4.7 Article

An Objective Measure of Patellar Tendon Thickness Based on Ultrasonography and MRI in University Athletes

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 18, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10184092

Keywords

patellar tendinopathy; patellar tendon thickness; ultrasonography; MRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate an objective measure of patellar tendon thickness and found that defining thickening of the patellar tendon as greater than 7.0 mm on both ultrasonography and MRI can serve as an accurate predictor of clinical patellar tendinopathy.
Ultrasonography and MRI are used for imaging evaluation of patellar tendinopathy, and thickening of the tendon is known as one of the characteristic findings. However, there are no evidence-based quantitative criteria to help evaluate this phenomenon. The purpose of this study was to investigate an objective measure of patellar tendon thickness. Patellar tendon thickness was evaluated in 65 elite university athletes using both ultrasonography and MRI. The relationship between tendon thickness and clinical patellar tendinopathy was investigated, and the cutoff value of the tendon thickness was calculated. Of the 129 knees included in the analysis, clinical patellar tendinopathy was found in 16 knees (12.4%). The proximal patellar tendon was significantly thicker in athletes with clinical patellar tendinopathy on both ultrasonography (8.3 mm vs. 5.1 mm; p < 0.001) and MRI (9.9 mm vs. 5.5 mm; p < 0.001). Setting the cutoff value to a thickness of >7.0 mm was an accurate predictor of clinical patellar tendinopathy (ultrasonography: sensitivity 81.3%, specificity 95.6%; MRI: sensitivity 100%, specificity 89.4%). Both ultrasonography and MRI measurement of the proximal patellar tendon thickness reflected the presence of clinical patellar tendinopathy. Defining thickening of the patellar tendon as thicker than 7.0 mm on both ultrasonography and MRI therefore has clinical significance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available