OBJECTIVE: MRI and sonography are both used to evaluate patients with painful shoulders. This study was conducted to compare patients' perceptions and satisfaction with both tests. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred eighteen patients with shoulder pain and a clinically suspected rotator cuff tear underwent both MRI and sonography and filled out satisfaction surveys after both tests. Patients were asked the following questions: Did the test cause pain? If it did, they were asked to grade the pain on a scale of 1-10 (1, minimal pain; 10, severe pain). Did the test take too long? Would they be willing to undergo the test again? How would they grade their overall satisfaction with the test (1, poor; 2, fair; 3, good; 4, very good; and 5, excellent)? Which test did they prefer if both were equally accurate? RESULTS: Sonography caused pain above the baseline in 39 patients, with an average pain score (mean +/- SD) of 5.4 +/- 2.3, and MRI caused pain above the baseline in 40 patients, with an average pain score of 6.1 +/- 2.7 (p = 0.36). Two patients thought the sonography examination took too long, and 28 patients though the MRI examination was too long (p < 0.001). The average satisfaction level for sonography was 4.3 +/- 0.7 and for MRI, 3.6 +/- 1.2 (p < 0.001). The satisfaction score was higher for sonography in 54 patients, higher for MRI in 13 patients, and the same for both in 50 patients (p < 0.001). All patients were willing to repeat the sonography, but 10 patients were unwilling to repeat the MRI (p = 0.002). Ninety-three patients preferred sonography, eight patients preferred MRI, and 17 patients had no preference (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most patients with shoulder pain prefer sonography to MRI.
OBJECTIVE: MRI and sonography are both used to evaluate patients with painful shoulders. This study was conducted to compare patients' perceptions and satisfaction with both tests. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred eighteen patients with shoulder pain and a clinically suspected rotator cuff tear underwent both MRI and sonography and filled out satisfaction surveys after both tests. Patients were asked the following questions: Did the test cause pain? If it did, they were asked to grade the pain on a scale of 1-10 (1, minimal pain; 10, severe pain). Did the test take too long? Would they be willing to undergo the test again? How would they grade their overall satisfaction with the test (1, poor; 2, fair; 3, good; 4, very good; and 5, excellent)? Which test did they prefer if both were equally accurate? RESULTS: Sonography caused pain above the baseline in 39 patients, with an average pain score (mean +/- SD) of 5.4 +/- 2.3, and MRI caused pain above the baseline in 40 patients, with an average pain score of 6.1 +/- 2.7 (p = 0.36). Two patients thought the sonography examination took too long, and 28 patients though the MRI examination was too long (p < 0.001). The average satisfaction level for sonography was 4.3 +/- 0.7 and for MRI, 3.6 +/- 1.2 (p < 0.001). The satisfaction score was higher for sonography in 54 patients, higher for MRI in 13 patients, and the same for both in 50 patients (p < 0.001). All patients were willing to repeat the sonography, but 10 patients were unwilling to repeat the MRI (p = 0.002). Ninety-three patients preferred sonography, eight patients preferred MRI, and 17 patients had no preference (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most patients with shoulder pain prefer sonography to MRI.
Authors: Christian Alexander Fischer; Marc-André Weber; Clément Neubecker; Thomas Bruckner; Michael Tanner; Felix Zeifang Journal: J Orthop Date: 2015-01-28
Authors: Levon N Nazarian; Jon A Jacobson; Carol B Benson; Laura W Bancroft; Asheesh Bedi; John M McShane; Theodore T Miller; Laurence Parker; Jay Smith; Lynne S Steinbach; Sharlene A Teefey; Ralf G Thiele; Michael J Tuite; James N Wise; Ken Yamaguchi Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kenneth S Lee; Robert H Ablove; Steven Singh; Arthur A De Smet; Benjamin Haaland; Jason P Fine Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Matthieu J C M Rutten; Gert-Jan Spaargaren; Ton van Loon; Maarten C de Waal Malefijt; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; Gerrit J Jager Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 5.315