18 research outputs found

    Ultrasound Evaluation of Fluid in Knee Recesses at Varying Degrees of Flexion

    Get PDF
    Objective. Various methods are utilized in daily practice to obtain optimal information on effusion in the knee. Our aim is to investigate which scanning position provides the best information about synovial fluid in the knee by using ultrasound and to evaluate the magnitude of difference for measuring synovial fluid in 3 major recesses (suprapatellar, medial parapatellar, and lateral parapatellar) of the knee according to various degrees of flexion. Methods. Sonographers in 14 European centers documented bilateral knee joint ultrasound examinations on a total of 148 knee joints. The largest sagittal diameter of fluid was measured in scans corresponding to the 3 major recesses at different (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°) degrees of flexion of the knee. The difference of measurement of effusion according to transducer position, knee position, and the interaction between them was investigated by analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s test. Results. No correlation was noted between patient characteristics and ultrasound detection of effusion. The sagittal diameter of synovial fluid in all 3 recesses was greatest at 30° flexion. Analysis of variance and Tukey’s test revealed that the suprapatellar scan and 30° flexion is the best combination for detecting effusion as confirmed by receiver operator characteristic curve analysis. Conclusion. The suprapatellar scan of the knee in 30° flexion was the most sensitive position to detect fluid in knee joints. Sagittal diameter of fluid in all 3 recesses increased with the knee in the 30° flexed position as compared to the extended position

    EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging of the joints in the clinical management of rheumatoid arthritis

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of imaging of the joints in the clinical management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).METHODS: The task force comprised an expert group of rheumatologists, radiologists, methodologists and experienced rheumatology practitioners from 13 countries. Thirteen key questions on the role of imaging in RA were generated using a process of discussion and consensus. Imaging modalities included were conventional radiography, ultrasound, MRI, CT, dual-emission x-ray absorptiometry, digital x-ray radiogrammetry, scintigraphy and positron emission tomography. Research evidence was searched systematically for each question using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. The experts used the evidence obtained from the relevant studies to develop a set of 10 recommendations. The strength of recommendation was assessed using a visual analogue scale.RESULTS: A total of 6888 references was identified from the search process, from which 199 studies were included in the systematic review. Ten recommendations were produced encompassing the role of imaging in making a diagnosis of RA, detecting inflammation and damage, predicting outcome and response to treatment, monitoring disease activity, progression and remission. The strength of recommendation for each proposition varied according to both the research evidence and expert opinion.CONCLUSIONS: Ten key recommendations for the role of imaging in the management of RA were developed using research-based evidence and expert opinion

    Reliability of ultrasonography in detecting shoulder disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

    No full text
    Objective: To assess the intra and interobserver reproducibility of musculoskeletal ultrasonography ( US) among rheumatologists in detecting destructive and inflammatory shoulder abnormalities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis ( RA) and to determine the overall agreement between US and MRI. Methods: A total of 14 observers examined 5 patients in 2 rounds independently and blindly of each other. US results were compared with MRI. Overall agreement of all findings, of positive findings on MRI, as well as intra and interobserver reliabilities, were calculated. Results: Overall agreement between US and MRI was seen in 79% with regard to humeral head erosions (HHE), in 64% with regard to posterior recess synovitis (PRS), in 31% with regard to axillary recess synovitis (ARS), in 64% with regard to bursitis, in 50% with regard to biceps tenosynovitis (BT), and in 84% for complete cuff tear (CCT). Intraobserver and interobserver kappa was 0.69 and 0.43 for HHE, 0.29 and 0.49 for PRS, 0.57 and 1.00 for ARS, -0.17 and 0.51 for bursitis, 0.17 and 0.46 for BT and 0.52 and 0.6 for CCT, respectively. The intraobserver and interobserver k for power Doppler (PD) was 0.90 and 0.70 for glenohumeral signals and 0.60 and 0.51 for bursal signals, respectively. Conclusions: US is a reliable imaging technique for most shoulder pathology in RA especially with regard to PD. Standardisation of scanning technique and definitions of particular lesions may further enhance the reliability of US investigation of the shoulder
    corecore