BACKGROUND: Controversy exists in the diagnosis and treatment of pectoralis major tear patterns. HYPOTHESIS: Magnetic resonance imaging is useful in determining the grade and the location of pectoralis major tears and in guiding toward an appropriate treatment plan. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Between January 1998 and December 2002, 27 patients were treated for pectoralis major tears. All patients were evaluated by history and physical examination. A clinical impression was formed regarding the location and grade of injury, and a treatment plan was established. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging, and images were reviewed by an orthopaedic surgeon and a board-certified musculoskeletal radiologist, resulting in a final treatment plan. The mean follow-up was 12 months. All patients were evaluated by questionnaire and clinical examination to assess pain, function, deformity, and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: In 19 of 27 patients, the clinical impression and magnetic resonance imaging agreed regarding the location and the grade of the injury. A total of 19 patients underwent surgical repair, and 8 patients were treated nonoperatively. The magnetic resonance imaging result changed the treatment plan in 3 patients from operative to nonoperative. CONCLUSION: The clinical impression appeared to overestimate the severity, the location, and the grade of the injury. Magnetic resonance imaging provided a more accurate assessment and, in conjunction with the clinical examination, helped to identify those patients who would benefit most from surgical repair.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists in the diagnosis and treatment of pectoralis major tear patterns. HYPOTHESIS: Magnetic resonance imaging is useful in determining the grade and the location of pectoralis major tears and in guiding toward an appropriate treatment plan. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Between January 1998 and December 2002, 27 patients were treated for pectoralis major tears. All patients were evaluated by history and physical examination. A clinical impression was formed regarding the location and grade of injury, and a treatment plan was established. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging, and images were reviewed by an orthopaedic surgeon and a board-certified musculoskeletal radiologist, resulting in a final treatment plan. The mean follow-up was 12 months. All patients were evaluated by questionnaire and clinical examination to assess pain, function, deformity, and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: In 19 of 27 patients, the clinical impression and magnetic resonance imaging agreed regarding the location and the grade of the injury. A total of 19 patients underwent surgical repair, and 8 patients were treated nonoperatively. The magnetic resonance imaging result changed the treatment plan in 3 patients from operative to nonoperative. CONCLUSION: The clinical impression appeared to overestimate the severity, the location, and the grade of the injury. Magnetic resonance imaging provided a more accurate assessment and, in conjunction with the clinical examination, helped to identify those patients who would benefit most from surgical repair.
Authors: Brady K Huang; Jonathan H Wong; Parviz Haghighi; Lidi Wan; Jiang Du; Eric Y Chang Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 3.019