Olivier Courage1, Floris van Rooij2, Mo Saffarini3. 1. Ramsay Santé, Hopital Prive del'Estuaire, LeHavre, France. 2. ReSurg SA, Rue Saint Jean 22, 1260, Nyon, Switzerland. Journals@resurg.com. 3. ReSurg SA, Rue Saint Jean 22, 1260, Nyon, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To synthesize the literature and critically appraise current evidence to determine the most accurate physical examination (clinical test or ultrasound) to detect pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). METHODS: A search was performed on PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane. Studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests or ultrasound versus arthroscopy for the assessment of LHBT pathologies were included. RESULTS: Seven studies were included reporting on a total of 448 patients. One study on instability using ultrasound reported sensitivity and specificity of 1.00 and 0.96, respectively. Two studies on full-thickness tears using ultrasound reported sensitivity and specificity of 0.88-0.95 and 0.71-0.98, respectively. Four studies on partial-thickness LHBT tears reported sensitivity and specificity of 0.17-0.68 and 0.38-0.92, respectively, for clinical tests, versus 0.27-0.71 and 0.71-1.00, respectively, for ultrasound. Three studies on other LHBT pathologies reported sensitivity and specificity of 0.18-0.79 and 0.53-0.85, respectively, for clinical tests, versus 0.50 and 1.00, respectively, for ultrasound. CONCLUSION: To detect LHBT pathologies, sensitivity is high-to-excellent using ultrasound, and moderate using Neer's sign and Speed's test, while specificity is high-to-excellent also using ultrasound, as well as the belly press, lift-off and Kibler's tests. The clinical relevance of these findings is that clinical tests are only reliable either to confirm or rule out LHBT pathologies, whereas ultrasound is reliable both to confirm and rule out LHBT pathologies. While diagnostic imaging cannot substitute for patient history and physical examination, the reliability and accessibility of ultrasound render it practical for routine use, particularly if clinical tests render unclear or contradictory findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
PURPOSE: To synthesize the literature and critically appraise current evidence to determine the most accurate physical examination (clinical test or ultrasound) to detect pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). METHODS: A search was performed on PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane. Studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests or ultrasound versus arthroscopy for the assessment of LHBT pathologies were included. RESULTS: Seven studies were included reporting on a total of 448 patients. One study on instability using ultrasound reported sensitivity and specificity of 1.00 and 0.96, respectively. Two studies on full-thickness tears using ultrasound reported sensitivity and specificity of 0.88-0.95 and 0.71-0.98, respectively. Four studies on partial-thickness LHBT tears reported sensitivity and specificity of 0.17-0.68 and 0.38-0.92, respectively, for clinical tests, versus 0.27-0.71 and 0.71-1.00, respectively, for ultrasound. Three studies on other LHBT pathologies reported sensitivity and specificity of 0.18-0.79 and 0.53-0.85, respectively, for clinical tests, versus 0.50 and 1.00, respectively, for ultrasound. CONCLUSION: To detect LHBT pathologies, sensitivity is high-to-excellent using ultrasound, and moderate using Neer's sign and Speed's test, while specificity is high-to-excellent also using ultrasound, as well as the belly press, lift-off and Kibler's tests. The clinical relevance of these findings is that clinical tests are only reliable either to confirm or rule out LHBT pathologies, whereas ultrasound is reliable both to confirm and rule out LHBT pathologies. While diagnostic imaging cannot substitute for patient history and physical examination, the reliability and accessibility of ultrasound render it practical for routine use, particularly if clinical tests render unclear or contradictory findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Authors: Kalliopi Alpantaki; David McLaughlin; Domna Karagogeos; Alexander Hadjipavlou; George Kontakis Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: April Armstrong; Sharlene A Teefey; Thomas Wu; Aileen M Clark; William D Middleton; Ken Yamaguchi; Leesa M Galatz Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Eduardo Baptista; Eduardo A Malavolta; Mauro E C Gracitelli; Daniel Alvarenga; Marcelo Bordalo-Rodrigues; Arnaldo A Ferreira Neto; Nestor de Barros Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Figen Ardic; Yasar Kahraman; Mahmut Kacar; Mehmet Cemal Kahraman; Gulin Findikoglu; Z Rezan Yorgancioglu Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Paolo Arrigoni; Vincenza Ragone; Riccardo D'Ambrosi; Patrick Denard; Filippo Randelli; Giuseppe Banfi; Paolo Cabitza; Pietro Randelli Journal: Joints Date: 2014-07-08
Authors: G A W Bruyn; E Naredo; I Möller; C Moragues; J Garrido; G H de Bock; M-A d'Agostino; E Filippucci; A Iagnocco; M Backhaus; W A A Swen; P Balint; C Pineda; S Milutinovic; D Kane; G Kaeley; F J Narvaez; R J Wakefield; J A Narvaez; J de Augustin; W A Schmidt Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 19.103