Forty-nine patients with a repair of their rotator cuff were evaluated at baseline and at six-months after surgery using four self-reports scales (DASH, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC,) SF-36 and Washington Simple Shoulder (SST) scales. Standardized response means were used to determine responsiveness. The DASH was most responsive (SRM=1.27), the WORC (SRM=1.0) and SST (0.91) were intermediary and the least response was the SF-36 (0.73). These results suggest that the DASH may be preferable to either a disease specific scale or a shoulder scale for detecting clinical progress following cuff repair. A number of self-report scales exist for shoulder problems, including regional, joint-specific and disease specific scales. Determining the most responsive scale is essential for outcome evaluation and clinical trials. Forty-nine patients with a repair of their rotator cuff were evaluated at baseline and at six-months after surgery using four self-reports scales (DASH, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC,) SF-36 and Washington Simple Shoulder (SST) scales. An independent research assistant administered scales. Standardized response means were used to determine responsiveness. The DASH was most responsive (SRM=1.27), the WORC (SRM=1.0) and SST (0.91) were intermediary and the least response was the SF-36 (0.73). The subscale of the WORC that showed the most change was lifestyle. Physical subscales of the SF-36 showed improvement; whereas, minimal impact on mental health was observed. The DASH can be used for a variety of upper extremity conditions, whereas the WORC was designed specifically for rotator cuff disease. Unless a disease specific scale is more responsive, there is little reason to adopt a scale than can only be used for one condition. This data supports the ability of the DASH to indicate upper extremity function and the important role of the rotator cuff in function. The implications of these findings are that the DASH may be preferable to either a disease specific scale for rotator cuff disease or a shoulder scale for detecting clinical progress.
The reliability and accuracy of plain radiographs, MRI and CT Arthrography to detect the presence of loose bodies was evaluated in twenty-six patients with mechanical elbow symptoms. The location of loose bodies found by the imaging studies was compared to arthroscopic findings. Overall sensitivity for the detection of loose bodies was 88 – 100% and specificity was 20 – 70%. Plain radiographs had a similar sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 71% respectively. MRI and CT Arthrography were similar to plain radiography, suggesting that routine use of these modalities is not indicated. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical utility of MRI and CT Arthrography (CTA) to reliably and accurately predict the presence of loose bodies in the elbow. Twenty-six patients with mechanical elbow symptoms underwent plain radiography, MRI and CTA, followed by standard elbow arthroscopy. Three musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed the ‘blinded’ plain radiographs with both the MRI and CTA at separate sittings. The location and number of loose bodies on the MRI and CTA were recorded. The preoperative plain radiographs, MRI and CTA were compared to the arthroscopic findings. Agreement between radiologists was higher for the number of loose bodies identified in the posterior compartment (ICC=0.72 for both MRI and CTA) than in the anterior compartment (ICC=0.41 and 0.52 for MRI and CTA respectively). The correlation between the number of lose bodies observed on MRI and CTA compared to those found arthroscopically was also higher in the posterior compartment (r=0.54–0.85) than in the anterior compartment (r=0.01–0.45). Both MRI and CTA had excellent sensitivity (92–100%) but moderate to low specificity (15–77%) in identifying posteriorly located loose bodies. Neither MRI nor CTA were consistently sensitive (46–91%) or specific (13–73%) in predicting anterior loose bodies. Overall sensitivity for the detection of loose bodies in either compartment was 88–100% and specificity was 20–70%. The preoperative radiographs had a similar sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 71% respectively. MRI and CTA were similar to plain radiography in the prediction of elbow loose bodies.
Using a 1.89 Tesla surface coil Magnetic Resonance Imager the following sequences were obtained: Coronal T 1, Proton Density, T 2 and Inversion Recovery sequences; Sagittal Inversion Recovery sequences; Axial T 1 and Inversion Recovery Sequences. The images were then evaluated independently by two Muskuloskeletal Radiologists and one Orthopaedic Surgeon.