VOLUME 37 | ISSUE 2 | MARCH-APRIL 2017

Comment Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

Comment on: Comparison of the results of ultraso-nographic evaluation and arthroscopy in patients scheduled for surgery of the supraspinatus tendon rupture

Michel Kandel

From the Department of Physiotherapy, Physiotherapy Michel Kandel, Oberriet, SG, Switzerland

How to cite this article:

Kandel M. Comment on: Comparison of the results of ultraso-nographic evaluation and arthroscopy in patients scheduled for surgery of the supraspinatus tendon rupture. Ann Saudi Med 2017; 37(2): 170.

DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2017.170

With respect to the following article published in 2014 in Annals of Saudi Medicine:


Görmeli C, and others, “Comparison of the Results of Ultrasonographic Evaluation and Arthroscopy in Patients Scheduled for Surgery of the Supraspinatus Tendon Rupture” Ann Saudi Medicine, 34.6 (2014), 522-6 .


By recalculating the data of the ultrasonographic results compared to the arthroscopic diagnosis (the usual means of diagnosis, i.e., the gold standard), represented in Table 1 in the original article, a statistical failure was found. The sensitivity and specificity of the tendinosis, full, and partial thickness tears were mixed up, as seen in the 2×2 tables and calculations at the right. The calculation of the humeral degeneration in Table 2 in the original article was correctly calculated.


The corrected calculation of the sensitivity and specificity of tendinosis, full, and partial thickness tears are shown in the tables at the right. The corrections do not affect the conclusions and the high validity of the ultrasonographic findings for supraspinatus pathology can be confirmed. The specificity, however, is higher than the sensitivity for these findings. These findings correlate with other studies, which compared ultrasonography findings with a gold standard in supraspinatus disorders.1,2



Görmeli and colleagues declined to respond.

 

 

UltrasonographyArthroscopyTotal
Tendinosis No tendinosis
Partial tendinosis 5 1 6
No partial tendinosis 2 42 44
Total 7 43 50

 

 

UltrasonographyArthroscopyTotal
Partial
thickness
tear
No partial 
thickness
tear
Partial thickness tear 18 4 22
No partial thickness 
tear
4 24 28
Total 22 28 50

 

 

UltrasonographyArthroscopyTotal
Full thickness
tear
No full
thickness tear
Full thickness tear 15 3 18
No full thickness 
tear
2 30 32
Total 17 33 50

 

 

References

1. Lenza M, Buchbinder R, Takwoingi Y, Johnston R V, Hanchard NC, Faloppa F. Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonog-raphy for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom sur-gery is being considered. Cochrane da-tabase Syst Rev. 2013;9(9):CD009020. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009020.pub2.

2. Vlychou M, Dailiana Z, Fotiadou A, Pap-anagiotou M, Fezoulidis I V, Malizos KN. Symptomatic partial rotator cuff tears: di-agnostic performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging with surgical correlation. Acta radiol. 2009;50(1):101-105. doi:10.1080/02841850802600764.

In this article

Submit Your Manuscript Here:

Indexed in:

Advertisement Medium Rectangle Ad 1

Do you want your Ad here? Contact Us

Social

LinkedIn
cron