed: 15262655
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015 Oct;10(5):639-44
pubmed: 26491614
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020 Jul 22;6(1):e000803
pubmed: 32789022
Rofo. 2002 Nov;174(11):1438-44
pubmed: 12424672
Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2016;57(2 Suppl):785-790
pubmed: 27833972
Ultrasound Int Open. 2016 Mar;2(1):E13-8
pubmed: 27689161
J Clin Med. 2020 Oct 21;9(10):
pubmed: 33096900
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2018 Apr;13(2):283-292
pubmed: 30090686
Acad Radiol. 2018 Mar;25(3):265-272
pubmed: 29153963
Invest Radiol. 2014 May;49(5):339-45
pubmed: 24500089
Br J Sports Med. 2011 Apr;45(5):387-92
pubmed: 21047840
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 May;28(5):1631-1638
pubmed: 30937472
Sports Health. 2020 Jul/Aug;12(4):373-381
pubmed: 32003647
Ultraschall Med. 2010 Aug;31(4):387-93
pubmed: 20235002
Clin J Sport Med. 2021 May 1;31(3):e161-e175
pubmed: 31241489
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Feb;7(1):76-84
pubmed: 22319681
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Jun;48(12):966-72
pubmed: 23118117
Acta Radiol. 1998 Nov;39(6):612-9
pubmed: 9817030
Ann Rehabil Med. 2014 Aug;38(4):534-40
pubmed: 25229032
Br J Sports Med. 2003 Apr;37(2):149-53
pubmed: 12663358
PeerJ. 2017 Jul 19;5:e3592
pubmed: 28740756
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009 Oct 30;10:134
pubmed: 19878572
J Sci Med Sport. 2015 Jul;18(4):383-7
pubmed: 25024134
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Dec;43(12):2950-8
pubmed: 26464495
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Mar;48(6):469-75
pubmed: 24100290
Br J Sports Med. 2005 Nov;39(11):838-42; discussion 838-42
pubmed: 16244194
J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jul 04;15:9-20
pubmed: 30258782
Rofo. 2004 May;176(5):704-8
pubmed: 15122469
J Sport Rehabil. 2012 Feb;21(1):34-43
pubmed: 22100744
Foot Ankle Surg. 2013 Jun;19(2):112-7
pubmed: 23548453
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015 Nov;45(11):842-52
pubmed: 26390270
Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Jun;49:4-9
pubmed: 29309823
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2015 May 2;1(1):e000005
pubmed: 27900118
J Sci Med Sport. 2017 Jul;20(7):633-637
pubmed: 28169151
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990 Nov;155(5):1031-6
pubmed: 2120931
J Ultrasound Med. 2020 Apr;39(4):731-739
pubmed: 31724758
Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):556-60
pubmed: 12663820
EJIFCC. 2009 Jan 20;19(4):203-11
pubmed: 27683318
J Sci Med Sport. 2018 Dec;21(12):1185-1191
pubmed: 29789266
Foot Ankle Int. 1998 May;19(5):311-7
pubmed: 9622422
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Aug;49(15):995-9
pubmed: 25586910
Acad Radiol. 2016 Oct;23(10):1204-13
pubmed: 27318786
Surg Radiol Anat. 2009 Jan;31(1):59-61
pubmed: 18716708
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Jul 13;13:91
pubmed: 23848987