HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hall, F. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hall, F. M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Acromiohumeral Distance

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215

 
WEB—This is a Web exclusive article.

Saupe et al. [1] show "that acromiohumeral distance can be measured reliably on both conventional radiographs and MR images" and "more than 90% of patients with an acromiohumeral distance of 7 mm had a full-thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon and 67% had a full-thickness tear of the infraspinatus tendon." However, these authors caution "that reduced acromiohumeral distance on conventional radiographs gives information about the integrity of the rotator cuff but cannot be used as a single criterion for surgical decision making in rotator cuff repair."

Saupe et al. [1] performed their study using "three age- and sex-matched patient groups stratified according to acromiohumeral distance on conventional radiographs." It has been my strong anecdotal experience that acromiohumeral distance correlates with weight or body mass index, independent of age and sex. It makes intuitive sense that the muscles required to lift the arm of a heavy individual might be larger than those of a thin person. I wonder if the authors have access to the weights of their patients. Perhaps they would find an even better correlation between rotator cuff abnormalities and reduced acromiohumeral distance by factoring in this additional variable.

I would also like to comment on the repeated use of the words conventional radiographs by Saupe et al. [1] and similar usage by other authors in many journals. The terms conventional radiographs and plain radiographs have been the subject of a previous editorial [2] and editor's comment [3] in the AJR. At one time I believe the AJR had a editorial policy of simply using the term radiograph without modifiers [3], and I certainly support such standard terminology [4, 5]. Has that policy changed?

References

Top References

 

1. Saupe N, Pfirrmann CWA, Schmid MR, Jost B, Werner CML, Zanetti M. Association between rotator cuff abnormalities and reduced acromiohumeral distance. AJR 2006;187 : 376-382[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Pope TL. "Conventional radiograph," not "plain film." AJR 1998;170 : 1426[Free Full Text]
3. Rogers LF. What is in a name? (editorial) AJR 1998; 170:1415[Free Full Text]
4. Hall FM. What is in a name—revisited. (letter) AJR 1999; 173:850[Medline]
5. Hall FM. Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists. AJR 2000;175 : 1239-1240[Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hall, F. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hall, F. M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?