Musculoskeletal science & practice · 2019
Identification and differentiation of gluteus medius tendon pathology using ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Docking Sean Iain, Cook Jill, Chen Stephanie, Scarvell Jennie, Cormick Wes, Smith Paul, Fearon Angela
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that imaging findings play a role in directing treatment for Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome. Structural diagnoses associated with Greater Trochanter Pain Syndrome include gluteal tendinosis, and partial- or full-thickness gluteal tendon tears. However, few studies have compared imaging to confirmed tendon pathology observed during surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability of magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging to identify the presence of a pathological gluteus medius tendon in comparison to surgical and histological findings.
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: 26 participants undergoing gluteal tendon reconstruction surgery or hip arthroplasty were included. Prior to surgery, participants underwent both magnetic resonance (MR) (n = 23) and ultrasound (US) (n = 25) imaging. A radiologist (MR) and nuclear physicians (US) classified the gluteus medius tendon as normal, tendinosis (no tear), partial-thickness tear, or full-thickness tear.
RESULTS: Ultrasound identified 17 out of the 19 pathological gluteus medius tendons correctly. However, 5 of the 6 normal tendons were incorrectly identified as exhibiting pathology on ultrasound. Magnetic resonance rated 11 out of 17 pathological tendons as abnormal, with 4 out of 6 normal tendons identified correctly. Both imaging modalities were poor at identifying and differentiating between tendinosis and partial-thickness tears.
CONCLUSION: Both imaging modalities showed a reasonable ability to identify tendon pathology. While limited by sample size, these early findings suggest that both imaging modalities may be limited in identifying specific pathoanatomical diagnoses, such as partial-thickness tears. These limitations may misdirect treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability of magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging to identify the presence of a pathological gluteus medius tendon in comparison to surgical and histological findings.
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: 26 participants undergoing gluteal tendon reconstruction surgery or hip arthroplasty were included. Prior to surgery, participants underwent both magnetic resonance (MR) (n = 23) and ultrasound (US) (n = 25) imaging. A radiologist (MR) and nuclear physicians (US) classified the gluteus medius tendon as normal, tendinosis (no tear), partial-thickness tear, or full-thickness tear.
RESULTS: Ultrasound identified 17 out of the 19 pathological gluteus medius tendons correctly. However, 5 of the 6 normal tendons were incorrectly identified as exhibiting pathology on ultrasound. Magnetic resonance rated 11 out of 17 pathological tendons as abnormal, with 4 out of 6 normal tendons identified correctly. Both imaging modalities were poor at identifying and differentiating between tendinosis and partial-thickness tears.
CONCLUSION: Both imaging modalities showed a reasonable ability to identify tendon pathology. While limited by sample size, these early findings suggest that both imaging modalities may be limited in identifying specific pathoanatomical diagnoses, such as partial-thickness tears. These limitations may misdirect treatment.