Advertisement

Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 25, Issue 5–6, pp 439–445 | Cite as

Anatomic and biometric study of the acromioclavicular joint by ultrasound

  • E. Poncelet
  • X. Demondion
  • F. Lapègue
  • A. Drizenko
  • A. Cotten
  • J.-P. Francke
Radiologic Anatomy

Abstract

The aim of this study was to describe the normal ultrasound anatomy of acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) and to establish ultrasound biometric criteria of this joint. Thirty healthy volunteers (16 men, 14 women) underwent a bilateral ultrasound examination of the ACJ in both planes (superior, anterosuperior) by two different observers. Six measurements were evaluated on the ACJ. The morphological appearance was also studied. Five morphological types of the ACJ were identified. No significant biometric difference was found between the observers, the planes, the dominant and the non-dominant side, and between men and women (except for the deep joint space distance). However, the variability of the ACJ made this biometric study difficult. The maximum distance between the joint capsule and the deep joint space through the superior plane, seemed to be a reproducible measurement with the best confidence interval.

Keywords

Acromioclavicular joint Ultrasound Anatomy Morphology Biometrics Shoulder 

Résumé

Le but de cette étude était de décrire l'écho-anatomie normale de l'articulation acromio-claviculaire (AAC) et de proposer des critères biométriques échographiques de cette articulation. Trente volontaires sains (16 hommes, 14 femmes) ont bénéficié d'une échographie de l'AAC de façon bilatérale selon deux incidences différentes (supérieure, antéro-supérieure) par deux observateurs différents. Six mesures ont été évaluées au niveau de l'AAC. Son aspect morphologique a également été étudié. Cinq types morphologiques d'AAC ont été identifiés. Il n'a pas été retrouvé de différence biométrique significative inter-observateur, entre les deux incidences, entre le côté dominant et le côté non-dominant, et entre les femmes et les hommes (à l'exception de la distance interligne articulaire profond). L'importante variabilité de l'AAC rend cependant délicate son étude biométrique. Toutefois la distance maximale capsule-interligne articulaire profond par voie supérieure est apparue être une mesure reproductible et présentant l'intervalle de confiance le plus faible au cours de cette étude.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Dr. Hervé Cotten for histological sections of the ACJ.

Supplementary material

french155.pdf (25 kb)
French version of the article (PDF 28 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Alasaarela E, Tervonen O, Takalo R, Lahde S, Suramo I (1997) Ultrasound evaluation of the acromioclavicular joint. J Rheumatol 10: 1959–1963Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alasaarela E, Takalo R, Tervonen O, Hakala M, Suramo I (1997) Sonography and MRI in the evaluation of painful arthritic shoulder. Br J Rheumatol 9: 996–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carretta G, De Nicola T, Gongolo R, Liberati L, Villabruna M (1994) Ultrasonography of the shoulder: the acromioclavicular joint. Radiol Med 1–2: 1–7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coari G, Iagnocco A, Maggi S, Bracci M, De Cata A, Mastantuono M, Larciprete M, Persichetti S (1996) Sonographic findings in haemodialysis-related chronic arthropathy. Eur Radiol 6: 890–894PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coari G, Paoletti F, Iagnocco A (1999) Shoulder involvement in rheumatic diseases. Sonographic findings. J Rheumatol 3: 668–673Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duparc F (1994) Les disjonctions acromio-claviculaires. Sauramps, Montpellier, pp 11–18Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farin PU, Jaroma H (1995) Acute traumatic tears of the rotator cuff: value of sonography. Radiology 1: 269–273Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fenkl R, Gotzen L (1992) Sonographic diagnosis of the injured acromioclavicular joint. A standardized examination procedure. Unfallchirurgie 8: 393–400Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiorella D, Helms CA, Speer KP (2000) Increased T2 signal intensity in the distal clavicle: incidence and clinical implications. Skeletal Radiol 12: 697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gray H, Warwick R, Williams PL (1973) Gray's anatomy, 35th edn. Longman, London, pp 422–424Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hodler J, Terrier B, von Schulthess GK, Fuchs WA (1991) MRI and sonography of the shoulder. Clin Radiol 5: 323–327Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hollister MS, Mack LA, Patten RM, Winter TC 3rd, Matsen FA 3rd, Veith RR (1995) Association of sonographically detected subacromial/subdeltoid bursal effusion and intraarticular fluid with rotator cuff tear. AJR Am J Roentgenol 165: 605–608Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kock HJ, Jurgens C, Hirche H, Hanke J, Schmit-Neuerburg KP (1996) Standardized ultrasound examination for evaluation of instability of the acromioclavicular joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 3–4: 136–40Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koski JM (1992) Ultrasonographic evidence of synovitis in axial joints in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica. Br J Rheumatol 3: 201–203Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koski JM (1991) Validity of axillary ultrasound scanning in detecting effusion of the glenohumeral joint. Scand J Rheumatol 1: 49–51Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lehtinen JT, Lehto MU, Kaarela K, Kautiainen HJ, Belt EA, Kauppi MJ (1999) Radiographic joint space in rheumatoid acromioclavicular joints: a 15 year prospective follow-up study in 74 patients. Rheumatology 11: 1104–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loew M, Schiltenwolf M, Bernd L (1993) Sonographic diagnosis in injuries of the shoulder joint. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 4: 302–306Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petersson CJ (1987) The acromioclavicular joint in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Orthop 223: 86–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petersson CJ, Redlund-Johnell I (1983) Radiographic joint space in normal acromioclavicular joints. Acta Orthop Scand 3: 431–433Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schweitzer ME, Magbalon MJ, Frieman BG, Ehrlich S, Epstein RE (1994) Acromioclavicular joint fluid: determination of clinical significance with MR imaging. Radiology 1: 205–207Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sher JS, Iannotti JP, Williams GR, Herzog RJ, Kneeland JB, Lisser S, Patel N (1998) The effect of shoulder magnetic resonance imaging on clinical decision making. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3: 205–209Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stein BE, Wiater JM, Pfaff HC, Bigliani LU, Levine WN (2001) Detection of acromioclavicular joint pathology in asymptomatic shoulders with magnetic resonance imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3: 204–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Testut L, Latarjet A (1948) Traité d'anatomie humaine, vol 1, 9th edn. Doin, Paris, pp 558–560Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Moppes FI, Veldkamp O, Roorda J (1995) Role of shoulder ultrasonography in the evaluation of the painful shoulder. Eur J Radiol. 2: 142–146Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Widman DS, Craig JG, van Holsbeeck MT (2001) Sonographic detection, evaluation and aspiration of infected acromioclavicular joints. Skeletal Radiol 7: 388–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Poncelet
    • 1
    • 2
  • X. Demondion
    • 1
    • 2
  • F. Lapègue
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Drizenko
    • 1
  • A. Cotten
    • 2
  • J.-P. Francke
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d'AnatomieFaculté de Médecine Henri WarembourgLille CedexFrance
  2. 2.Service de Radiologie Ostéo-ArticulaireHôpital Roger SalengroLille CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations