21 research outputs found

    Detection of partial-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears: is a single direct MR arthrography series in ABER position as accurate as conventional MR arthrography?

    Get PDF
    The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate sensitivity and specificity of a single magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography series in abduction external rotation (ABER) position compared with conventional MR arthrography for detection of supraspinatus tendon tears, with arthroscopy as gold standard, and to assess interobserver variability. Institutional review board approval was obtained; informed consent was waived. MR arthrograms of 250 patients (170 men and 80 women; mean age, 36 years) were retrospectively and independently evaluated by three observers. Oblique coronal T1-weighted fat-suppressed images, proton density, and T2-weighted images and axial T1-weighted images and oblique sagittal T1-weighted fat-suppressed images were analyzed to detect supraspinatus tendon tears. Separately, a single T1-weighted fat-suppressed oblique axial series in ABER position was evaluated. Both protocols were scored randomly without knowledge of patients' clinical history and arthroscopy results. Tears were subclassified, based on articular surface integrity and extension (Lee classification). Interobserver agreement was assessed by kappa statistics for all patients. Ninety-two of 250 patients underwent arthroscopy; sensitivity and specificity of ABER and conventional MR arthrography were calculated and compared using paired McNemar test. Weighted kappa values of ABER and conventional MR arthrography were 0.48-0.65 and 0.60-0.67, respectively. According to arthroscopy, 69 of 92 patients had an intact cuff, and 23 patients had a cuff tear (16 partial thickness and seven full thickness). There were no statistically significant differences between ABER and conventional MR arthrography regarding sensitivity (48-61% and 52-70%, respectively) and specificity (80-94% and 91-95%). Sensitivity and specificity of a single T1-weighted series in ABER position and conventional MR arthrography are comparable for assessment of rotator cuff tear

    Lumbar nerve root injections: a prospective cohort outcomes study comparing age- and gender-matched patients who returned an outcomes-based postal questionnaire with patients who did not return the postal questionnaire

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate if relying on postal questionnaires returned by patients provides an accurate representation of reported outcomes from patients receiving imaging-guided lumbar nerve root injections (NRIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received imaging-guided transforaminal lumbar NRIs were given short questionnaires inquiring about pain level [numerical rating scale (NRS)] and overall improvement [Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC)]. Those who did not return the questionnaires (non-responders) were telephoned and asked about pain level and overall change in condition. Age and gender matching of responders and non-responders resulted in 97 patients in each group. The proportion of patients reporting clinically relevant "improvement" or "worsening" in each group was calculated and the Chi-square test was used to detect differences. NRS and PGIC scores for responders and non-responders were compared using Student's t test and the Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. RESULTS: A higher proportion of non-responders reported clinically relevant improvement (53.6 %) compared to responders (42.6 %) and responders reported significantly higher levels of worsening of condition (p = 0.01). Both responders and non-responders had significant (p ≤ 0.05) improvement on the 20-30-min and 1-month NRS scores compared to their pre-injection baseline scores. Non-responders had significantly higher baseline NRS scores but no significant difference at the 20-30-min and 1-month NRS scores compared to responders. CONCLUSIONS: Patients returning postal questionnaires reported less favorable outcomes compared to those who did not return their questionnaires
    corecore