We have located links that may give you full text access.
Value of preoperative ultrasound marking of calcium deposits in patients who require surgical treatment of calcific tendinitis of the shoulder.
Arthroscopy 2007 January
PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to evaluate whether preoperative ultrasound-guided marking of calcium deposits has a positive effect on the efficiency and speed of localization of calcium deposits during surgery, and whether this technique is a factor that increases the probability of good clinical results.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients who required surgery for calcific tendinitis in the years 2001 and 2002 were divided into 2 groups of 12 patients by week. Before undergoing surgery, those in group 1 (weeks 1, 3, 5, etc.) were given a standard ultrasound examination, along with preoperative ultrasound-guided marking (pre-USM) of calcium deposits, whereas group 2 (weeks 2, 4, 6, etc.) received the standard ultrasound examination without pre-USM. In both groups, arthroscopic removal of calcium deposits was carried out and the postoperative treatment plan was identical. The clinical result was evaluated by the Constant-Murley score.
RESULTS: At the 6-week and 2-year follow-up visits, the clinical result was significantly better (P < .05) in the pre-USM group than in the unmarked group (Constant score of 76 v 70 points and 80 v 74 points, respectively). After 12 weeks, the clinical outcomes of both groups showed an approaching significance, with better results seen in the pre-USM group (79 v 74 points; P = .052). The time required for intraoperative localization of calcium deposits was 16 versus 22 minutes. The difference showed an approaching significance (P = .057). Removal of calcium was possible in 12 versus 10 cases; complete removal was possible in 8 versus 6 cases, respectively. However, none of these variables had a statistically significant influence on our results.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative ultrasound-guided marking of calcific deposits is a procedure that statistically significantly improves the clinical results of arthroscopic surgery as seen at 6 weeks and 2 years; statistical significance of .052 was approached only at 12 weeks, as we have shown here for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder joint.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, development of diagnostic criteria with nonconsecutive patients.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients who required surgery for calcific tendinitis in the years 2001 and 2002 were divided into 2 groups of 12 patients by week. Before undergoing surgery, those in group 1 (weeks 1, 3, 5, etc.) were given a standard ultrasound examination, along with preoperative ultrasound-guided marking (pre-USM) of calcium deposits, whereas group 2 (weeks 2, 4, 6, etc.) received the standard ultrasound examination without pre-USM. In both groups, arthroscopic removal of calcium deposits was carried out and the postoperative treatment plan was identical. The clinical result was evaluated by the Constant-Murley score.
RESULTS: At the 6-week and 2-year follow-up visits, the clinical result was significantly better (P < .05) in the pre-USM group than in the unmarked group (Constant score of 76 v 70 points and 80 v 74 points, respectively). After 12 weeks, the clinical outcomes of both groups showed an approaching significance, with better results seen in the pre-USM group (79 v 74 points; P = .052). The time required for intraoperative localization of calcium deposits was 16 versus 22 minutes. The difference showed an approaching significance (P = .057). Removal of calcium was possible in 12 versus 10 cases; complete removal was possible in 8 versus 6 cases, respectively. However, none of these variables had a statistically significant influence on our results.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative ultrasound-guided marking of calcific deposits is a procedure that statistically significantly improves the clinical results of arthroscopic surgery as seen at 6 weeks and 2 years; statistical significance of .052 was approached only at 12 weeks, as we have shown here for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder joint.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, development of diagnostic criteria with nonconsecutive patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app