T D Boehm1, W Kenn, M Matzer, F Gohlke. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Koenig-Ludwig-Haus, University of Wuerzburg, Germany. dr.dirkboehm@web.de
Abstract
AIM: Ossa acromiale are rare anatomical conditions and have been evaluated with plain radiographs, CT- and MRI-scans, but not with ultrasound. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the appearance and the characteristics of os acromiale with ultrasound. METHODS: 25 patients with unilateral radiologically prediagnosed os acromiale had bilateral examination with ultrasound. Recorded details were bilateral appearance, the width of the non-ossified space and the shape of the bony margins of the os acromiale. As a control group 25 patients without radiological appearance of os acromiale had identical ultrasound examination. RESULTS: The os acromiale could be identified in all 25 patients (100%) with radiologically confirmed os acromiale. In 12 patients an os acromiale could be identified on the contralateral side (48%). The average width of the non ossified space was 4.3 mm (2.5 to 7.6 mm). Three different sonographic types of bony margins of the os acromiale and the acromion exist: Type I with flat bony margins; Type II with marginal osteophytes and Type III with inverted bony margins. In the control group no os acromiale could be identified. CONCLUSION: With ultrasonographic assessment, os acromiale can be accurately identified in each case. Three differently shaped bony margins exist. Ultrasound can give additional information about the os acromiale if radiological assessment is unclear because of superimposing bones.
AIM: Ossa acromiale are rare anatomical conditions and have been evaluated with plain radiographs, CT- and MRI-scans, but not with ultrasound. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the appearance and the characteristics of os acromiale with ultrasound. METHODS: 25 patients with unilateral radiologically prediagnosed os acromiale had bilateral examination with ultrasound. Recorded details were bilateral appearance, the width of the non-ossified space and the shape of the bony margins of the os acromiale. As a control group 25 patients without radiological appearance of os acromiale had identical ultrasound examination. RESULTS: The os acromiale could be identified in all 25 patients (100%) with radiologically confirmed os acromiale. In 12 patients an os acromiale could be identified on the contralateral side (48%). The average width of the non ossified space was 4.3 mm (2.5 to 7.6 mm). Three different sonographic types of bony margins of the os acromiale and the acromion exist: Type I with flat bony margins; Type II with marginal osteophytes and Type III with inverted bony margins. In the control group no os acromiale could be identified. CONCLUSION: With ultrasonographic assessment, os acromiale can be accurately identified in each case. Three differently shaped bony margins exist. Ultrasound can give additional information about the os acromiale if radiological assessment is unclear because of superimposing bones.
Authors: Steven Horton; Michael P Smuda; Julio J Jauregui; Vidushan Nadarajah; Mohit N Gilotra; Ralph Frank Henn; Syed Ashfaq Hasan Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Antonio Frizziero; Maria G Benedetti; Domenico Creta; Antonio Moio; Stefano Galletti; Nicola Maffulli Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 2.988