Volume 25, Issue 11 (2-2019)
RJMS 2019, 25(11): 13-22 |
Back to browse issues page
Haleh Dadgostar 
, Farinaz Fahimi Pour , Alireza Pahlevan Sabagh , Navid Moghadam , Shafieh Movasseghi
, Farinaz Fahimi Pour , Alireza Pahlevan Sabagh , Navid Moghadam , Shafieh Movasseghi
Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , dadgostar.h@iums.ac.ir
Abstract: (5512 Views)
Background: Partial tear of supraspinatus tendon is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain. Following history and clinical examination, MRI is the standard diagnostic method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the clinical tests and quality of function of shoulder and comparison of the thickness of the supraspinatus tendon measured on ultrasound with the results of MRI performed among patients with partial tear of supraspinatus tendon.
Methods: 58 patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy criteria (from 2013 to 2016) entered the study. The clinical examination (Jobe, Hawkins, Neer, O'Brien، Lift Off, Belly Press), quality of function (by DASH and WORC questionnaire), ultrasound (to evaluate supraspinatus tendon thickness), and MRI were performed and data were analyzed with SPSS version 23 for association.
Results: In our study, 58 patients were evaluated (81% female, 55.53 years mean age). The result of KS test was not significant (p=0.200). The clinical examination and quality of function and thickness of supraspinatus tendon were not related (p>0.05). Although higher average thickness of supraspinatus tendon in case of partial tear was observed on MRI, there was no significant difference (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Considering the findings, in cases of partial tear of supraspinatus muscle tendon, in addition to clinical tests and functional quality evaluation, paraclinical tests such as MRI and ultrasound are necessary to confirm the diagnosis.
Methods: 58 patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy criteria (from 2013 to 2016) entered the study. The clinical examination (Jobe, Hawkins, Neer, O'Brien، Lift Off, Belly Press), quality of function (by DASH and WORC questionnaire), ultrasound (to evaluate supraspinatus tendon thickness), and MRI were performed and data were analyzed with SPSS version 23 for association.
Results: In our study, 58 patients were evaluated (81% female, 55.53 years mean age). The result of KS test was not significant (p=0.200). The clinical examination and quality of function and thickness of supraspinatus tendon were not related (p>0.05). Although higher average thickness of supraspinatus tendon in case of partial tear was observed on MRI, there was no significant difference (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Considering the findings, in cases of partial tear of supraspinatus muscle tendon, in addition to clinical tests and functional quality evaluation, paraclinical tests such as MRI and ultrasound are necessary to confirm the diagnosis.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Sports Medicine
References
1. 1. Urwin M, Symmons D, Allison T, Brammah T, Busby H, Roxby M, et al. Estimating the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in the community: the comparative prevalence of symptoms at different anatomical sites, and the relation to social deprivation. Ann Rheumatic Dis; 1998. 57(11):649-55.
2. 2. Kumagai J, Sarkar K, Uhthoff HK. The collagen types in the attachment zone of rotator cuff tendons in the elderly: an immunohistochemical study. J Rheumatol; 1994. 21(11):2096-100.
3. 3. Woo S. Anatomy, biology, and biomechanics of tendon and ligament. Orthopaed Basic Sci: Biol Blamech Musculoskele Syst; 2000:582-616.
4. 4. Levy O, Relwani J, Zaman T, Even T, Venkateswaran B, Copeland S. Measurement of blood flow in the rotator cuff using laser Doppler flowmetry. Bone Joint J; 2008. 90(7):893-8.
5. 5. Rathbun JB, Macnab I. The microvascular pattern of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Br; 1970. 52(3):540-53.
6. 6. Goodmurphy CW, Osborn J, Akesson EJ, Johnson S, Stanescu V, Regan WD. An immunocytochemical analysis of torn rotator cuff tendon taken at the time of repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2003.12(4):368-74.
7. 7. Abate M, Silbernagel KG, Siljeholm C, Di Iorio A, De Amicis D, Salini V, et al. Pathogenesis of tendinopathies: Inflammation Or Degeneration? Arthrit res ther; 2009. 11(3):235.
8. 8. Ardic F, Kahraman Y, Kacar M, Kahraman MC, Findikoglu G, Yorgancioglu ZR. Shoulder impingement syndrome: Relationships between
9. clinical, functional, and radiologic findings. American J Physic Med Rehabil; 2006. 85(1):53-60.
10. 9. Swen WA, Jacobs JW, Algra PR, Manoliu RA, Rijkmans J, Willems WJ, et al. Sonography and magnetic resonance imaging equivalent for the assessment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Arthrit Rheum; 1999. 42(10):2231-8.
11. 10. Teefey SA, Rubin DA, Middleton WD, Hildebolt CF, Leibold RA, Yamaguchi K. Detection and quantification of rotator cuff tears: comparison of ultrasonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopic findings in seventy-one consecutive cases. JBJS; 2004. 86(4):708-16.
12. 11. Strobel K, Zanetti M, Nagy L, Hodler J. Suspected rotator cuff lesions: tissue harmonic imaging versus conventional US of the shoulder. Radiology; 2004. 230(1):243-9.
13. 12. Kluger R, Mayrhofer R, Kröner A, Pabinger C, Pärtan G, Hruby W, et al. Sonographic versus magnetic resonance arthrographic evaluation of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in millimeters. J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2003. 12(2):110-6.
14. 13. Nelson MC, Leather GP, Nirschl RP, Pettrone FA, Freedman MT. Evaluation of the painful shoulder. A prospective comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomographic arthrography, ultrasonography, and operative findings. J bone joint surg Am; 1991. 73(5):707-16.
15. 14. Martin-Hervas C, Romero J, Navas-Acien A, Reboiras JJ, Munuera L. Ultrasonographic and magnetic resonance images of rotator cuff lesions compared with arthroscopy or open surgery findings. J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2001. 10(5):410-5.
16. 15. Burk DL Jr, Karasick D, Kurtz AB, Mitchell DG, Rifkin MD, Miller CL, et al. Rotator cuff tears: prospective comparison of MR imaging with arthrography, sonography, and surgery. Am J Roentgenol; 1989. 153(1):87-92.
17. 16. Chang CY, Wang SF, Chiou HJ, Ma HL, Sun YC, Wu HD, Comparison of shoulder ultrasound and MR imaging in diagnosing full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Clin Imag; 2002 Jan-Feb. 26(1):50-4.
18. 17. Naqvi GA, Jadaan M, Harrington P. Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for detection of full thickness rotator cuff tears. Int J Shoulder Surg; 2009. 3:94.
19. 18.Vlychou M, Dailiana Z, Fotiadou A, Papanagiotou M, Fezoulidis IV, Malizos K. Symptomatic partial rotator cuff tears: diagnostic performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging with surgical correlation. Acta Radiol; 2009 Jan. 50(1):101-5..
20. 19. Negahban H, Behtash Z, Sohani SM, Salehi R. Responsiveness of two Persian-versions of shoulder outcome measures following physiotherapy intervention in patients with shoulder disorders. Disabil rehabil; 2015. 37(24):2300-4.
21. 20. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad A, Golhasani F, Moradi A, Vahedi E, Kachooei AR. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability testing of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index in the Persian population with shoulder problems. Int J Rehabil Res; 2015. 38(1):84-7.
22. 21. Cadogan A, McNair P, Laslett M, Hing W, Taylor S. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination features for identifying large rotator cuff tears in primary health care. J Manu Manipul Ther; 2013. 21(3):148-59.
23. 22. van Kampen DA, van den Berg T, van der Woude HJ, Castelein RM, Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, et al. The diagnostic value of the combination of patient characteristics, history, and clinical shoulder tests for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tear. J Orthopaed Surg Res; 2014. 9:70.
24. 23. Sgroi M, Loitsch T, Reichel H, Kappe T. Diagnostic value of clinical tests for supraspinatus tendon tears. Arthroscopy; 2018 May 22. 8063(18):30275-5.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |