Iannotti Joseph P, Ciccone James, Buss Daniel D, Visotsky Jeffrey L, Mascha Edward, Cotman Kathy, Rawool Nandkumar M
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jun;87(6):1305-11. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02100.
This prospective multi-institutional study was designed to define the accuracy of ultrasonography, when performed in an orthopaedic surgeon's office, for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears.
An anatomic diagnosis and a treatment plan were made on the basis of office-based shoulder ultrasonography, physical examination, and radiographs for ninety-eight patients (ninety-nine shoulders) with a clinical diagnosis of a rotator-cuff-related problem. The results of the ultrasonographic studies were then compared with the results of magnetic resonance imaging and the operative findings.
Office-based ultrasonography led to the correct diagnosis for thirty-seven (88%) of forty-two shoulders with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear or both full and partial-thickness tears, twenty-six (70%) of thirty-seven shoulders with a partial-thickness rotator cuff tear only, and sixteen (80%) of twenty shoulders with normal tendons. In no case was the surgical approach (open or arthroscopic) that had been planned on the basis of the ultrasonography altered by the operative findings, but the operative finding of a full-thickness tear resulted in an arthroscopic cuff repair in four shoulders. Magnetic resonance imaging led to the correct diagnosis for forty (95%) of forty-two shoulders with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear or both full and partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, twenty-seven (73%) of thirty-seven shoulders with only a partial-thickness tear, and fifteen (75%) of twenty shoulders with normal tendons. There were no significant differences between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography with regard to the correct identification of a full-thickness tear or its size. The sensitivity of ultrasonography for detecting tear size in the anterior-posterior dimension was 86% (95% confidence interval, 71% to 95%), and that of magnetic resonance imaging was 93% (95% confidence interval, 81% to 99%) (p = 0.26). The sensitivity of ultrasonography for detecting tear size in the medial-lateral dimension was 83% (95% confidence interval, 69% to 93%), and that of magnetic resonance imaging was 88% (95% confidence interval, 74% to 96%) (p = 0.41).
A well-trained office staff and an experienced orthopaedic surgeon can effectively utilize ultrasonography, in conjunction with clinical examination and a review of shoulder radiographs, to accurately diagnose the extent of rotator cuff tears in patients suspected of having such tears. Errors in diagnosis made on the basis of ultrasonography most often consist of an inability to distinguish between partial and full-thickness tears that are approximately 1 cm in size. In this study, such errors did not significantly affect the planned surgical approach.
本前瞻性多机构研究旨在确定在骨科医生办公室进行超声检查诊断肩袖撕裂的准确性。
基于办公室超声检查、体格检查和X线片,对98例(99个肩部)临床诊断为肩袖相关问题的患者制定解剖诊断和治疗计划。然后将超声检查结果与磁共振成像结果及手术发现进行比较。
对于42个存在全层肩袖撕裂或全层与部分层撕裂的肩部,办公室超声检查正确诊断出37个(88%);对于37个仅存在部分层肩袖撕裂的肩部,正确诊断出26个(70%);对于20个肌腱正常的肩部,正确诊断出16个(80%)。在任何情况下,基于超声检查所计划的手术入路(开放或关节镜)均未因手术发现而改变,但手术发现全层撕裂导致4个肩部进行了关节镜下肩袖修复。对于42个存在全层肩袖撕裂或全层与部分层肩袖撕裂的肩部,磁共振成像正确诊断出40个(95%);对于37个仅存在部分层撕裂的肩部,正确诊断出27个(73%);对于20个肌腱正常的肩部,正确诊断出15个(75%)。在全层撕裂的正确识别及其大小方面,磁共振成像和超声检查之间无显著差异。超声检查检测前后径撕裂大小的敏感性为86%(95%置信区间,71%至95%),磁共振成像为93%(95%置信区间,81%至99%)(p = 0.26)。超声检查检测内外径撕裂大小的敏感性为83%(95%置信区间,69%至93%),磁共振成像为88%(95%置信区间,74%至96%)(p = 0.41)。
训练有素的办公室工作人员和经验丰富的骨科医生可以有效地将超声检查与临床检查及肩部X线片复查相结合,准确诊断疑似肩袖撕裂患者的肩袖撕裂程度。基于超声检查做出的诊断错误最常见的是无法区分大小约为1 cm的部分层和全层撕裂。在本研究中,此类错误并未显著影响所计划的手术入路。