Ji-Hoon Ok1, Yang-Soo Kim, Jung-Man Kim, Tae-Wook Yoo. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 505 Banpo-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-701, Korea. ojh8469@naver.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of ultrasonography and MR arthrography (MRA) imaging in detecting of rotator cuff tears with arthroscopic finding used as the reference standard. METHODS: The ultrasonography and MRA findings of 51 shoulders that underwent the arthroscopic surgery were prospectively analysed. Two orthopaedic doctors independently performed ultrasonography and interpreted the findings at the office. The tear size measured at ultrasonography and MRA was compared with the size measured at surgery using Pearson correlation coefficients (r). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and false-positive rate were calculated for a diagnosis of partial-and full-thickness rotator cuff tears. The kappa coefficient was calculated to verify the inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: The sensitivity of ultrasonography and MRA for detecting partial-thickness tears was 45.5 and 72.7 %, and that for full-thickness tears was 80.0 and 100 %, respectively. The accuracy of ultrasonograpy and MRA for detecting partial-thickness tears was 45.1 and 88.2 %, and that for full-thickness tears was 82.4 and 98 %, respectively. Tear size measured based on ultrasonography examination showed a poor correlation with the size measured at arthroscopic surgery (r = 0.21; p < 0.05). However, tear size estimated by MRA showed a strong correlation (r = 0.75; p < 0.05). The kappa coefficient was 0.47 between the two independent examiners. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of office-based ultrasonography for beginner orthopaedic surgeons to detect full-thickness rotator cuff tears was comparable to that of MRA but was less accurate for detecting partial-thickness tears and torn size measurement. Inter-observer agreement on the interpretation was fair. These results highlight the importance of the correct technique and experience in operation of ultrasonography in shoulder joint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level II.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of ultrasonography and MR arthrography (MRA) imaging in detecting of rotator cuff tears with arthroscopic finding used as the reference standard. METHODS: The ultrasonography and MRA findings of 51 shoulders that underwent the arthroscopic surgery were prospectively analysed. Two orthopaedic doctors independently performed ultrasonography and interpreted the findings at the office. The tear size measured at ultrasonography and MRA was compared with the size measured at surgery using Pearson correlation coefficients (r). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and false-positive rate were calculated for a diagnosis of partial-and full-thickness rotator cuff tears. The kappa coefficient was calculated to verify the inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: The sensitivity of ultrasonography and MRA for detecting partial-thickness tears was 45.5 and 72.7 %, and that for full-thickness tears was 80.0 and 100 %, respectively. The accuracy of ultrasonograpy and MRA for detecting partial-thickness tears was 45.1 and 88.2 %, and that for full-thickness tears was 82.4 and 98 %, respectively. Tear size measured based on ultrasonography examination showed a poor correlation with the size measured at arthroscopic surgery (r = 0.21; p < 0.05). However, tear size estimated by MRA showed a strong correlation (r = 0.75; p < 0.05). The kappa coefficient was 0.47 between the two independent examiners. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of office-based ultrasonography for beginner orthopaedic surgeons to detect full-thickness rotator cuff tears was comparable to that of MRA but was less accurate for detecting partial-thickness tears and torn size measurement. Inter-observer agreement on the interpretation was fair. These results highlight the importance of the correct technique and experience in operation of ultrasonography in shoulder joint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level II.
Authors: Bruce S Miller; Brian K Downie; Robert B Kohen; Theresa Kijek; Bryson Lesniak; Jon A Jacobson; Richard E Hughes; James E Carpenter Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Carlton G Houtz; Randy Steven Schwartzberg; Jason A Barry; Bryan L Reuss; Linda Papa Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-03-26 Impact factor: 3.019
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
Authors: Maristella F Saccomanno; Gianpiero Cazzato; Mario Fodale; Giuseppe Sircana; Giuseppe Milano Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-01-04 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Ali S Farooqi; Alexander Lee; David Novikov; Ann Marie Kelly; Xinning Li; John D Kelly; Robert L Parisien Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-10-11