Gokhan Soker1, Bozkurt Gulek2, Eda Soker3, Omer Kaya2, Ibrahim Inan4, Muhammet Arslan2, Kaan Esen5, Derya Memis3, Cengiz Yilmaz2. 1. Department of Radiology, SBU Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ege Bagatur Bulvarı Serinevler Yüreğir, 01240, Adana, Turkey. gsoker@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, SBU Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ege Bagatur Bulvarı Serinevler Yüreğir, 01240, Adana, Turkey. 3. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, SBU Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey. 4. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey. 5. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to establish a quantitative threshold value in the diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome by measuring the thickness of the subacromial bursa during abduction and adduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients with subacromial impingement syndrome and 54 healthy individuals underwent dynamic shoulder ultrasonography. The subacromial bursa, between the supraspinatus tendon margin and peribursal adipose tissue, was measured between the acromion and humeral head at its widest part. The subacromial impingement ratio was calculated by dividing the subacromial bursa thickness during abduction to the subacromial bursa thickness during adduction. Shapiro-Wilk test was used in the assessment of normal distribution of parameters. RESULTS: The mean subacromial bursa thickness in the abduction position was 1.8 ± 1.1 mm in the study group and 0.9 ± 0.3 mm in the control group. The mean subacromial bursa thickness in the adduction position was 0.9 ± 0.5 mm in the study group and 0.8 ± 0.3 mm in the control group. The subacromial impingement ratio showed a statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.0001), and the ratio being 2.0 ± 0.5 in the study group and 1.2 ± 0.1 in the control group. For measurements performed in the abduction position, the best cut-off value was calculated as 1.3 mm, and sensitivity and specificity were 70.6 and 85.2%, respectively. The best cut-off value was 1.4 for the subacromial impingement ratio, and sensitivity and specificity were 88.2 and 96.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Subacromial impingement ratio is a very practical and reliable method in subacromial impingement syndrome diagnosis.
PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to establish a quantitative threshold value in the diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome by measuring the thickness of the subacromial bursa during abduction and adduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients with subacromial impingement syndrome and 54 healthy individuals underwent dynamic shoulder ultrasonography. The subacromial bursa, between the supraspinatus tendon margin and peribursal adipose tissue, was measured between the acromion and humeral head at its widest part. The subacromial impingement ratio was calculated by dividing the subacromial bursa thickness during abduction to the subacromial bursa thickness during adduction. Shapiro-Wilk test was used in the assessment of normal distribution of parameters. RESULTS: The mean subacromial bursa thickness in the abduction position was 1.8 ± 1.1 mm in the study group and 0.9 ± 0.3 mm in the control group. The mean subacromial bursa thickness in the adduction position was 0.9 ± 0.5 mm in the study group and 0.8 ± 0.3 mm in the control group. The subacromial impingement ratio showed a statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.0001), and the ratio being 2.0 ± 0.5 in the study group and 1.2 ± 0.1 in the control group. For measurements performed in the abduction position, the best cut-off value was calculated as 1.3 mm, and sensitivity and specificity were 70.6 and 85.2%, respectively. The best cut-off value was 1.4 for the subacromial impingement ratio, and sensitivity and specificity were 88.2 and 96.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Subacromial impingement ratio is a very practical and reliable method in subacromial impingement syndrome diagnosis.
Authors: Ramon P G Ottenheijm; Jochen W L Cals; René Weijers; Kurt Vanderdood; Rob A de Bie; Geert-Jan Dinant Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: H Guerini; E Pluot; E Pessis; F Thevenin; R Campagna; A Feydy; P Gaudin; J L Drapé Journal: Diagn Interv Imaging Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 4.026
Authors: Hans-Erik Henkus; Lodewijck P J Cobben; Emile G Coerkamp; Rob G H H Nelissen; Ewoud R A van Arkel Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.772