4.3 Article

Shoulder Impingement: Relationship of Clinical Symptoms and Imaging Criteria

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MEDICINE
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 83-89

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e318198e2e3

关键词

shoulder joint; impingement syndrome; radiography; magnetic resonance imaging; arthroscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To establish, in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. (1) the relationship between pain and shoulder function, as determined by the Constant score, and morphological findings, as determined by radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and (2) the relationship between acromial shape and minimum acromiohumeral distance (AHD). Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Tertiary care center. Patients: Forty-seven patients (33 males and 14 females; mean age, 51.7 years) with unilateral subacromial impingement syndrome who had failed to respond to conservative therapy for at least 6 months. Interventions: The Constant score was determined preoperatively; acromial shape (type I, flat; type II, curved; and type III, hooked) was evaluated on preoperative outlet view radiographs and oblique sagittal T1-weighted MRIs; AHD was evaluated on preoperative anteroposterior radiographs and oblique coronal T1-weighted MRIs. Main Outcome Measures: Correlation coefficients and the simple kappa statistic were calculated. Student t test and mean differences with 95% confidence limits were reported for group comparisons. Results: The Constant score was fairly correlated with AHD (r = 0.39, P < 0.01) but not with acromial shape. Patients with an AHD <= 7 mm on MRI scored significantly lower than those with an AHD >7 (mean difference, 18.5; P < 0.01). Acromial shape and AHD were not correlated. neither on radiographs nor on MRI. Conclusions: AHD seems to better reflect the clinical status of patients with subacromial impingement, but without rotator cuff tears, than acromial shape. Acromial shape is not a good descriptor of subacromial space narrowing.

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

4.3
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