Sparsh Varma, Praveen K Sharma, Afwaan Faizal, Ajay Lucas
{"title":"Exploring shoulder joint pain: a comparative analysis of dynamic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging","authors":"Sparsh Varma, Praveen K Sharma, Afwaan Faizal, Ajay Lucas","doi":"10.17816/vto626367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: To evaluate shoulder joint pain, the study concentrated on evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. \nAIM: By comparing the results from both modalities within the same patient group, the study aimed to identify potential challenges in image interpretation, underscoring the limitations of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. \nMATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with shoulder joint pain were included through purposive sampling. These patients underwent ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging, and the results were correlated. Various shoulder pathologies, including tendon tears, bursitis, degenerative changes, calcifications, and impingement, were analyzed. \nRESULTS: The study comprised 35 patients who underwent ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging detecting pathologies such as subscapularis and supraspinatus tendon injuries, partial and full-thickness tears, peribicipital tendon fluid, subcoracoid and subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis, acromioclavicular joint degeneration, tendon calcification, and impingement. Comparative analysis showed varying sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and accuracy for different pathologies. \nCONCLUSION: Compared with ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated greater sensitivity and specificity in identifying conditions causing shoulder pain. Ultrasonography’s affordability, real-time capabilities, and ability to compare results with the unaffected side make it a useful first diagnostic step for shoulder pain. Ultrasonography, although a quick and cost-effective initial diagnostic tool, has limitations, including operator dependence and lower sensitivity in certain conditions. In contrast, magnetic resonance imaging is employed as a confirming measure or in instances where diagnosis is challenging. The study emphasized the complementary roles of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of shoulder joint pain, with magnetic resonance imaging as the more accurate and complete imaging modality.","PeriodicalId":308632,"journal":{"name":"N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics","volume":"36 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17816/vto626367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate shoulder joint pain, the study concentrated on evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.
AIM: By comparing the results from both modalities within the same patient group, the study aimed to identify potential challenges in image interpretation, underscoring the limitations of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with shoulder joint pain were included through purposive sampling. These patients underwent ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging, and the results were correlated. Various shoulder pathologies, including tendon tears, bursitis, degenerative changes, calcifications, and impingement, were analyzed.
RESULTS: The study comprised 35 patients who underwent ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging detecting pathologies such as subscapularis and supraspinatus tendon injuries, partial and full-thickness tears, peribicipital tendon fluid, subcoracoid and subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis, acromioclavicular joint degeneration, tendon calcification, and impingement. Comparative analysis showed varying sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and accuracy for different pathologies.
CONCLUSION: Compared with ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated greater sensitivity and specificity in identifying conditions causing shoulder pain. Ultrasonography’s affordability, real-time capabilities, and ability to compare results with the unaffected side make it a useful first diagnostic step for shoulder pain. Ultrasonography, although a quick and cost-effective initial diagnostic tool, has limitations, including operator dependence and lower sensitivity in certain conditions. In contrast, magnetic resonance imaging is employed as a confirming measure or in instances where diagnosis is challenging. The study emphasized the complementary roles of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of shoulder joint pain, with magnetic resonance imaging as the more accurate and complete imaging modality.