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

Abstract

commentsComment on: Comparison of the results of ultrasonographic evaluation and arthroscopy in patients scheduled for surgery of the supraspinatus tendon rupture Michel Kandel Michel Kandel Correspondence: Dr. Michel Kandel, Physiotherapie, Michel Kandel, Physiotherapy, Staatsstrasse 46, 9463 Oberriet, SG, Switzerland, T: +41787073533, E-mail Address: [email protected] Search for more papers by this author Published Online::6 Apr 2017https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2017.170SectionsPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AboutIntroductionWith 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 < http://dx.doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2014.522>.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.1,2UltrasonographyArthroscopyTotalTendinosisNo tendinosisTendinosis516No tendinosis24244Total74350Sensitivity: 5/7=71%; Specificity: 42/43=98%.UltrasonographyArthroscopyTotalPartial thickness tearNo partial thickness tearPartial thickness tear18422No partial thickness tear42428Total222850Sensitivity: 18/22=82%; Specificity: 24/28=86%UltrasonographyArthroscopyTotalFull thickness tearNo full thickness tearFull thickness tear15318No full thickness tear23032Total173350Sensitivity: 15/17=88%; Specificity: 30/33=91%Görmeli and colleagues declined to respond.ARTICLE REFERENCES:1. Lenza M, Buchbinder R, Takwoingi Y, Johnston RV, Hanchard NC, Faloppa F. "Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered" . Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2013; 9(9):CD009020 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009020.pub2. Google Scholar2. Vlychou M, Dailiana Z, Fotiadou A, Papanagiotou M, Fezoulidis IV, Malizos KN. "Symptomatic partial rotator cuff tears: diagnostic performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging with surgical correlation" . Acta radiol. 2009; 50(1):101-105 doi: 10.1080/02841850802600764. Google Scholar Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 37, Issue 2March-April 2017 Metrics History Published online6 April 2017 InformationCopyright © 2017, Annals of Saudi MedicineThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.PDF download