AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jamadar, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Girish, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jamadar, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Girish, G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.2433
AJR 2008; 190:5-9
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Musculoskeletal Sonography Technique: Focused Versus Comprehensive Evaluation

David A. Jamadar1, Jon A. Jacobson, Elaine M. Caoili, Tracy A. Boon, Qian Dong, Yoav Morag and Gandikota Girish

1 All authors: Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Hospitals, 1500 E Medical Center Dr., TC2910, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

OBJECTIVE. This article evaluates the utility of performing a focused musculoskeletal sonography examination on the basis of patients' presenting complaints.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Six hundred two patients evaluated over 6 months were scanned using a routine protocol. At the completion of the routine examination, each patient was asked to indicate a focal point of discomfort and, if present, was rescanned over the area of discomfort. Patients were classified in one of five categories depending on whether there was a focal point of discomfort and the presence or absence of an underlying sonographic abnormality.

RESULTS. Eighty-three percent of the 602 patients had a sonographically detectable abnormality, 2.2% of whom had an abnormality not detectable by routine protocol-based scanning. The more peripheral the body part, the more likely that abnormalities detected by sonography correlated with focal symptoms: 81% in the wrist and hand and 73% in the ankle and foot, compared with the more central body parts of 15% in the shoulder and 31% in the hip. Chi-square analysis showed a significant association between the body part scanned and a detectable abnormality (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION. Although a focused examination of the distal extremities correlated with an abnormality in most cases, a protocol-based approach ensured identifying 97.4% of the symptomatic abnormalities. The addition of a focused examination to an examination by protocol further increased the identification of abnormalities.

Keywords: emergency radiology • focused sonography • musculoskeletal sonography • sonography technique • sports medicine • trauma


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.