4.2 Article

Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder - Diagnosis using magnetic resonance arthrography, with arthroscopic findings as the standard

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 901-906

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00004728-200311000-00012

Keywords

adhesive capsulitis; magnetic resonance arthrography; shoulder

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography of the glenohumeral joint in the diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis. Methods: MR arthrography of the glenohumeral joint was performed in 16 patients with arthroscopically proven adhesive capsulitis and I I controls. Thickness of the joint capsule and synovium, filling ratio of the fluid-distended axillary recess to the posterior joint cavity, and a width of the rotator cuff interval were measured by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists. The measurements of those parameters for the patients with adhesive capsulitis and the controls were compared. Interobserver variability for the, measurements of each parameter was calculated. Results: The mean thickness of the joint capsule and synovium was 2.97 mm in patients with adhesive capsulitis and 1.86 mm in controls (P < 0.001). The mean filling ratio of the fluid-distended axillary to the posterior joint cavity was 0.51 in patients with adhesive capsulitis and 0.82 in controls (P = 0.004). The mean width of the rotator cuff interval was 7.45 mm in patients with adhesive capsulitis and 8.48 mm in controls (P > 0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficient for interobserver variability showed good agreement (95% Cl; 0.72-0.95). Conclusions: On MR arthrography, thickening of the joint capsule and synovium and diminished filling ratio of the axillary recess to posterior joint cavity appeared to be useful diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available