4.5 Article

The accuracy of subacromial injections: A prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.12.019

关键词

injection; accuracy; shoulder impingement syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess the accuracy of shoulder infiltrations in the subacromial bursa (SAB) by a posterior or an anteromedial approach. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical outcome were used for evaluation. Type of Study: A prospective randomized study. Methods: Thirty-three patients (22 women, 11 men; average age, 46 years; range, 25 to 64 years) with clinical Signs Of subacromial impingement were infiltrated with a mixture of bupivacaine, methylprednisolone, and gadoliniuin-DTPA directly followed by MRI to determine the actual site of injection. The SAB was randomly infiltrated posteriorly (n = 17) or anteromedially (n = 16). Injection confidence of the surgeon and body-mass index of the patient were recorded. Follow-up consisted of the Constant Score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale score for pain taken within 24 hours and 6 weeks after infiltration. Results: Thirteen injections (76%) were in the SAB with a posterior approach and 10 (69%) with an anterornedial approach. Many Surrounding structures were hit as well, especially the rotator cuff. A positive correlation between the injection confidence of the orthopaedic Surgeon and the MRI was found in 66%. Only injection of the SAB alone resulted in a significant decrease of the pain (P =.004) and an increase in the functional scores. Injection in the bursa and rotator cuff muscle Showed a significant increase in pain (P =.032) but no change in clinical scores. The body mass index had no influence on the scores. Conclusions: Injections in the SAB are inaccurate, despite the confident feeling of the clinician. The finding that many different structures can be infiltrated with I injection can create both false-positive and -negative results. Level of Evidence: Level II.

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

4.5
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