| Literature DB >> 33456114 |
Gordana Cesarec1, Sunčica Martinec1, Nikola Čičak1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine conventional ultrasonography characteristics of calcium deposits in patients diagnosed with calcific tendinopathy, to determine vascularization around deposits by power Doppler, and to compare morphological and power Doppler findings with clinical findings by use of two questionnaires. Pain and function were evaluated using the visual analog scale and two questionnaires, Constant Shoulder Score and Oxford Shoulder Score. All subjects underwent ultrasonography examination and evaluation of vascularization (flow) along calcium deposit using power Doppler. Fifty-one subjects were included in the study. The χ2-test, a non-parametric statistics method was used because of the categorical type of variables. The level of statistical significance was set at p<0.05. In the inactive phase, calcium deposit was shown as a hyperechoic focal point with dorsal acoustic shadow and negative power Doppler finding, whereas in the resorptive phase it appeared as fragmented irregular hyperechoic focal points with positive power Doppler findings. This study showed the patients with fragmented, cloudy calcification to have statistically significantly worse results on functional questionnaires and more positive power Doppler findings (grades II and III) and to experience stronger pain (visual analog scale 8-10). Upon defining the stage of calcific tendinopathy, the method of treatment can be determined and further course of the disease predicted. Defining the stage of calcification precisely helps avoid unnecessary and long-lasting physical therapy while introducing an effective treatment option, depending on the stage of the disease.Entities:
Keywords: Calcific tendinopathy; Morphology; Power Doppler; Shoulder; Ultrasonography
Year: 2020 PMID: 33456114 PMCID: PMC7808232 DOI: 10.20471/acc.2020.59.02.10
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Clin Croat ISSN: 0353-9466 Impact factor: 0.780
Semi quantification of power Doppler findings – visual analog scale (VAS)
| Grade | VAS | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mild pain | Moderate pain | Severe pain | ||||
| Power Doppler signal | 0 | n | 1 | 20 | 5 | 26 |
| % | 3.8% | 76.9% | 19.2% | 100.0% | ||
| I | n | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
| % | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | ||
| II | n | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | |
| % | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| III | n | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | |
| % | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Total | N | n | 23 | 23 | 47 | |
| % | % | 48.9% | 48.9% | 100.0% | ||
χ2=31.124; df=6; p<0.001
Visual analog scale (VAS) according to calcified deposit ultrasonography (US) morphology
| VAS | US morphology | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arch-shaped | Fragmented | Nodular | Total | |||
| Mild pain | n | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | |
| % | 66.7% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 100.0% | ||
| Moderate pain | n | 13 | 1 | 7 | 21 | |
| % | 61.9% | 4.8% | 33.3% | 100.0% | ||
| Severe pain | n | 0 | 18 | 5 | 23 | |
| % | 0.0% | 78.3% | 21.7% | 100.0% | ||
| Total | N | 15 | 19 | 13 | 47 | |
| % | 31.9% | 40.4% | 27.7% | 100.0% | ||
χ2=30.929; df=4; p<0.001
Visual analog scale (VAS) according to calcified deposit x-ray size
| VAS | X-ray size | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| >1 | ≤0.5 cm | 0.5-1.5 cm | >1.5 cm | ||||
| Mild pain | n | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| % | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 50.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Moderate pain | n | 1 | 2 | 12 | 8 | 23 | |
| % | 4.3% | 8.7% | 52.2% | 34.8% | 100.0% | ||
| Severe pain | n | 0 | 2 | 12 | 11 | 25 | |
| % | 0.0% | 8.0% | 48.0% | 44.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Total | N | 1 | 4 | 25 | 20 | 50 | |
| % | 2.0% | 8.0% | 50.0% | 40.0% | 100.0% | ||
χ2=1.696; df=6; p=0.945
Oxford Shoulder Score according to calcified deposit ultrasonography (US) morphology
| US morphology | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arch-shaped | Fragmented (clouded) | Nodular | Total | |||
| Oxford Shoulder Score – categorized according to results | 0-19 | n | 2 | 17 | 3 | 22 |
| % | 9.1% | 77.3% | 13.6% | 100.0% | ||
| 20-29 | n | 5 | 2 | 3 | 10 | |
| % | 50.0% | 20.0% | 30.0% | 100.0% | ||
| 30-39 | n | 6 | 0 | 6 | 12 | |
| % | 50.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 100.0% | ||
| 40-48 | n | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | |
| % | 66.7% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 100.0% | ||
| Total | N | 15 | 19 | 13 | 47 | |
| % | 31.9% | 40.4% | 27.7% | 100.0% | ||
χ2=25.250; df=6; p<0.001
Constant Shoulder Score according to calcified deposit ultrasonography (US) morphology
| US morphology | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arch- shaped | Fragmented (clouded) | Nodular | Total | |||
| Constant Shoulder Score – difference | Excellent | n | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| % | 75.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Good | n | 9 | 0 | 5 | 14 | |
| % | 64.3% | 0.0% | 35.7% | 100.0% | ||
| Fair | n | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| % | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Poor | n | 0 | 19 | 7 | 26 | |
| % | 0.0% | 73.1% | 26.9% | 100.0% | ||
| Total | N | 15 | 19 | 13 | 47 | |
| % | 31.9% | 40.4% | 27.7% | 100.0% | ||
χ2=36.098; df=6; p<0.001