4.2 Article

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous irrigation of calcific tendinopathy outside the rotator cuff: short-term evaluation

期刊

SKELETAL RADIOLOGY
卷 51, 期 10, 页码 2039-2044

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00256-022-04035-3

关键词

Tendinopathy; Ultrasonography; Interventional; Radiography; Musculoskeletal pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively evaluated the treatment effect of ultrasound-guided percutaneous irrigation for painful calcific tendinopathy (US-PICT). The results showed that US-PICT can safely and effectively reduce pain even in atypical locations outside of the rotator cuff.
Rationale and objectives While ultrasound-guided percutaneous irrigation for painful calcific tendinopathy (US-PICT) is the treatment of choice for the rotator cuff, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the treatment of this condition with atypical location. The purpose of our study is to assess if US-PICT can be applied safely and successfully in atypical sites, outside of the rotator cuff. Materials and methods We retrospectively reviewed the US-PICT performed outside the rotator cuff, in the last 5 years in a single institution. A total of 16 patients have been included in this study. We collected the values of the numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain pre- and post-procedure (7 days and 3-month follow-up). Moreover, we assessed the imaging studies available pre- and post-procedure (ultrasound and plain radiography) to assess complications. Results In all the 16 patients (10F, 6 M; mean age 50.2; range 24-65-year-old), no complications have been observed during and after the procedures. The mean pain NRS before treatment was 8.7 (range 10-6) and dropped to 1.1 (6-0) after 1 week as well after 3 months 1.1 (6-0). The NRS pain reduction from baseline resulted to be statistically significant after 7 days and 3 months (p < 0.001). Conclusion Our results suggest the safety and efficacy of this procedure, underlining the great potential of US-PICT applied even in different atypical locations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据