RESUMO

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the agreement in tear size obtained through preoperative imaging and intraoperative measurement, and to determine the accuracy of preoper-ative imaging in the classification of tear size and identification of tears in each rotator cuff tendon. Methods Data from 44 patients recruited to a randomized controlled trial were reviewed retrospectively. Size and location of the rotator cuff tears were confirmed by either ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging scans preoperatively and evaluated during surgery. A t-test and Bland and Altman plot were used to determine the agreement between the preoperative and intraoperative measurements. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for tear size and involvement of the rotator cuff tendon. Results There was good agreement in terms of the measurements (91%) and classification (89%) of the tear size preoperatively and during surgery. When classifying tear size, the sensitivity and PPV were high for medium-sized tears (100%) and lower for large tears (75%), reflecting that all medium-sized tears but not all large tears were identified preoperatively. For the preoperative identification of the tears, the sensitivity and PPV were highest for the supraspinatus (84%), with progressively lower sensitivities and PPV for the infraspinatus (57%), subscapularis (17%) and teres minor (0%). Conclusions Through preoperative imaging, the measurement or classification of the tear size can be accurately performed. Where there is disagreement, it is unclear whether the tear size is either underestimated on the scan or overestimated during surgery. The high sensitivity demonstrates that a supraspinatus tear is usually detected by scan. The lower sensitivities for the infraspinatus and subscapularis indicate that the identification of tears in these tendons is less accurate.

Resumo Objetivo Avaliar a concordância no tamanho de ruptura obtido por imagem préoperatória e por medição intraoperatória, e determinar a precisão da imagem préoperatória na classificação do tamanho da ruptura e na identificação de rupturas em cada tendão do manguito rotador. Métodos Os dados de 44 pacientes recrutados para um ensaio controlado randomizado foram revisados retrospectivamente. O tamanho e a localização do manguito rotador foram confirmados por ultrassom ou ressonância magnética préoperatórios, e avaliados durante a cirurgia. Um teste t e o gráfico de Bland e Altman foram usados para determinar a concordância entre as medições pré-operatória e intraoperatória. Sensibilidade, especificidade, valor preditivo positivo (VPP) e valor preditivo negativo (VPN) foram calculados para o tamanho do rompimento e o envolvimento do tendão do manguito rotador. Resultados Houve boa concordância para medidas de tamanho da ruptura (91%) e classificação (89%) pré-operatória e durante a cirurgia. Ao classificar o tamanho da ruptura, a sensibilidade e o VPP foram elevados para rupturas de tamanho médio (100%), e menor para rupturas grandes (75%), o que indica que todas as rupturas de tamanho médio, mas nem todas as grandes, foram identificadas pré-operatoriamente. Para a identificação de rupturas, a sensibilidade pré-operatória e o VPP foram maiores para o supraespinal (84%), com sensibilidade e VPP progressivamente menores para o infraespinal (57%), o subescapular (17%), e o redondo menor (0%). Conclusões Por meio da imagem pré-operatória, pode-se medir ou classificar com precisão o tamanho da ruptura. Quando há discordância, não está claro se o tamanho da ruptura é subestimado no exame ou superestimado durante a cirurgia. A alta sensibilidade demonstra que uma ruptura do supraespinal é geralmente detectada por escaneamento. As sensibilidades mais baixas para o infraespinal e o subescapular indicam que a identificação de rupturas nestes tendões é menos precisa.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of standardized criteria for diagnosing rotator cuff related shoulder pain (RCRSP). OBJECTIVE: To identify the most relevant clinical descriptors for diagnosing RCRSP. METHODS: A Delphi study was conducted through use of an international physical therapists expert panel. A 3-round Delphi survey involving an international panel of physical therapists experts with extensive clinical, teaching, and research experience was conducted. A search query was performed in Web of Science, along with a manual search, to find the experts. The first round was composed of items obtained from a previous pilot Delphi study along with new items proposed by the experts. Participants were asked to rate items across six clinical domains using a five-point Likert scale. An Aiken's Validity Index ≥ 0.7 was considered indicative of group consensus. RESULTS: Fifteen experts participated in the Delphi survey. After the three rounds, consensus was reached on 18 clinical descriptors: 10 items were included in the "subjective examination" domain, 1 item was included in the "patient-reported outcome measures" domain, 3 items in the "diagnostic examination" domain, 2 items in the "physical examination" domain", and 2 items in the "functional tests" domain. No items reached consensus within the "special tests" domain. The reproduction of symptoms in relation to the application of load, the performance of overhead activities, and the need of active and resisted movement assessment were some of the results with greatest consensus. CONCLUSION: In this Delphi study, a total of 18 clinical descriptors across six clinical domains were agreed upon for diagnosing RCRSP.

Assuntos