Tendons were first imaged in the late 1980’s, where it was apparent that tendon pathology was highly associated with tendon pain, normal tendons on imaging almost never gave rise to symptoms. As larger cohorts were imaged in the early 2000’s it became apparent that tendon pathology existed in tendons that were not currently symptomatic, and that never developed symptoms. This questioned the role of imaging in diagnosing the tendon as the source of pain, as there are no imaging criteria that indicate if the tendon is painful. Pathology of imaging is also not predictive of symptoms, again there is no indication on imaging to determine the likelihood of a tendon becoming symptomatic. Degenerative tendon pathology does not heal, so serial imaging of tendon during rehabilitation will indicate little or no change, often despite improvements in pain and function. The role of imaging in the management if tendon pathology is limited to diagnosis the early stage of pathology (reactive tendon pathology) where strategies to decrease load are best practice. Ultrasound imaging provides the best clinical information about tendons, as it can indicate tendon fascicle continuity, the level of vascularity and an indication or proteoglycan infiltration. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can also indicate levels of proteoglycan and vascular infiltration but with less clarity. Currently, neither of these modalities improve clinical diagnosis and amnagement, and are limited in providing a differential diagniosis of pain. Newer outputs from ultrasound such as elastography, as well as enhanced ultrasound imaging (ultrasound tissue characterisation) and specialised sequences on MRI (diffusion tensor imaging, ultrashort echo time) may improve clinical diagnosis and prognosis, however the inability of the tendon to heal and the inability of imaging to diagnose pain suggest that tendons will remain and enigma to imaging in the short to long term.
Read full abstract