Feature Article Free

Characterization of Rotator Cuff Tears: Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Kelechi R. Okoroha, MD; Nima Mehran, MD; Jonathan Duncan, MD; Travis Washington, MD; Tyler Spiering, MD; Michael J. Bey, PhD; Marnix Van Holsbeeck, MD; Vasilios Moutzouros, MD

Abstract

Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both capable of diagnosing full-thickness rotator cuff tears. However, it is unknown which imaging modality is more accurate and precise in evaluating the characteristics of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in a surgical population. This study reviewed 114 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear over a 1-year period. Of these patients, 61 had both preoperative MRI and ultrasound for review. Three musculoskeletal radiologists evaluated each ultrasound and MRI in a randomized and blinded fashion on 2 separate occasions. Tear size, retraction status, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration were analyzed and compared between the 2 modalities. Ultrasound measurements were statistically smaller in both tear size (P=.001) and retraction status (P=.001) compared with MRI. The 2 image modalities showed comparable intraobserver reliability in assessment of tear size and retraction status. However, MRI showed greater interobserver reliability in assessment of tear size, retraction status, and atrophy. Independent observers are more likely to agree on measurements of the characteristics of rotator cuff tears when using MRI compared with ultrasound. As tear size increases, the 2 image modalities show greater differences in measurement of tear size and retraction status. Additionally, compared with MRI, ultrasound shows consistently low reliability in detecting subtle, but clinically important, degeneration of the soft tissue envelope. Although it is inexpensive and convenient, ultrasound may be best used to identify a tear, and MRI is superior for use in surgical planning for larger tears. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(1):e124–e130.]

Rotator cuff disease is the most common cause of shoulder symptoms, accounting for 65% to 70% of cases1 and leading to approximately 4.5 million physician visits per year in the United States.2,3 By 70 years of age, more than 50% of the general population has a full- or partial-thickness rotator cuff tear, regardless of the presence of symptoms.4 Rotator cuff tears are a significant cause of morbidity and a financial burden to the health care system. These tears require continuous reassessment of diagnostic workup and management.

Both accurate diagnosis and determination of the extent of the rotator cuff tear are critical for treatment management decisions and preoperative planning. Clinical examination alone provides limited information, making supplementary imaging an essential component of decision making. The choice of nonoperative modalities and surgical management, including the specific procedure performed, depends on the size of the lesion, retraction status, and pathologic changes determined by imaging.5–7 Previous studies recognized that muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration are irreversible and often correlate with poor outcomes after rotator cuff tear repair.8–15

There are 2 primary imaging modalities that are used to visualize the rotator cuff: ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Historically, MRI was the method of choice, given its proven accuracy and high sensitivity in diagnosing rotator cuff pathology.16–19 The use of MRI is appealing because it is less dependent on operator factors, it provides images that are inherently easier for orthopedic surgeons to review, and it is better for the evaluation of morphologic changes in structures such as the glenoid labrum, joint capsule, articular cartilage, and surrounding muscles and bone that may contribute to symptoms. Ultrasound is among the most operator-dependent imaging methods, and its reliability and accuracy correlate directly with user experience.20,21 Because of improvements over the past 10 years in transducer strength, soft tissue penetration, and user experience, ultrasound has become a more reliable diagnostic tool for suspected rotator cuff tear. Further, unlike MRI, ultrasound is inexpensive, readily available, and well tolerated, and it offers real-time results and dynamic visualization.22 The growing interest in ultrasound vs MRI for the workup of rotator cuff tear led to a number of studies and meta-analyses comparing the 2 modalities, and these studies showed comparable results in diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.21,23–34 There is no general consensus on which is the preferred test, and no previous studies directly compared intra- and interobserver agreement between MRI and ultrasound in determining specific tear size and pathologic characteristics of rotator cuff tears. In addition, no study has looked at a surgical population that included only full-thickness tears.

The current study compared the characterization of rotator cuff tears by ultrasound and MRI in terms of size, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration in surgical patients. In addition, the study evaluated the intra- and interobserver reliability of ultrasound and MRI when making these measurements.

Materials and Methods

Study Design and Subjects

The authors performed a retrospective review of 114 consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear by a single surgeon at the study institution between February 2010 and February 2011. The study included 61 patients who had both MRI and ultrasound within 16 weeks of each other before surgery. Both MRI and ultrasound studies were reviewed individually twice by 2 senior-level musculoskeletal radiologists, each with more than 20 years of experience, and twice by a musculoskeletal fellow. The study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Examinations were performed with a 1.5 Tesla magnet MRI as a baseline. The protocol for each scanner was consistent. The protocols used were coronal proton density (field of view, 16–17 cm; matrix, 512×384; repetition time/echo time range, 1500–3000/20–30); sagittal proton density (field of view, 16–17 cm; matrix range, 256–512×224–384; repetition time/echo time range, 1500–3000/20–30); axial T2 fat suppressed (field of view, 16–19 cm; matrix range, 256–304×224–235; repetition time/echo time range, 2685–2839/60–100); and coronal T2 fat suppressed (field of view, 16–18 cm; matrix range, 256×192–224; repetition time/echo time range, 2800–3643/60–75).

Sizes of the full-thickness rotator cuff tears were measured in the greatest anteroposterior dimension (width) and in length/degree of retraction. The occupational ratio of each tear was calculated to determine muscle atrophy. This calculation was based on sagittal proton density images, according to the method of Thomazeau et al.35 The cross-sectional surface area of the supraspinatus was divided by the cross-sectional area of the supraspinatus fossa on the Y-view, which is formed by the coracoid process, distal clavicle, and scapular spine. Fatty infiltration of the rotator cuff muscles was graded based on the Goutallier classification with sagittal proton density images.36 According to this classification system, grade 0=no fat, grade 1=trace fatty streaks, grade 2=less than 50% fat, grade 3=50% fat, and grade 4=more than 50% fat.36,37

Ultrasound

Ultrasound was performed with a Logiq E9 ultrasound machine (GE Healthcare, San Jose, California), with 9–12 MHz transducers. Shoulder ultrasound examinations were performed in a standardized fashion, with the subject in a seated position. Evaluation included the rotator cuff musculature tendons, acromioclavicular joint, long head biceps tendon, posterior labrum, and spinoglenoid notch. The supraspinatus was evaluated in both Crass and modified Crass positions. Dynamic imaging was performed for abduction/adduction of the arm in the coronal plane to evaluate for subacromial impingement and internal/external rotation of the arm at the level of the subscapularis for evaluation of subcoracoid impingement. Of the 61 patients, 52 had imaging of the supraspinatus muscle. For 9 patients, imaging of the supraspinatus muscle was not performed because these patients were examined before the institution included imaging of the muscle itself as part of the standard shoulder protocol.

Determination of the degree of muscle atrophy and evaluation of fatty infiltration were based on images of the supraspinatus within the fossa. To determine the degree of muscle atrophy, the Y-view of the MRI was re-created and the cross-sectional surface area of the supraspinatus muscle was divided by that of the fossa. Fatty infiltration was determined by looking at echogenicity and the echostructure/pennate pattern, as in previous studies by Khoury et al38 and Goutallier et al.36 Echogenicity was graded as isoechoic, mildly hyperechoic, or markedly hyperechoic. The echostructure was graded as normal (homogeneously distributed, well-defined hyperechoic streaks corresponding to fibromuscular septa), effaced (slight loss of the pennate pattern, with blurring of margins of the hyperechoic streaks), or absent (loss of the pennate pattern, with very poor or no visibility of the streaks). In addition, the greatest anteroposterior dimension (width) and the length and degree of proximal tendon retraction of the full-thickness rotator cuff tear were measured.

Statistical Analysis

A biostatistician performed all statistical analyses with SPSS version 22 statistical software (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York). Analysis of inter- and intrarater reliability was performed with an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for the continuous variables of length, width, and muscle atrophy. These results are shown as mean and 95% confidence interval (CI). For the ordinal variable of fatty infiltration, analysis of inter- and intrarater reliability was performed with the weighted κ coefficient. Similar statistics were used to assess the agreement between MRI and ultrasound methods. The κ statistics were interpreted based on guidelines proposed by Landis and Koch,39 with values less than 0 defined as poor or no agreement, values of 0 to 0.20 defined as slight agreement, values of 0.21 to 0.40 defined as fair agreement, values of 0.41 to 0.60 defined as moderate agreement, values of 0.61 to 0.80 defined as substantial agreement, and values of 0.81 to 1.00 defined as almost perfect agreement. Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the difference between MRI and ultrasound with the mean of the 2 methods. Graphs showing the distribution of percent change (100%×[MRI-ultrasound]/MRI) for continuous variables were also created to visually assess the agreement between MRI and ultrasound. Additionally, a mixed-effects model with method as the fixed effect and reviewer and patient as the random effects was used to compare actual measurements of width and length with the 2 imaging modalities. These values are shown as mean±standard error. In all analyses, P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Intrarater Agreement

For length and width, intrarater agreement was almost perfect (ICC, 0.82–0.93). For muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration measures, intrarater agreement ranged from fair to almost perfect (ICC, 0.42–0.92; κ=0.51–0.97), respectively (Table 1).


Intrarater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Trials, for Each Rater and Method

Table 1:

Intrarater Agreement With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Trials, for Each Rater and Method

Interrater Agreement

Interrater agreement with MRI was almost perfect for width (ICC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81–0.92) and length (ICC, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82–0.94). Interrater agreement for muscle atrophy was substantial, and inter-rater agreement for fatty infiltration was only fair (κ=0.22).

Interrater agreement was lower with ultrasound, but still substantial for width (ICC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57–0.80) and length (ICC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57–0.80). For muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration, interrater agreement was moderate (Table 2).


Interrater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Raters, for Each Method

Table 2:

Interrater Agreement With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Raters, for Each Method

Agreement Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasound

The agreement between MRI and ultrasound was moderate for width (ICC, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43–0.64) and length (ICC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.49–0.68). However, the agreement was slight for muscle atrophy (κ=0.04) and only fair for fatty infiltration (κ=0.31). When actual values for MRI and ultrasound for width, length, and muscle atrophy were compared, ultrasound measurements were significantly lower than MRI measurements for width and length and significantly higher for muscle atrophy (P<.001 for all, Table 3).


Comparison of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Tear Size (Length and Width) and Muscle Atrophy

Table 3:

Comparison of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Tear Size (Length and Width) and Muscle Atrophy

These findings were confirmed with Bland-Altman plots, which showed that length and width were evenly distributed around zero until the mean tear size approached 20 mm. For mean values greater than 20 mm, the distribution shifted upward, reflecting a tendency for MRI values to be greater than ultrasound values at these levels (Figures 12).


Bland-Altman plot comparing length measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Figure 1:

Bland-Altman plot comparing length measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.


Bland-Altman plot comparing width measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Figure 2:

Bland-Altman plot comparing width measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the distribution of percent change of ultrasound from MRI for width and length measurements. For width, approximately 18% of observations had ultrasound values within 10% of MRI values and 34% had ultrasound values within 20% of MRI values. Approximately 26% of observations had ultrasound values with a difference of greater than 50% (positive and negative) compared with MRI. The distribution of length was similar to the distribution of width. For length, 18% of observations had ultrasound values within 10% of MRI values, 36% had ultrasound values within 20% of MRI values, and 26% had ultrasound values showing a difference of greater than 50% compared with MRI values.


Distribution of percent change for width.

Figure 3:

Distribution of percent change for width.


Distribution of percent change for length.

Figure 4:

Distribution of percent change for length.

Discussion

Ultrasound is the most operator-dependent imaging study for the shoulder,40,41 and it is becoming more popular as a first-line imaging modality for evaluating rotator cuff tears. Although several studies and meta-analyses have shown comparable accuracy in diagnosing both total and partial tears,15,21,23,25,32,42–44 ultrasound is often considered inferior to MRI for preoperative imaging because it provides less detail on morphologic changes in the cuff musculature.31,45,46 The current findings showed low agreement between MRI and ultrasound in characterizing full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Ultrasound had lower interobserver reliability and decreased measurement of large rotator cuff tears.

Increasing collaboration between musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopedic surgeons has emphasized the importance of retraction and muscle status in predicting success in rotator cuff surgery. Previous studies evaluated the reliability of ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears as well as the characterization of rotator cuff tears with MRI.21,45–51 To the authors' knowledge, no studies have looked at the agreement of ultrasound and MRI in characterizing rotator cuff tears with regard to the specifics of tear size, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration.

Spencer et al51 evaluated the agreement of orthopedic surgeons in characterizing rotator cuff tears with MRI only. Their study found fair interobserver reliability when evaluating tear width (κ=0.26) and moderate reliability when evaluating tear retraction (κ=0.44). The current study showed increased reliability, with almost perfect reliability when evaluating tear width and retraction with MRI. The authors believe that the inclusion of only full-thickness tears increased accuracy because partial-thickness tears are more difficult to evaluate.51 Ultrasound showed less reliability, with substantial agreement when assessing tear width and retraction. When the 2 image modalities were compared directly, agreement was adequate when evaluating length and width, especially with tears smaller than 20 mm. However, agreement was poor with tears greater than 20 mm, in which ultrasound measurements were smaller. Sipola et al31 showed that both MRI and ultrasound underestimate rotator cuff tear size compared with surgical findings.

Slabaugh et al50 evaluated interobserver and intraobserver reliability in classifying fatty infiltration with MRI according to the Goutallier classification. Their study showed moderate intraobserver reliability, with κ=0.56 (95% CI, 0.53–0.60), and moderate interobserver reliability, with κ=0.43 (range, 0.16–0.74). The current study showed similar results, with fair to moderate intraobserver reliability. However, when evaluating interobserver reliability, this study found only slight agreement with MRI. Ultrasound showed comparable results, with moderate intraobserver reliability and fair interobserver reliability. Additionally, when they were compared directly, agreement between the 2 imaging modalities was poor to fair when evaluating fatty infiltration. These findings may be explained by a lack of standardized and evidence-based protocols to characterize rotator cuff tears with ultrasound.

Spencer et al51 and Lippe et al48 evaluated interobserver reliability for muscle atrophy with MRI; they both found fair agreement when assessing atrophy with MRI (κ=0.25 and κ=0.25, respectively). The current results showed increased interobserver reliability, with substantial agreement between observers. However, with ultrasound, reliability was moderate, and agreement between the 2 imaging methods was only slight. These findings can be explained by the increased visualization of the rotator cuff musculature on MRI compared with ultrasound. The current findings suggest that muscle atrophy is better analyzed with MRI.

Limitations

This study had a number of important limitations. In evaluating fatty infiltration, 9 patients did not undergo ultrasound imaging of the supraspinatus muscle. These differences were the result of changing protocols at the study institution and could not be controlled for by this retrospective study. The absence of this information in such a small subset of the patient population did not have an appreciable effect on the results. Because this study was performed at a large institution with several satellite hospitals, various MRI scanners were used. Most examinations were performed with a 1.5 Tesla MRI, but some patients were examined with a more detailed 3.0 Tesla MRI. Improved image quality has been reported with 3.0 Tesla MRI vs 1.5 Tesla MRI, and this difference may affect the depiction of detail.52 However, because slice thickness was equal, the authors do not believe that the higher Tesla magnet had a profound effect on detailing size, retraction, or atrophy status in the calculations.

Another limitation of the study was the lack of comparison of ultrasound and MRI values with surgical findings. Although basic intraoperative measurements were available for all patients, the approach to measuring size and retraction status was not standardized because this was a retrospective study. Information on the size and number of suture anchors was available from operative documentation, but the authors believed that this information would not accurately predict tear size. Although MRI has been considered highly accurate, there has been little evaluation of comparison of characterization of rotator cuff tears with MRI and ultrasound compared with surgical findings. This is an area for future study.

Conclusion

Independent observers are more likely to agree on measurements of the characteristics of rotator cuff tear with MRI compared with ultrasound. As tear size increases, the 2 modalities show greater differences in measurements of tear size and retraction status. Additionally, compared with MRI, ultrasound shows consistently low reliability in detecting subtle, but clinically important, degeneration of the soft tissue envelope. Although it is inexpensive and convenient, ultrasound may be the best modality for identifying tears, and MRI is superior in surgical planning for larger tears.

References

  1. Shanahan EM, Sladek R. Shoulder pain at the workplace. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011; 25(1):59–68. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2011.01.008 [CrossRef]
  2. Matsen FA III, . Clinical practice: rotator-cuff failure. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(20):2138–2147. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp0800814 [CrossRef]
  3. Oh LS, Wolf BR, Hall MP, Levy BA, Marx RG. Indications for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 455:52–63. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802fc175 [CrossRef]
  4. Milgrom C, Schaffler M, Gilbert S, van Holsbeeck M. Rotator-cuff changes in asymptomatic adults: the effect of age, hand dominance and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77(2):296–298.
  5. Bryant L, Shnier R, Bryant C, Murrell GA. A comparison of clinical estimation, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopy in determining the size of rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11(3):219–224. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.121923 [CrossRef]
  6. Ruotolo C, Nottage WM. Surgical and nonsurgical management of rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2002; 18(5):527–531. doi:10.1053/jars.2002.31707 [CrossRef]
  7. Seibold CJ, Mallisee TA, Erickson SJ, Boynton MD, Raasch WG, Timins ME. Rotator cuff: evaluation with US and MR imaging. Radiographics. 1999; 19(3):685–705. doi:10.1148/radiographics.19.3.g99ma03685 [CrossRef]
  8. Boileau P, Brassart N, Watkinson DJ, Carles M, Hatzidakis AM, Krishnan SG. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus: does the tendon really heal?J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(6):1229–1240. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02035 [CrossRef]
  9. Cho NS, Rhee YG. The factors affecting the clinical outcome and integrity of arthroscopically repaired rotator cuff tears of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009; 1(2):96–104. doi:10.4055/cios.2009.1.2.96 [CrossRef]
  10. Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(2):219–224.
  11. Gladstone JN, Bishop JY, Lo IK, Flatow EL. Fatty infiltration and atrophy of the rotator cuff do not improve after rotator cuff repair and correlate with poor functional outcome. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(5):719–728. doi:10.1177/0363546506297539 [CrossRef]
  12. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Gleyze P, Leguilloux P, Van Driessche S. Influence of cuff muscle fatty degeneration on anatomic and functional outcomes after simple suture of full-thickness tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003; 12(6):550–554. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(03)00211-8 [CrossRef]
  13. Kim HM, Dahiya N, Teefey SA, Keener JD, Galatz LM, Yamaguchi K. Relationship of tear size and location to fatty degeneration of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(4):829–839. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01746 [CrossRef]
  14. Shen PH, Lien SB, Shen HC, Lee CH, Wu SS, Lin LC. Long-term functional outcomes after repair of rotator cuff tears correlated with atrophy of the supraspinatus muscles on magnetic resonance images. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(1 suppl):1S–7S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.04.014 [CrossRef]
  15. Strobel K, Zanetti M, Nagy L, Hodler J. Suspected rotator cuff lesions: tissue harmonic imaging versus conventional US of the shoulder. Radiology. 2004; 230(1):243–249. doi:10.1148/radiol.2301021517 [CrossRef]
  16. Evancho AM, Stiles RG, Fajman WA, et al. MR imaging diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988; 151(4):751–754. doi:10.2214/ajr.151.4.751 [CrossRef]
  17. Iannotti JP, Zlatkin MB, Esterhai JL, Kressel HY, Dalinka MK, Spindler KP. Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991; 73(1):17–29.
  18. Kneeland JB, Middleton WD, Carrera GF, et al. MR imaging of the shoulder: diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987; 149(2):333–337. doi:10.2214/ajr.149.2.333 [CrossRef]
  19. Singson RD, Hoang T, Dan S, Friedman M. MR evaluation of rotator cuff pathology using T2-weighted fast spin-echo technique with and without fat suppression. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 166(5):1061–1065. doi:10.2214/ajr.166.5.8615243 [CrossRef]
  20. Le Corroller T, Cohen M, Aswad R, Pauly V, Champsaur P. Sonography of the painful shoulder: role of the operator's experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2008; 37(11):979–986. doi:10.1007/s00256-008-0539-z [CrossRef]
  21. Middleton WD, Teefey SA, Yamaguchi K. Sonography of the rotator cuff: analysis of interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183(5):1465–1468. doi:10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831465 [CrossRef]
  22. Teefey SA. Shoulder sonography: why we do it. J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31(9):1325–1331.
  23. de Jesus JO, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Nazarian LN. Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192(6):1701–1707. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1241 [CrossRef]
  24. Dinnes J, Loveman E, McIntyre L, Waugh N. The effectiveness of diagnostic tests for the assessment of shoulder pain due to soft tissue disorders: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2003; 7(29):1–166. doi:10.3310/hta7290 [CrossRef]
  25. Fotiadou AN, Vlychou M, Papadopoulos P, Karataglis DS, Palladas P, Fezoulidis IV. Ultrasonography of symptomatic rotator cuff tears compared with MR imaging and surgery. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 68(1):174–179. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.002 [CrossRef]
  26. Friedman RL, Hidalgo HJ, Gilmer PW, Mallon WJ. Ultrasonography of the rotator cuff: analysis of results in a community setting. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993; 2(1):22–26. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80133-X [CrossRef]
  27. Jacobson JA, Lancaster S, Prasad A, van Holsbeeck MT, Craig JG, Kolowich P. Full-thickness and partial-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears: value of US signs in diagnosis. Radiology. 2004; 230(1):234–242. doi:10.1148/radiol.2301020418 [CrossRef]
  28. Martín-Hervás C, Romero J, Navas-Acién A, Reboiras JJ, Munuera L. Ultrasonographic and magnetic resonance images of rotator cuff lesions compared with arthroscopy or open surgery findings. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001; 10(5):410–415. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.116515 [CrossRef]
  29. Nelson MC, Leather GP, Nirschl RP, Pettrone FA, Freedman MT. Evaluation of the painful shoulder: a prospective comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomographic arthrography, ultrasonography, and operative findings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991; 73(5):707–716.
  30. Prickett WD, Teefey SA, Galatz LM, Calfee RP, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. Accuracy of ultrasound imaging of the rotator cuff in shoulders that are painful postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(6):1084–1089.
  31. Sipola P, Niemitukia L, Kröger H, Höfling I, Väätäinen U. Detection and quantification of rotator cuff tears with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective study in 77 consecutive patients with a surgical reference. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010; 36(12):1981–1989. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.09.001 [CrossRef]
  32. Smith TO, Back T, Toms AP, Hing CB. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for rotator cuff tears in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2011; 66(11):1036–1048. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2011.05.007 [CrossRef]
  33. van Holsbeeck MT, Kolowich PA, Eyler WR, et al. US depiction of partial-thickness tear of the rotator cuff. Radiology. 1995; 197(2):443–446. doi:10.1148/radiology.197.2.7480690 [CrossRef]
  34. van Moppes FI, Veldkamp O, Roorda J. Role of shoulder ultrasonography in the evaluation of the painful shoulder. Eur J Radiol. 1995; 19(2):142–146. doi:10.1016/0720-048X(94)00590-9 [CrossRef]
  35. Thomazeau H, Rolland Y, Lucas C, Duval JM, Langlais F. Atrophy of the supraspinatus belly: assessment by MRI in 55 patients with rotator cuff pathology. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996; 67(3):264–268. doi:10.3109/17453679608994685 [CrossRef]
  36. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, Lavau L, Voisin MC. Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures: pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; 304:78–83.
  37. Fuchs B, Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Gerber C. Fatty degeneration of the muscles of the rotator cuff: assessment by computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999; 8(6):599–605. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(99)90097-6 [CrossRef]
  38. Khoury V, Cardinal E, Brassard P. Atrophy and fatty infiltration of the supraspinatus muscle: sonography versus MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190(4):1105–1111. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2835 [CrossRef]
  39. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310 [CrossRef]
  40. Alavekios DA, Dionysian E, Sodl J, Contreras R, Cho Y, Yian EH. Longitudinal analysis of effects of operator experience on accuracy for ultrasound detection of supra-spinatus tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22(3):375–380. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.09.017 [CrossRef]
  41. Murphy RJ, Daines MT, Carr AJ, Rees JL. An independent learning method for orthopaedic surgeons performing shoulder ultrasound to identify full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(3):266–272. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00706 [CrossRef]
  42. Al-Shawi A, Badge R, Bunker T. The detection of full thickness rotator cuff tears using ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(7):889–892. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B7.20481 [CrossRef]
  43. Middleton WD, Payne WT, Teefey SA, Hildebolt CF, Rubin DA, Yamaguchi K. Sonography and MRI of the shoulder: comparison of patient satisfaction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183(5):1449–1452. doi:10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831449 [CrossRef]
  44. Wiener SN, Seitz WH Jr, . Sonography of the shoulder in patients with tears of the rotator cuff: accuracy and value for selecting surgical options. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993; 160(1):103–107. doi:10.2214/ajr.160.1.8416605 [CrossRef]
  45. Mack LA, Gannon MK, Kilcoyne RF, Matsen RA III, . Sonographic evaluation of the rotator cuff: accuracy in patients without prior surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 234:21–27.
  46. Rutten MJ, Maresch BJ, Jager GJ, Blickman JG, van Holsbeeck MT. Ultrasound of the rotator cuff with MRI and anatomic correlation. Eur J Radiol. 2007; 62(3):427–436. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.12.003 [CrossRef]
  47. Kuhn JE, Dunn WR, Ma B, et al. Interobserver agreement in the classification of rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(3):437–441.
  48. Lippe J, Spang JT, Leger RR, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD, Shea KP. Interrater agreement of the Goutallier, Patte, and Warner classification scores using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in patients with rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(2):154–159. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.07.016 [CrossRef]
  49. O'Connor PJ, Rankine J, Gibbon WW, Richardson A, Winter F, Miller JH. Interobserver variation in sonography of the painful shoulder. J Clin Ultrasound. 2005; 33(2):53–56. doi:10.1002/jcu.20088 [CrossRef]
  50. Slabaugh MA, Friel NA, Karas V, Romeo AA, Verma NN, Cole BJ. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Goutallier classification using magnetic resonance imaging: proposal of a simplified classification system to increase reliability. Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40(8):1728–1734. doi:10.1177/0363546512452714 [CrossRef]
  51. Spencer EE Jr, Dunn WR, Wright RW, et al. Interobserver agreement in the classification of rotator cuff tears using magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36(1):99–103. doi:10.1177/0363546507307504 [CrossRef]
  52. Fischbach F, Müller M, Bruhn H. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cranial nerves in the posterior fossa: a comparative study of T2-weighted spin-echo sequences at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Acta Radiol. 2008; 49(3):358–363. doi:10.1080/02841850701824127 [CrossRef]

Intrarater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Trials, for Each Rater and Method

Rater No.MethodIntraclass Correlation Coefficient (95% Confidence Interval)Fatty Infiltration

WidthLengthMuscle Atrophy
1US0.85 (0.76–0.91)0.89 (0.81–0.93)0.52 (0.30–0.70)0.78
MRI0.91 (0.85–0.94)0.91 (0.86–0.95)0.92 (0.87–0.95)0.69
2US0.82 (0.71–0.89)0.83 (0.73–0.89)0.42 (0.16–0.62)0.69
MRI0.85 (0.77–0.91)0.90 (0.84–0.94)0.79 (0.63–0.88)0.76
3US0.85 (0.76–0.91)0.93 (0.86–0.96)0.63 (0.43–0.77)0.69
MRI0.88 (0.80–0.92)0.83 (0.71–0.90)0.90 (0.80–0.95)0.51

Interrater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Raters, for Each Method

MethodIntraclass Correlation (95% Confidence Interval)Fatty Infiltration

WidthLengthMuscle Atrophy
US0.70 (0.57–0.80)0.70 (0.57–0.80)0.45 (0.00–0.72)0.41
MRI0.87 (0.81–0.92)0.89 (0.82–0.94)0.67 (0.20–0.85)0.22

Comparison of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Tear Size (Length and Width) and Muscle Atrophy

VariableMean±Standard ErrorPa

UltrasoundMagnetic Resonance Imaging
Length20.6±0.5223.4±0.75<.001
Width20.2±0.5223.0±0.78<.001
Muscle atrophy0.76±0.010.57±0.01<.001
Authors

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Kelechi R. Okoroha, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 W Grand Blvd (CFP-6), Detroit, MI 48202 ( Krokoroha@gmail.com).

Received: April 20, 2016
Accepted: August 30, 2016
Posted Online: October 18, 2016

10.3928/01477447-20161013-04

Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both capable of diagnosing full-thickness rotator cuff tears. However, it is unknown which imaging modality is more accurate and precise in evaluating the characteristics of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in a surgical population. This study reviewed 114 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear over a 1-year period. Of these patients, 61 had both preoperative MRI and ultrasound for review. Three musculoskeletal radiologists evaluated each ultrasound and MRI in a randomized and blinded fashion on 2 separate occasions. Tear size, retraction status, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration were analyzed and compared between the 2 modalities. Ultrasound measurements were statistically smaller in both tear size (P=.001) and retraction status (P=.001) compared with MRI. The 2 image modalities showed comparable intraobserver reliability in assessment of tear size and retraction status. However, MRI showed greater interobserver reliability in assessment of tear size, retraction status, and atrophy. Independent observers are more likely to agree on measurements of the characteristics of rotator cuff tears when using MRI compared with ultrasound. As tear size increases, the 2 image modalities show greater differences in measurement of tear size and retraction status. Additionally, compared with MRI, ultrasound shows consistently low reliability in detecting subtle, but clinically important, degeneration of the soft tissue envelope. Although it is inexpensive and convenient, ultrasound may be best used to identify a tear, and MRI is superior for use in surgical planning for larger tears. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(1):e124–e130.]

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Kelechi R. Okoroha, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 W Grand Blvd (CFP-6), Detroit, MI 48202 ( Krokoroha@gmail.com).

Received: April 20, 2016
Accepted: August 30, 2016
Posted Online: October 18, 2016

Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both capable of diagnosing full-thickness rotator cuff tears. However, it is unknown which imaging modality is more accurate and precise in evaluating the characteristics of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in a surgical population. This study reviewed 114 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear over a 1-year period. Of these patients, 61 had both preoperative MRI and ultrasound for review. Three musculoskeletal radiologists evaluated each ultrasound and MRI in a randomized and blinded fashion on 2 separate occasions. Tear size, retraction status, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration were analyzed and compared between the 2 modalities. Ultrasound measurements were statistically smaller in both tear size (P=.001) and retraction status (P=.001) compared with MRI. The 2 image modalities showed comparable intraobserver reliability in assessment of tear size and retraction status. However, MRI showed greater interobserver reliability in assessment of tear size, retraction status, and atrophy. Independent observers are more likely to agree on measurements of the characteristics of rotator cuff tears when using MRI compared with ultrasound. As tear size increases, the 2 image modalities show greater differences in measurement of tear size and retraction status. Additionally, compared with MRI, ultrasound shows consistently low reliability in detecting subtle, but clinically important, degeneration of the soft tissue envelope. Although it is inexpensive and convenient, ultrasound may be best used to identify a tear, and MRI is superior for use in surgical planning for larger tears. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(1):e124–e130.]

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Kelechi R. Okoroha, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 W Grand Blvd (CFP-6), Detroit, MI 48202 ( Krokoroha@gmail.com).

Received: April 20, 2016
Accepted: August 30, 2016
Posted Online: October 18, 2016

Rotator cuff disease is the most common cause of shoulder symptoms, accounting for 65% to 70% of cases1 and leading to approximately 4.5 million physician visits per year in the United States.2,3 By 70 years of age, more than 50% of the general population has a full- or partial-thickness rotator cuff tear, regardless of the presence of symptoms.4 Rotator cuff tears are a significant cause of morbidity and a financial burden to the health care system. These tears require continuous reassessment of diagnostic workup and management.

Both accurate diagnosis and determination of the extent of the rotator cuff tear are critical for treatment management decisions and preoperative planning. Clinical examination alone provides limited information, making supplementary imaging an essential component of decision making. The choice of nonoperative modalities and surgical management, including the specific procedure performed, depends on the size of the lesion, retraction status, and pathologic changes determined by imaging.5–7 Previous studies recognized that muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration are irreversible and often correlate with poor outcomes after rotator cuff tear repair.8–15

There are 2 primary imaging modalities that are used to visualize the rotator cuff: ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Historically, MRI was the method of choice, given its proven accuracy and high sensitivity in diagnosing rotator cuff pathology.16–19 The use of MRI is appealing because it is less dependent on operator factors, it provides images that are inherently easier for orthopedic surgeons to review, and it is better for the evaluation of morphologic changes in structures such as the glenoid labrum, joint capsule, articular cartilage, and surrounding muscles and bone that may contribute to symptoms. Ultrasound is among the most operator-dependent imaging methods, and its reliability and accuracy correlate directly with user experience.20,21 Because of improvements over the past 10 years in transducer strength, soft tissue penetration, and user experience, ultrasound has become a more reliable diagnostic tool for suspected rotator cuff tear. Further, unlike MRI, ultrasound is inexpensive, readily available, and well tolerated, and it offers real-time results and dynamic visualization.22 The growing interest in ultrasound vs MRI for the workup of rotator cuff tear led to a number of studies and meta-analyses comparing the 2 modalities, and these studies showed comparable results in diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.21,23–34 There is no general consensus on which is the preferred test, and no previous studies directly compared intra- and interobserver agreement between MRI and ultrasound in determining specific tear size and pathologic characteristics of rotator cuff tears. In addition, no study has looked at a surgical population that included only full-thickness tears.

The current study compared the characterization of rotator cuff tears by ultrasound and MRI in terms of size, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration in surgical patients. In addition, the study evaluated the intra- and interobserver reliability of ultrasound and MRI when making these measurements.

Materials and Methods

Study Design and Subjects

The authors performed a retrospective review of 114 consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear by a single surgeon at the study institution between February 2010 and February 2011. The study included 61 patients who had both MRI and ultrasound within 16 weeks of each other before surgery. Both MRI and ultrasound studies were reviewed individually twice by 2 senior-level musculoskeletal radiologists, each with more than 20 years of experience, and twice by a musculoskeletal fellow. The study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Examinations were performed with a 1.5 Tesla magnet MRI as a baseline. The protocol for each scanner was consistent. The protocols used were coronal proton density (field of view, 16–17 cm; matrix, 512×384; repetition time/echo time range, 1500–3000/20–30); sagittal proton density (field of view, 16–17 cm; matrix range, 256–512×224–384; repetition time/echo time range, 1500–3000/20–30); axial T2 fat suppressed (field of view, 16–19 cm; matrix range, 256–304×224–235; repetition time/echo time range, 2685–2839/60–100); and coronal T2 fat suppressed (field of view, 16–18 cm; matrix range, 256×192–224; repetition time/echo time range, 2800–3643/60–75).

Sizes of the full-thickness rotator cuff tears were measured in the greatest anteroposterior dimension (width) and in length/degree of retraction. The occupational ratio of each tear was calculated to determine muscle atrophy. This calculation was based on sagittal proton density images, according to the method of Thomazeau et al.35 The cross-sectional surface area of the supraspinatus was divided by the cross-sectional area of the supraspinatus fossa on the Y-view, which is formed by the coracoid process, distal clavicle, and scapular spine. Fatty infiltration of the rotator cuff muscles was graded based on the Goutallier classification with sagittal proton density images.36 According to this classification system, grade 0=no fat, grade 1=trace fatty streaks, grade 2=less than 50% fat, grade 3=50% fat, and grade 4=more than 50% fat.36,37

Ultrasound

Ultrasound was performed with a Logiq E9 ultrasound machine (GE Healthcare, San Jose, California), with 9–12 MHz transducers. Shoulder ultrasound examinations were performed in a standardized fashion, with the subject in a seated position. Evaluation included the rotator cuff musculature tendons, acromioclavicular joint, long head biceps tendon, posterior labrum, and spinoglenoid notch. The supraspinatus was evaluated in both Crass and modified Crass positions. Dynamic imaging was performed for abduction/adduction of the arm in the coronal plane to evaluate for subacromial impingement and internal/external rotation of the arm at the level of the subscapularis for evaluation of subcoracoid impingement. Of the 61 patients, 52 had imaging of the supraspinatus muscle. For 9 patients, imaging of the supraspinatus muscle was not performed because these patients were examined before the institution included imaging of the muscle itself as part of the standard shoulder protocol.

Determination of the degree of muscle atrophy and evaluation of fatty infiltration were based on images of the supraspinatus within the fossa. To determine the degree of muscle atrophy, the Y-view of the MRI was re-created and the cross-sectional surface area of the supraspinatus muscle was divided by that of the fossa. Fatty infiltration was determined by looking at echogenicity and the echostructure/pennate pattern, as in previous studies by Khoury et al38 and Goutallier et al.36 Echogenicity was graded as isoechoic, mildly hyperechoic, or markedly hyperechoic. The echostructure was graded as normal (homogeneously distributed, well-defined hyperechoic streaks corresponding to fibromuscular septa), effaced (slight loss of the pennate pattern, with blurring of margins of the hyperechoic streaks), or absent (loss of the pennate pattern, with very poor or no visibility of the streaks). In addition, the greatest anteroposterior dimension (width) and the length and degree of proximal tendon retraction of the full-thickness rotator cuff tear were measured.

Statistical Analysis

A biostatistician performed all statistical analyses with SPSS version 22 statistical software (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York). Analysis of inter- and intrarater reliability was performed with an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for the continuous variables of length, width, and muscle atrophy. These results are shown as mean and 95% confidence interval (CI). For the ordinal variable of fatty infiltration, analysis of inter- and intrarater reliability was performed with the weighted κ coefficient. Similar statistics were used to assess the agreement between MRI and ultrasound methods. The κ statistics were interpreted based on guidelines proposed by Landis and Koch,39 with values less than 0 defined as poor or no agreement, values of 0 to 0.20 defined as slight agreement, values of 0.21 to 0.40 defined as fair agreement, values of 0.41 to 0.60 defined as moderate agreement, values of 0.61 to 0.80 defined as substantial agreement, and values of 0.81 to 1.00 defined as almost perfect agreement. Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the difference between MRI and ultrasound with the mean of the 2 methods. Graphs showing the distribution of percent change (100%×[MRI-ultrasound]/MRI) for continuous variables were also created to visually assess the agreement between MRI and ultrasound. Additionally, a mixed-effects model with method as the fixed effect and reviewer and patient as the random effects was used to compare actual measurements of width and length with the 2 imaging modalities. These values are shown as mean±standard error. In all analyses, P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Intrarater Agreement

For length and width, intrarater agreement was almost perfect (ICC, 0.82–0.93). For muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration measures, intrarater agreement ranged from fair to almost perfect (ICC, 0.42–0.92; κ=0.51–0.97), respectively (Table 1).


Intrarater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Trials, for Each Rater and Method

Table 1:

Intrarater Agreement With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Trials, for Each Rater and Method

Interrater Agreement

Interrater agreement with MRI was almost perfect for width (ICC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81–0.92) and length (ICC, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82–0.94). Interrater agreement for muscle atrophy was substantial, and inter-rater agreement for fatty infiltration was only fair (κ=0.22).

Interrater agreement was lower with ultrasound, but still substantial for width (ICC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57–0.80) and length (ICC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57–0.80). For muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration, interrater agreement was moderate (Table 2).


Interrater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Raters, for Each Method

Table 2:

Interrater Agreement With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Raters, for Each Method

Agreement Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasound

The agreement between MRI and ultrasound was moderate for width (ICC, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43–0.64) and length (ICC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.49–0.68). However, the agreement was slight for muscle atrophy (κ=0.04) and only fair for fatty infiltration (κ=0.31). When actual values for MRI and ultrasound for width, length, and muscle atrophy were compared, ultrasound measurements were significantly lower than MRI measurements for width and length and significantly higher for muscle atrophy (P<.001 for all, Table 3).


Comparison of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Tear Size (Length and Width) and Muscle Atrophy

Table 3:

Comparison of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Tear Size (Length and Width) and Muscle Atrophy

These findings were confirmed with Bland-Altman plots, which showed that length and width were evenly distributed around zero until the mean tear size approached 20 mm. For mean values greater than 20 mm, the distribution shifted upward, reflecting a tendency for MRI values to be greater than ultrasound values at these levels (Figures 12).


Bland-Altman plot comparing length measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Figure 1:

Bland-Altman plot comparing length measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.


Bland-Altman plot comparing width measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Figure 2:

Bland-Altman plot comparing width measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the distribution of percent change of ultrasound from MRI for width and length measurements. For width, approximately 18% of observations had ultrasound values within 10% of MRI values and 34% had ultrasound values within 20% of MRI values. Approximately 26% of observations had ultrasound values with a difference of greater than 50% (positive and negative) compared with MRI. The distribution of length was similar to the distribution of width. For length, 18% of observations had ultrasound values within 10% of MRI values, 36% had ultrasound values within 20% of MRI values, and 26% had ultrasound values showing a difference of greater than 50% compared with MRI values.


Distribution of percent change for width.

Figure 3:

Distribution of percent change for width.


Distribution of percent change for length.

Figure 4:

Distribution of percent change for length.

Discussion

Ultrasound is the most operator-dependent imaging study for the shoulder,40,41 and it is becoming more popular as a first-line imaging modality for evaluating rotator cuff tears. Although several studies and meta-analyses have shown comparable accuracy in diagnosing both total and partial tears,15,21,23,25,32,42–44 ultrasound is often considered inferior to MRI for preoperative imaging because it provides less detail on morphologic changes in the cuff musculature.31,45,46 The current findings showed low agreement between MRI and ultrasound in characterizing full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Ultrasound had lower interobserver reliability and decreased measurement of large rotator cuff tears.

Increasing collaboration between musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopedic surgeons has emphasized the importance of retraction and muscle status in predicting success in rotator cuff surgery. Previous studies evaluated the reliability of ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears as well as the characterization of rotator cuff tears with MRI.21,45–51 To the authors' knowledge, no studies have looked at the agreement of ultrasound and MRI in characterizing rotator cuff tears with regard to the specifics of tear size, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration.

Spencer et al51 evaluated the agreement of orthopedic surgeons in characterizing rotator cuff tears with MRI only. Their study found fair interobserver reliability when evaluating tear width (κ=0.26) and moderate reliability when evaluating tear retraction (κ=0.44). The current study showed increased reliability, with almost perfect reliability when evaluating tear width and retraction with MRI. The authors believe that the inclusion of only full-thickness tears increased accuracy because partial-thickness tears are more difficult to evaluate.51 Ultrasound showed less reliability, with substantial agreement when assessing tear width and retraction. When the 2 image modalities were compared directly, agreement was adequate when evaluating length and width, especially with tears smaller than 20 mm. However, agreement was poor with tears greater than 20 mm, in which ultrasound measurements were smaller. Sipola et al31 showed that both MRI and ultrasound underestimate rotator cuff tear size compared with surgical findings.

Slabaugh et al50 evaluated interobserver and intraobserver reliability in classifying fatty infiltration with MRI according to the Goutallier classification. Their study showed moderate intraobserver reliability, with κ=0.56 (95% CI, 0.53–0.60), and moderate interobserver reliability, with κ=0.43 (range, 0.16–0.74). The current study showed similar results, with fair to moderate intraobserver reliability. However, when evaluating interobserver reliability, this study found only slight agreement with MRI. Ultrasound showed comparable results, with moderate intraobserver reliability and fair interobserver reliability. Additionally, when they were compared directly, agreement between the 2 imaging modalities was poor to fair when evaluating fatty infiltration. These findings may be explained by a lack of standardized and evidence-based protocols to characterize rotator cuff tears with ultrasound.

Spencer et al51 and Lippe et al48 evaluated interobserver reliability for muscle atrophy with MRI; they both found fair agreement when assessing atrophy with MRI (κ=0.25 and κ=0.25, respectively). The current results showed increased interobserver reliability, with substantial agreement between observers. However, with ultrasound, reliability was moderate, and agreement between the 2 imaging methods was only slight. These findings can be explained by the increased visualization of the rotator cuff musculature on MRI compared with ultrasound. The current findings suggest that muscle atrophy is better analyzed with MRI.

Limitations

This study had a number of important limitations. In evaluating fatty infiltration, 9 patients did not undergo ultrasound imaging of the supraspinatus muscle. These differences were the result of changing protocols at the study institution and could not be controlled for by this retrospective study. The absence of this information in such a small subset of the patient population did not have an appreciable effect on the results. Because this study was performed at a large institution with several satellite hospitals, various MRI scanners were used. Most examinations were performed with a 1.5 Tesla MRI, but some patients were examined with a more detailed 3.0 Tesla MRI. Improved image quality has been reported with 3.0 Tesla MRI vs 1.5 Tesla MRI, and this difference may affect the depiction of detail.52 However, because slice thickness was equal, the authors do not believe that the higher Tesla magnet had a profound effect on detailing size, retraction, or atrophy status in the calculations.

Another limitation of the study was the lack of comparison of ultrasound and MRI values with surgical findings. Although basic intraoperative measurements were available for all patients, the approach to measuring size and retraction status was not standardized because this was a retrospective study. Information on the size and number of suture anchors was available from operative documentation, but the authors believed that this information would not accurately predict tear size. Although MRI has been considered highly accurate, there has been little evaluation of comparison of characterization of rotator cuff tears with MRI and ultrasound compared with surgical findings. This is an area for future study.

Conclusion

Independent observers are more likely to agree on measurements of the characteristics of rotator cuff tear with MRI compared with ultrasound. As tear size increases, the 2 modalities show greater differences in measurements of tear size and retraction status. Additionally, compared with MRI, ultrasound shows consistently low reliability in detecting subtle, but clinically important, degeneration of the soft tissue envelope. Although it is inexpensive and convenient, ultrasound may be the best modality for identifying tears, and MRI is superior in surgical planning for larger tears.

References

  1. Shanahan EM, Sladek R. Shoulder pain at the workplace. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011; 25(1):59–68. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2011.01.008 [CrossRef]
  2. Matsen FA III, . Clinical practice: rotator-cuff failure. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(20):2138–2147. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp0800814 [CrossRef]
  3. Oh LS, Wolf BR, Hall MP, Levy BA, Marx RG. Indications for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 455:52–63. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802fc175 [CrossRef]
  4. Milgrom C, Schaffler M, Gilbert S, van Holsbeeck M. Rotator-cuff changes in asymptomatic adults: the effect of age, hand dominance and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77(2):296–298.
  5. Bryant L, Shnier R, Bryant C, Murrell GA. A comparison of clinical estimation, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopy in determining the size of rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11(3):219–224. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.121923 [CrossRef]
  6. Ruotolo C, Nottage WM. Surgical and nonsurgical management of rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2002; 18(5):527–531. doi:10.1053/jars.2002.31707 [CrossRef]
  7. Seibold CJ, Mallisee TA, Erickson SJ, Boynton MD, Raasch WG, Timins ME. Rotator cuff: evaluation with US and MR imaging. Radiographics. 1999; 19(3):685–705. doi:10.1148/radiographics.19.3.g99ma03685 [CrossRef]
  8. Boileau P, Brassart N, Watkinson DJ, Carles M, Hatzidakis AM, Krishnan SG. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus: does the tendon really heal?J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(6):1229–1240. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02035 [CrossRef]
  9. Cho NS, Rhee YG. The factors affecting the clinical outcome and integrity of arthroscopically repaired rotator cuff tears of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009; 1(2):96–104. doi:10.4055/cios.2009.1.2.96 [CrossRef]
  10. Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(2):219–224.
  11. Gladstone JN, Bishop JY, Lo IK, Flatow EL. Fatty infiltration and atrophy of the rotator cuff do not improve after rotator cuff repair and correlate with poor functional outcome. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(5):719–728. doi:10.1177/0363546506297539 [CrossRef]
  12. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Gleyze P, Leguilloux P, Van Driessche S. Influence of cuff muscle fatty degeneration on anatomic and functional outcomes after simple suture of full-thickness tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003; 12(6):550–554. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(03)00211-8 [CrossRef]
  13. Kim HM, Dahiya N, Teefey SA, Keener JD, Galatz LM, Yamaguchi K. Relationship of tear size and location to fatty degeneration of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(4):829–839. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01746 [CrossRef]
  14. Shen PH, Lien SB, Shen HC, Lee CH, Wu SS, Lin LC. Long-term functional outcomes after repair of rotator cuff tears correlated with atrophy of the supraspinatus muscles on magnetic resonance images. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(1 suppl):1S–7S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.04.014 [CrossRef]
  15. Strobel K, Zanetti M, Nagy L, Hodler J. Suspected rotator cuff lesions: tissue harmonic imaging versus conventional US of the shoulder. Radiology. 2004; 230(1):243–249. doi:10.1148/radiol.2301021517 [CrossRef]
  16. Evancho AM, Stiles RG, Fajman WA, et al. MR imaging diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988; 151(4):751–754. doi:10.2214/ajr.151.4.751 [CrossRef]
  17. Iannotti JP, Zlatkin MB, Esterhai JL, Kressel HY, Dalinka MK, Spindler KP. Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991; 73(1):17–29.
  18. Kneeland JB, Middleton WD, Carrera GF, et al. MR imaging of the shoulder: diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987; 149(2):333–337. doi:10.2214/ajr.149.2.333 [CrossRef]
  19. Singson RD, Hoang T, Dan S, Friedman M. MR evaluation of rotator cuff pathology using T2-weighted fast spin-echo technique with and without fat suppression. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 166(5):1061–1065. doi:10.2214/ajr.166.5.8615243 [CrossRef]
  20. Le Corroller T, Cohen M, Aswad R, Pauly V, Champsaur P. Sonography of the painful shoulder: role of the operator's experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2008; 37(11):979–986. doi:10.1007/s00256-008-0539-z [CrossRef]
  21. Middleton WD, Teefey SA, Yamaguchi K. Sonography of the rotator cuff: analysis of interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183(5):1465–1468. doi:10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831465 [CrossRef]
  22. Teefey SA. Shoulder sonography: why we do it. J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31(9):1325–1331.
  23. de Jesus JO, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Nazarian LN. Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192(6):1701–1707. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1241 [CrossRef]
  24. Dinnes J, Loveman E, McIntyre L, Waugh N. The effectiveness of diagnostic tests for the assessment of shoulder pain due to soft tissue disorders: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2003; 7(29):1–166. doi:10.3310/hta7290 [CrossRef]
  25. Fotiadou AN, Vlychou M, Papadopoulos P, Karataglis DS, Palladas P, Fezoulidis IV. Ultrasonography of symptomatic rotator cuff tears compared with MR imaging and surgery. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 68(1):174–179. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.002 [CrossRef]
  26. Friedman RL, Hidalgo HJ, Gilmer PW, Mallon WJ. Ultrasonography of the rotator cuff: analysis of results in a community setting. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993; 2(1):22–26. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80133-X [CrossRef]
  27. Jacobson JA, Lancaster S, Prasad A, van Holsbeeck MT, Craig JG, Kolowich P. Full-thickness and partial-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears: value of US signs in diagnosis. Radiology. 2004; 230(1):234–242. doi:10.1148/radiol.2301020418 [CrossRef]
  28. Martín-Hervás C, Romero J, Navas-Acién A, Reboiras JJ, Munuera L. Ultrasonographic and magnetic resonance images of rotator cuff lesions compared with arthroscopy or open surgery findings. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001; 10(5):410–415. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.116515 [CrossRef]
  29. Nelson MC, Leather GP, Nirschl RP, Pettrone FA, Freedman MT. Evaluation of the painful shoulder: a prospective comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomographic arthrography, ultrasonography, and operative findings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991; 73(5):707–716.
  30. Prickett WD, Teefey SA, Galatz LM, Calfee RP, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. Accuracy of ultrasound imaging of the rotator cuff in shoulders that are painful postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(6):1084–1089.
  31. Sipola P, Niemitukia L, Kröger H, Höfling I, Väätäinen U. Detection and quantification of rotator cuff tears with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective study in 77 consecutive patients with a surgical reference. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010; 36(12):1981–1989. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.09.001 [CrossRef]
  32. Smith TO, Back T, Toms AP, Hing CB. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for rotator cuff tears in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2011; 66(11):1036–1048. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2011.05.007 [CrossRef]
  33. van Holsbeeck MT, Kolowich PA, Eyler WR, et al. US depiction of partial-thickness tear of the rotator cuff. Radiology. 1995; 197(2):443–446. doi:10.1148/radiology.197.2.7480690 [CrossRef]
  34. van Moppes FI, Veldkamp O, Roorda J. Role of shoulder ultrasonography in the evaluation of the painful shoulder. Eur J Radiol. 1995; 19(2):142–146. doi:10.1016/0720-048X(94)00590-9 [CrossRef]
  35. Thomazeau H, Rolland Y, Lucas C, Duval JM, Langlais F. Atrophy of the supraspinatus belly: assessment by MRI in 55 patients with rotator cuff pathology. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996; 67(3):264–268. doi:10.3109/17453679608994685 [CrossRef]
  36. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, Lavau L, Voisin MC. Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures: pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; 304:78–83.
  37. Fuchs B, Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Gerber C. Fatty degeneration of the muscles of the rotator cuff: assessment by computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999; 8(6):599–605. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(99)90097-6 [CrossRef]
  38. Khoury V, Cardinal E, Brassard P. Atrophy and fatty infiltration of the supraspinatus muscle: sonography versus MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190(4):1105–1111. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2835 [CrossRef]
  39. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310 [CrossRef]
  40. Alavekios DA, Dionysian E, Sodl J, Contreras R, Cho Y, Yian EH. Longitudinal analysis of effects of operator experience on accuracy for ultrasound detection of supra-spinatus tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22(3):375–380. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.09.017 [CrossRef]
  41. Murphy RJ, Daines MT, Carr AJ, Rees JL. An independent learning method for orthopaedic surgeons performing shoulder ultrasound to identify full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(3):266–272. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00706 [CrossRef]
  42. Al-Shawi A, Badge R, Bunker T. The detection of full thickness rotator cuff tears using ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(7):889–892. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B7.20481 [CrossRef]
  43. Middleton WD, Payne WT, Teefey SA, Hildebolt CF, Rubin DA, Yamaguchi K. Sonography and MRI of the shoulder: comparison of patient satisfaction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183(5):1449–1452. doi:10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831449 [CrossRef]
  44. Wiener SN, Seitz WH Jr, . Sonography of the shoulder in patients with tears of the rotator cuff: accuracy and value for selecting surgical options. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993; 160(1):103–107. doi:10.2214/ajr.160.1.8416605 [CrossRef]
  45. Mack LA, Gannon MK, Kilcoyne RF, Matsen RA III, . Sonographic evaluation of the rotator cuff: accuracy in patients without prior surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 234:21–27.
  46. Rutten MJ, Maresch BJ, Jager GJ, Blickman JG, van Holsbeeck MT. Ultrasound of the rotator cuff with MRI and anatomic correlation. Eur J Radiol. 2007; 62(3):427–436. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.12.003 [CrossRef]
  47. Kuhn JE, Dunn WR, Ma B, et al. Interobserver agreement in the classification of rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(3):437–441.
  48. Lippe J, Spang JT, Leger RR, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD, Shea KP. Interrater agreement of the Goutallier, Patte, and Warner classification scores using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in patients with rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(2):154–159. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.07.016 [CrossRef]
  49. O'Connor PJ, Rankine J, Gibbon WW, Richardson A, Winter F, Miller JH. Interobserver variation in sonography of the painful shoulder. J Clin Ultrasound. 2005; 33(2):53–56. doi:10.1002/jcu.20088 [CrossRef]
  50. Slabaugh MA, Friel NA, Karas V, Romeo AA, Verma NN, Cole BJ. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Goutallier classification using magnetic resonance imaging: proposal of a simplified classification system to increase reliability. Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40(8):1728–1734. doi:10.1177/0363546512452714 [CrossRef]
  51. Spencer EE Jr, Dunn WR, Wright RW, et al. Interobserver agreement in the classification of rotator cuff tears using magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36(1):99–103. doi:10.1177/0363546507307504 [CrossRef]
  52. Fischbach F, Müller M, Bruhn H. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cranial nerves in the posterior fossa: a comparative study of T2-weighted spin-echo sequences at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Acta Radiol. 2008; 49(3):358–363. doi:10.1080/02841850701824127 [CrossRef]

Intrarater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Trials, for Each Rater and Method

Rater No.MethodIntraclass Correlation Coefficient (95% Confidence Interval)Fatty Infiltration

WidthLengthMuscle Atrophy
1US0.85 (0.76–0.91)0.89 (0.81–0.93)0.52 (0.30–0.70)0.78
MRI0.91 (0.85–0.94)0.91 (0.86–0.95)0.92 (0.87–0.95)0.69
2US0.82 (0.71–0.89)0.83 (0.73–0.89)0.42 (0.16–0.62)0.69
MRI0.85 (0.77–0.91)0.90 (0.84–0.94)0.79 (0.63–0.88)0.76
3US0.85 (0.76–0.91)0.93 (0.86–0.96)0.63 (0.43–0.77)0.69
MRI0.88 (0.80–0.92)0.83 (0.71–0.90)0.90 (0.80–0.95)0.51

Interrater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Raters, for Each Method

MethodIntraclass Correlation (95% Confidence Interval)Fatty Infiltration

WidthLengthMuscle Atrophy
US0.70 (0.57–0.80)0.70 (0.57–0.80)0.45 (0.00–0.72)0.41
MRI0.87 (0.81–0.92)0.89 (0.82–0.94)0.67 (0.20–0.85)0.22

Comparison of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Tear Size (Length and Width) and Muscle Atrophy

VariableMean±Standard ErrorPa

UltrasoundMagnetic Resonance Imaging
Length20.6±0.5223.4±0.75<.001
Width20.2±0.5223.0±0.78<.001
Muscle atrophy0.76±0.010.57±0.01<.001

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Kelechi R. Okoroha, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 W Grand Blvd (CFP-6), Detroit, MI 48202 ( Krokoroha@gmail.com).

Received: April 20, 2016
Accepted: August 30, 2016
Posted Online: October 18, 2016

Intrarater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Trials, for Each Rater and Method

Table 1:

Intrarater Agreement With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Trials, for Each Rater and Method


Interrater Agreementa With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Raters, for Each Method

Table 2:

Interrater Agreement With 95% Confidence Interval for Each Measurement Across Raters, for Each Method


Comparison of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Tear Size (Length and Width) and Muscle Atrophy

Table 3:

Comparison of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Tear Size (Length and Width) and Muscle Atrophy


Bland-Altman plot comparing length measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Figure 1:

Bland-Altman plot comparing length measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.


Bland-Altman plot comparing width measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Figure 2:

Bland-Altman plot comparing width measurements between ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.


Distribution of percent change for width.

Figure 3:

Distribution of percent change for width.


Distribution of percent change for length.

Figure 4:

Distribution of percent change for length.

References

  1. Shanahan EM, Sladek R. Shoulder pain at the workplace. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011; 25(1):59–68. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2011.01.008 [CrossRef]
  2. Matsen FA III, . Clinical practice: rotator-cuff failure. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(20):2138–2147. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp0800814 [CrossRef]
  3. Oh LS, Wolf BR, Hall MP, Levy BA, Marx RG. Indications for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 455:52–63. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802fc175 [CrossRef]
  4. Milgrom C, Schaffler M, Gilbert S, van Holsbeeck M. Rotator-cuff changes in asymptomatic adults: the effect of age, hand dominance and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77(2):296–298.
  5. Bryant L, Shnier R, Bryant C, Murrell GA. A comparison of clinical estimation, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopy in determining the size of rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11(3):219–224. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.121923 [CrossRef]
  6. Ruotolo C, Nottage WM. Surgical and nonsurgical management of rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2002; 18(5):527–531. doi:10.1053/jars.2002.31707 [CrossRef]
  7. Seibold CJ, Mallisee TA, Erickson SJ, Boynton MD, Raasch WG, Timins ME. Rotator cuff: evaluation with US and MR imaging. Radiographics. 1999; 19(3):685–705. doi:10.1148/radiographics.19.3.g99ma03685 [CrossRef]
  8. Boileau P, Brassart N, Watkinson DJ, Carles M, Hatzidakis AM, Krishnan SG. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus: does the tendon really heal?J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(6):1229–1240. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02035 [CrossRef]
  9. Cho NS, Rhee YG. The factors affecting the clinical outcome and integrity of arthroscopically repaired rotator cuff tears of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009; 1(2):96–104. doi:10.4055/cios.2009.1.2.96 [CrossRef]
  10. Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(2):219–224.
  11. Gladstone JN, Bishop JY, Lo IK, Flatow EL. Fatty infiltration and atrophy of the rotator cuff do not improve after rotator cuff repair and correlate with poor functional outcome. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(5):719–728. doi:10.1177/0363546506297539 [CrossRef]
  12. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Gleyze P, Leguilloux P, Van Driessche S. Influence of cuff muscle fatty degeneration on anatomic and functional outcomes after simple suture of full-thickness tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003; 12(6):550–554. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(03)00211-8 [CrossRef]
  13. Kim HM, Dahiya N, Teefey SA, Keener JD, Galatz LM, Yamaguchi K. Relationship of tear size and location to fatty degeneration of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(4):829–839. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01746 [CrossRef]
  14. Shen PH, Lien SB, Shen HC, Lee CH, Wu SS, Lin LC. Long-term functional outcomes after repair of rotator cuff tears correlated with atrophy of the supraspinatus muscles on magnetic resonance images. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(1 suppl):1S–7S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.04.014 [CrossRef]
  15. Strobel K, Zanetti M, Nagy L, Hodler J. Suspected rotator cuff lesions: tissue harmonic imaging versus conventional US of the shoulder. Radiology. 2004; 230(1):243–249. doi:10.1148/radiol.2301021517 [CrossRef]
  16. Evancho AM, Stiles RG, Fajman WA, et al. MR imaging diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988; 151(4):751–754. doi:10.2214/ajr.151.4.751 [CrossRef]
  17. Iannotti JP, Zlatkin MB, Esterhai JL, Kressel HY, Dalinka MK, Spindler KP. Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991; 73(1):17–29.
  18. Kneeland JB, Middleton WD, Carrera GF, et al. MR imaging of the shoulder: diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987; 149(2):333–337. doi:10.2214/ajr.149.2.333 [CrossRef]
  19. Singson RD, Hoang T, Dan S, Friedman M. MR evaluation of rotator cuff pathology using T2-weighted fast spin-echo technique with and without fat suppression. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 166(5):1061–1065. doi:10.2214/ajr.166.5.8615243 [CrossRef]
  20. Le Corroller T, Cohen M, Aswad R, Pauly V, Champsaur P. Sonography of the painful shoulder: role of the operator's experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2008; 37(11):979–986. doi:10.1007/s00256-008-0539-z [CrossRef]
  21. Middleton WD, Teefey SA, Yamaguchi K. Sonography of the rotator cuff: analysis of interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183(5):1465–1468. doi:10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831465 [CrossRef]
  22. Teefey SA. Shoulder sonography: why we do it. J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31(9):1325–1331.
  23. de Jesus JO, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Nazarian LN. Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192(6):1701–1707. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1241 [CrossRef]
  24. Dinnes J, Loveman E, McIntyre L, Waugh N. The effectiveness of diagnostic tests for the assessment of shoulder pain due to soft tissue disorders: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2003; 7(29):1–166. doi:10.3310/hta7290 [CrossRef]
  25. Fotiadou AN, Vlychou M, Papadopoulos P, Karataglis DS, Palladas P, Fezoulidis IV. Ultrasonography of symptomatic rotator cuff tears compared with MR imaging and surgery. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 68(1):174–179. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.002 [CrossRef]
  26. Friedman RL, Hidalgo HJ, Gilmer PW, Mallon WJ. Ultrasonography of the rotator cuff: analysis of results in a community setting. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993; 2(1):22–26. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80133-X [CrossRef]
  27. Jacobson JA, Lancaster S, Prasad A, van Holsbeeck MT, Craig JG, Kolowich P. Full-thickness and partial-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears: value of US signs in diagnosis. Radiology. 2004; 230(1):234–242. doi:10.1148/radiol.2301020418 [CrossRef]
  28. Martín-Hervás C, Romero J, Navas-Acién A, Reboiras JJ, Munuera L. Ultrasonographic and magnetic resonance images of rotator cuff lesions compared with arthroscopy or open surgery findings. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001; 10(5):410–415. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.116515 [CrossRef]
  29. Nelson MC, Leather GP, Nirschl RP, Pettrone FA, Freedman MT. Evaluation of the painful shoulder: a prospective comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomographic arthrography, ultrasonography, and operative findings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991; 73(5):707–716.
  30. Prickett WD, Teefey SA, Galatz LM, Calfee RP, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. Accuracy of ultrasound imaging of the rotator cuff in shoulders that are painful postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(6):1084–1089.
  31. Sipola P, Niemitukia L, Kröger H, Höfling I, Väätäinen U. Detection and quantification of rotator cuff tears with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective study in 77 consecutive patients with a surgical reference. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010; 36(12):1981–1989. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.09.001 [CrossRef]
  32. Smith TO, Back T, Toms AP, Hing CB. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for rotator cuff tears in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2011; 66(11):1036–1048. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2011.05.007 [CrossRef]
  33. van Holsbeeck MT, Kolowich PA, Eyler WR, et al. US depiction of partial-thickness tear of the rotator cuff. Radiology. 1995; 197(2):443–446. doi:10.1148/radiology.197.2.7480690 [CrossRef]
  34. van Moppes FI, Veldkamp O, Roorda J. Role of shoulder ultrasonography in the evaluation of the painful shoulder. Eur J Radiol. 1995; 19(2):142–146. doi:10.1016/0720-048X(94)00590-9 [CrossRef]
  35. Thomazeau H, Rolland Y, Lucas C, Duval JM, Langlais F. Atrophy of the supraspinatus belly: assessment by MRI in 55 patients with rotator cuff pathology. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996; 67(3):264–268. doi:10.3109/17453679608994685 [CrossRef]
  36. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, Lavau L, Voisin MC. Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures: pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; 304:78–83.
  37. Fuchs B, Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Gerber C. Fatty degeneration of the muscles of the rotator cuff: assessment by computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999; 8(6):599–605. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(99)90097-6 [CrossRef]
  38. Khoury V, Cardinal E, Brassard P. Atrophy and fatty infiltration of the supraspinatus muscle: sonography versus MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190(4):1105–1111. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2835 [CrossRef]
  39. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310 [CrossRef]
  40. Alavekios DA, Dionysian E, Sodl J, Contreras R, Cho Y, Yian EH. Longitudinal analysis of effects of operator experience on accuracy for ultrasound detection of supra-spinatus tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22(3):375–380. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.09.017 [CrossRef]
  41. Murphy RJ, Daines MT, Carr AJ, Rees JL. An independent learning method for orthopaedic surgeons performing shoulder ultrasound to identify full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(3):266–272. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00706 [CrossRef]
  42. Al-Shawi A, Badge R, Bunker T. The detection of full thickness rotator cuff tears using ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(7):889–892. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B7.20481 [CrossRef]
  43. Middleton WD, Payne WT, Teefey SA, Hildebolt CF, Rubin DA, Yamaguchi K. Sonography and MRI of the shoulder: comparison of patient satisfaction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183(5):1449–1452. doi:10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831449 [CrossRef]
  44. Wiener SN, Seitz WH Jr, . Sonography of the shoulder in patients with tears of the rotator cuff: accuracy and value for selecting surgical options. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993; 160(1):103–107. doi:10.2214/ajr.160.1.8416605 [CrossRef]
  45. Mack LA, Gannon MK, Kilcoyne RF, Matsen RA III, . Sonographic evaluation of the rotator cuff: accuracy in patients without prior surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 234:21–27.
  46. Rutten MJ, Maresch BJ, Jager GJ, Blickman JG, van Holsbeeck MT. Ultrasound of the rotator cuff with MRI and anatomic correlation. Eur J Radiol. 2007; 62(3):427–436. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.12.003 [CrossRef]
  47. Kuhn JE, Dunn WR, Ma B, et al. Interobserver agreement in the classification of rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(3):437–441.
  48. Lippe J, Spang JT, Leger RR, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD, Shea KP. Interrater agreement of the Goutallier, Patte, and Warner classification scores using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in patients with rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(2):154–159. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.07.016 [CrossRef]
  49. O'Connor PJ, Rankine J, Gibbon WW, Richardson A, Winter F, Miller JH. Interobserver variation in sonography of the painful shoulder. J Clin Ultrasound. 2005; 33(2):53–56. doi:10.1002/jcu.20088 [CrossRef]
  50. Slabaugh MA, Friel NA, Karas V, Romeo AA, Verma NN, Cole BJ. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Goutallier classification using magnetic resonance imaging: proposal of a simplified classification system to increase reliability. Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40(8):1728–1734. doi:10.1177/0363546512452714 [CrossRef]
  51. Spencer EE Jr, Dunn WR, Wright RW, et al. Interobserver agreement in the classification of rotator cuff tears using magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36(1):99–103. doi:10.1177/0363546507307504 [CrossRef]
  52. Fischbach F, Müller M, Bruhn H. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cranial nerves in the posterior fossa: a comparative study of T2-weighted spin-echo sequences at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Acta Radiol. 2008; 49(3):358–363. doi:10.1080/02841850701824127 [CrossRef]
This Article