Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 483–490 | Cite as

Ultrasound of the coracoclavicular ligaments in the acute phase of an acromioclavicular disjonction: Comparison of radiographic, ultrasound and MRI findings

  • Marie Faruch Bilfeld
  • Franck Lapègue
  • Hélène Chiavassa Gandois
  • Marie Aurélie Bayol
  • Nicolas Bonnevialle
  • Nicolas Sans
Musculoskeletal

Abstract

Objectives

Acromioclavicular joint injuries are typically diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment with the Rockwood classification, which is crucial for treatment planning. The purpose of this study was to describe how the ultrasound findings of acromioclavicular joint injury compare with radiography and MRI findings.

Methods

Forty-seven patients with suspected unilateral acromioclavicular joint injury after acute trauma were enrolled in this prospective study. All patients underwent digital radiography, ultrasound and 3T MRI. A modified Rockwood classification was used to evaluate the coracoclavicular ligaments. The classifications of acromioclavicular joint injuries diagnosed with radiography, ultrasound and MRI were compared. MRI was used as the gold standard.

Results

The agreement between the ultrasound and MRI findings was very good, with a correlation coefficient of 0.83 (95 % CI: 0.72–0.90; p < 0.0001). Ultrasound detected coracoclavicular ligament injuries with a sensitivity of 88.9 %, specificity of 90.0 %, positive predictive value of 92.3 % and negative predictive value of 85.7 %. The agreement between the ultrasound and radiography findings was poor, with a correlation coefficient of 0.69 (95 % CI: 0.51–0.82; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Ultrasound is an effective examination for the diagnostic work-up of lesions of the coracoclavicular ligaments in the acute phase of an acromioclavicular injury.

Key Points

Ultrasound is appropriate for acute acromioclavicular trauma due to its accessibility.

Ultrasound contributes to the diagnostic work-up of acute lesions of the coracoclavicular ligaments.

Ultrasound is appropriate in patients likely to benefit from surgical treatment.

Ultrasound could be a supplement to standard radiography in acute acromioclavicular trauma.

Keywords

Acromioclavicular joint Rookwood classification Coracoclavicular ligament Ultrasound MRI 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the editorial assistance of Joanne Archambault, PhD. The scientific guarantor of this publication is Marie Faruch Bilfeld. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. This was is a prospective study performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Melenevsky Y, Yablon CM, Ramappa A, Hochman MG (2011) Clavicle and acromioclavicular joint injuries: a review of imaging, treatment, and complications. Skelet Radiol 40(7):831–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rockwood C, William G, Toung D (1996) Acromioclavicular injuries. Fractures in adults. p. 1341-1413Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tauber M (2013) Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: current concepts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(7):985–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alyas F, Curtis M, Speed C, Saifuddin A, Connell D (2008) MR imaging appearances of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Radiographics 28(2):463–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antonio GE, Cho JH, Chung CB, Trudell DJ, Resnick D (2003) Pictorial essay. MR imaging appearance and classification of acromioclavicular joint injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(4):1103–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heer G, Götz J, Anders S, Grifka J, Hedtmann A (2006) Ultrasound evaluation of the acromioclavicular joint--a correlation of anatomical and sonographical findings. Ultraschall Med 27(6):549–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iovane A, Midiri M, Galia M, Bartolotta TV, Abate M, Sorrentino F et al (2004) Acute traumatic acromioclavicular joint lesions: role of ultrasound versus conventional radiography. Radiol Med 107(4):367–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 115(3-4):136–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peetrons P, Bédard JP (2007) Acromioclavicular joint injury: enhanced technique of examination with dynamic maneuver. J Clin Ultrasound 35(5):262–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heers G, Hedtmann A (2005) Correlation of ultrasonographic findings to Tossy’s and Rockwood’s classification of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Ultrasound Med Biol 31(6):725–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Testut L, Jacob O (1921) Traité d’anatomie topographique avec applications médicochirurgicales. Doin. Paris; p. 756-74Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walton J, Mahajan S, Paxinos A, Marshall J, Bryant C, Shnier R et al (2004) Diagnostic values of tests for acromioclavicular joint pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(4):807–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mazzocca AD, Arciero RA, Bicos J (2007) Evaluation and treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Am J Sports Med 35(2):316–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mikek M (2008) Long-term shoulder function after type I and II acromioclavicular joint disruption. Am J Sports Med 36(11):2147–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith TO, Chester R, Pearse EO, Hing CB (2011) Operative versus non-operative management following Rockwood grade III acromioclavicular separation: a meta-analysis of the current evidence base. J Orthop Traumatol 12(1):19–27CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nemec U, Oberleitner G, Nemec SF, Gruber M, Weber M, Czerny C et al (2011) MRI versus radiography of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(4):968–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beris A, Lykissas M, Kostas-Agnantis I, Vekris M, Mitsionis G, Korompilias A (2013) Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation with a double-button fixation system. Injury 44(3):288–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stucken C, Cohen SB (2015) Management of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Orthop Clin N Am 46(1):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schaefer FK, Schaefer PJ, Brossmann J, Hilgert RE, Heller M, Jahnke T (2006) Experimental and clinical evaluation of acromioclavicular joint structures with new scan orientations in MRI. Eur Radiol 16(7):1488–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barnes CJ, Higgins LD, Major NM, Basamania CJ (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging of the coracoclavicular ligaments: its role in defining pathoanatomy at the acromioclavicular joint. J Surg Orthop Adv 13(2):69–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boileau P, Old J, Gastaud O, Brassart N, Roussanne Y (2010) All-arthroscopic Weaver-Dunn-Chuinard procedure with double-button fixation for chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Arthroscopy 26(2):149–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bossart PJ, Joyce SM, Manaster BJ, Packer SM (1988) Lack of efficacy of « weighted » radiographs in diagnosing acute acromioclavicular separation. Ann Emerg Med 17(1):20–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Faruch Bilfeld
    • 1
  • Franck Lapègue
    • 1
  • Hélène Chiavassa Gandois
    • 1
  • Marie Aurélie Bayol
    • 1
  • Nicolas Bonnevialle
    • 2
  • Nicolas Sans
    • 1
  1. 1.Service de RadiologieCHU Toulouse-PurpanToulouse Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Service d’OrthopédieCHU Toulouse-PurpanToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations