Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2019
The Effectiveness of Using the Critical Shoulder Angle and Acromion Index for Predicting Rotator Cuff Tears: Accurate Diagnosis Based on Standard and Nonstandard Anteroposterior Radiographs.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tang Yiyong, Hou Jingyi, Li Qingyue, Li Fangqi, Zhang Congda, Li Weiping, Yang Rui
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To explore whether the critical shoulder angle (CSA) and acromion index (AI) on nonstandard anteroposterior (AP) radiographs could be used as parameters for rotator cuff tear (RCT) diagnosis and to determine the optimized parameters.
METHODS: This study included 174 patients with RCTs or intact rotator cuffs in whom AP radiographs were obtained at our hospital. The radiographs were assessed by 2 independent radiologists and were grouped according to the Suter-Henninger criteria. The CSA and AI were measured on all films. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) to compare the sensitivity and accuracy of both parameters.
RESULTS: Of the 174 enrolled patients, only 47 (27%) met the requirements for standard AP films (types A1 and C1). On standard AP films, both the CSA and AI were significantly different between the RCT and control groups (P < .001 for CSA and P < .001 for AI), with AUCs of 0.86 and 0.80 for the CSA and AI, respectively. On nonstandard AP films (other radiograph types), the mean CSA value was not significantly different between the RCT and control groups (P = .536) whereas the AI showed a significant difference (P = .024). The AUCs were 0.57 for the CSA and 0.64 for the AI.
CONCLUSIONS: On standard AP films, both the CSA and AI could predict rotator cuff disorders, and the CSA had a higher diagnostic accuracy than the AI. In contrast, on nonstandard AP films, the diagnostic efficacy of the AI was better than that of the CSA. On the basis of this study, we suggest an evaluation of the AP films of patients before diagnosis to confirm whether the AP films meet the criteria for standard AP films.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, diagnostic study.
METHODS: This study included 174 patients with RCTs or intact rotator cuffs in whom AP radiographs were obtained at our hospital. The radiographs were assessed by 2 independent radiologists and were grouped according to the Suter-Henninger criteria. The CSA and AI were measured on all films. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) to compare the sensitivity and accuracy of both parameters.
RESULTS: Of the 174 enrolled patients, only 47 (27%) met the requirements for standard AP films (types A1 and C1). On standard AP films, both the CSA and AI were significantly different between the RCT and control groups (P < .001 for CSA and P < .001 for AI), with AUCs of 0.86 and 0.80 for the CSA and AI, respectively. On nonstandard AP films (other radiograph types), the mean CSA value was not significantly different between the RCT and control groups (P = .536) whereas the AI showed a significant difference (P = .024). The AUCs were 0.57 for the CSA and 0.64 for the AI.
CONCLUSIONS: On standard AP films, both the CSA and AI could predict rotator cuff disorders, and the CSA had a higher diagnostic accuracy than the AI. In contrast, on nonstandard AP films, the diagnostic efficacy of the AI was better than that of the CSA. On the basis of this study, we suggest an evaluation of the AP films of patients before diagnosis to confirm whether the AP films meet the criteria for standard AP films.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, diagnostic study.