SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

Objective

To evaluate the impact of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) as a complementary method to clinical assessment on rapid diagnosis and therapeutic decisions in a busy outpatient rheumatology clinic.

Methods

Sixty patients with different musculoskeletal symptoms were included in the study. Three expert rheumatologists performed the clinical examination and filled out a standardized clinical report sheet with the following parameters: general and/or local diagnoses, planned systemic and/or local treatment, and their decision concerning the use of MSUS evaluation complementary to clinical examination. Another rheumatologist, blinded to clinical data, performed the MSUS assessment of the anatomic areas selected by the clinicians. The impact of the new information obtained by MSUS on the initial diagnosis and therapeutic strategy was estimated by the degree of change in the initial clinical diagnosis and therapy decisions.

Results

Of 60 patients (67 anatomic areas), MSUS was considered as necessary after clinical examination in 39 patients (65%), totaling 43 anatomic areas (64.17%). An overall change of the initial clinical diagnosis was present in 60% of the anatomic areas (P = 0.0175). In all of the anatomic areas (100%), the new diagnosis was more objective and detailed. An overall change of the initial systemic therapy was present in 25% of anatomic areas (P = 0.0014) and in 36% of anatomic areas (P = 0.095) for local therapy. A guided diagnostic aspiration was decided to be performed in 15% of anatomic areas and a guided therapeutic injection in 22% of anatomic areas.

Conclusion

Enhanced information obtained by MSUS evaluation leads to changes, with a significant impact on the initial diagnosis and treatment strategy designed after clinical examination.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

In the last decade, the compelling need of an early diagnosis and careful management of rheumatic diseases has significantly increased the demand of consultations. In particular, regional pain and impaired function are very frequent symptoms influencing patients' quality of life. Today, the physician's role is to rapidly reach an accurate diagnosis and to choose and tailor the best short- and long-term therapeutic strategy for each patient. Therefore, to reduce the cost of patient management and optimize health resources, it is advisable, if possible, to reach the diagnosis and the therapeutic decision in the first medical visit.

The methodologic algorithm includes the clinical and instrumental examination of the symptomatic region. However, the involvement of multiple structures such as joints and periarticular soft tissues (i.e., tendons, bursae, ligaments, and neurovascular bundles) sometimes may hamper the achievement of an accurate clinical diagnosis. Moreover, inflammatory and/or degenerative rheumatic lesions may coexist in the same anatomic structure, and the diagnosis may be even more challenging (1).

Several imaging techniques are currently available for musculoskeletal pathology evaluation, such as conventional radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), arthroscopy, fluoroscopy, and scintigraphy, with well-known advantages and disadvantages (1). Over the last decades, musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) has become a very useful bedside diagnostic tool in rheumatologic practice because it can be performed easily during consultation and it is cheap, noninvasive, and well accepted by the patients (2). Indeed, MSUS is an objective, detailed, and reliable method for achieving information about multiple structures and types of lesions responsible for regional pain syndromes (3–10). In this way, a more accurate diagnosis can be followed by a rapid therapeutic decision (e.g., conservative or surgical, systemic, and/or local guided injections).

To the best of our knowledge, data on the impact of MSUS in rheumatologic practice have rarely been published (11, 12). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of MSUS as a complementary method to clinical assessment on rapid diagnosis and therapeutic decisions in a busy outpatient rheumatology clinic.

Significance & Innovations

  • Musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) facilitates a quick and accurate diagnosis immediately after clinical examination in the same consultation room.

  • MSUS spares time for the patient and the doctor as well as prolonged pain for the patient; a supplementary second visit is avoided.

  • Enhanced information obtained by MSUS evaluation leads to changes, with a significant impact on the initial diagnosis and treatment strategy designed after clinical examination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

Study design.

Sixty patients (33 women and 27 men) who consecutively attended the outpatient rheumatology clinic for the first time were included in the study after obtaining written consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approval of the Ethical Committee of the Hospital Universitario Severo Ochoa. The patients were referred by their general physicians within a week, requesting medical care for different musculoskeletal symptoms. Demographic data and musculoskeletal symptoms were collected from all patients. Each patient underwent only clinical assessment by 1 of 3 expert rheumatologists with different levels of experience in using MSUS in clinical practice (MA [5 years of experience], JIS [no experience], and EN [15 years of experience]). The rheumatologists then filled out a standardized clinical report sheet with the general and/or local diagnoses, planned systemic and/or local treatment, and their decision of whether MSUS should be necessary, advisable, or not necessary for each patient. MSUS evaluation of the requested area(s) was made by another rheumatologist expert in this technique (MCM [4 years of experience]), blinded to the clinical data with a real-time scanner (Venue 40, GE Healthcare) using multifrequency linear array transducers (4–13 MHz) in gray-scale and Doppler modes. MSUS examinations were carried out according to the European League Against Rheumatism guidelines for each anatomic area, and the findings were recorded in a standardized MSUS report sheet (13). We used widely described diagnostic criteria for MSUS pathology (14). The MSUS examination took 10–15 minutes for each patient, including documentation. Immediately after finishing each MSUS examination, the rheumatologists were provided with the description of the findings. They were asked to answer the following questions: if MSUS information had changed the initial clinical diagnosis, if the new diagnosis was more objective and detailed, if MSUS information had changed the planned systemic and/or local therapy, and if they were using MSUS to guide diagnostic or therapeutic injections.

Statistical analysis.

The quantitative variables were summarized using the mean ± SD and the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) associated with the means for normally distributed data; otherwise, the median was reported. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling, and chi-square tests were used to assess the normality of experimental data using EasyFit Professional software, version 5.1 (Mathwave). Student's t-test was used to compare means and a significance level of 5% was used. Qualitative variables were summarized as percentages and associated 95% CIs using an exact probability method. The Z test was used to compare 2 proportions using a significance level of 5% (15).

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

Clinical examination was performed in 60 patients (33 women [55%] and 27 men [45%], mean ± SD age 50 ± 17 years [range 44–56 years; 95% CI 42–68%] for women and 57 ± 16 years [range 51–63 years; 95% CI 32–58%] for men, with normal distribution of age inside the group [Kolmogorov-Smirnov P = 0.7563]). Sixty-seven painful anatomic areas were investigated, including 24 shoulders, 5 elbows, 16 hands, 5 hips, 10 knees, 6 ankles and feet, and 1 muscular region, as well as these areas on the contralateral side.

Of 67 painful areas in 60 patients, MSUS was considered necessary after clinical examination for 43 areas (64.17%) in 39 patients (65%) and advisable for 22 areas (32.83%) in 19 patients (31.66%). MSUS was considered not necessary in 2 patients (3.33%), totaling 2 areas (2.98%; 1 hand and 1 knee) by the rheumatologist with no MSUS experience. The other 2 rheumatologists requested MSUS evaluation in all patients after clinical examination.

Table 1 shows the analysis of the data on each anatomic region, the indication of performing MSUS after clinical examination, the change in the initial diagnosis, and the percentage in which a more objective and detailed diagnosis was obtained, as well as the changes in the systemic and local treatment strategy and indications for guided diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Table 1. Analysis of the data, overall and on each anatomic area*
QuestionOverallShoulderElbowHandHipKneeAnkle and footMuscle
  • *

    Values are the percentage of anatomic areas unless otherwise indicated. MSUS = musculoskeletal ultrasound.

  • Percentage (95% confidence interval). P = 0.0175.

  • Percentage (95% confidence interval). P = 0.0014.

  • §

    Percentage (95% confidence interval). P = 0.095.

  • Percentage (95% confidence interval).

Is MSUS necessary?64.1766.78068.8804067100
Is MSUS advisable?32.8333.32024.92050330
Is MSUS not needed?2.98006.301000
Did MSUS change the clinical diagnosis?60 (46–72)7180534064500
Did MSUS provide a more objective and detailed diagnosis?100100100100100100100100
Did MSUS change the systemic therapy?25 (15–37)210402033.433.30
Did MSUS change the local therapy?36 (24–48)§504013.4066.733.30
Was MSUS used for guided diagnostic injections?15 (7.5–25.4)1307036330
Was MSUS used for guided therapeutic injections?22 (13.5–34.3)214013045170

MSUS evaluation after clinical examination led to an overall change of the initial clinical diagnosis in 60% of the anatomic areas (95% CI 46–72%), and showed statistical significance when compared to the percentage of the diagnoses not changed by MSUS assessment (Z = 2.108, P = 0.0175) (Figure 1). In all cases (100%), the new diagnosis was more objective and detailed.

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Changes in clinical diagnosis after musculoskeletal ultrasound evaluation, expressed as a percentage on the y-axis. On the x-axis, 1 = shoulder area, 2 = elbow area, 3 = hand area, 4 = hip area, 5 = knee area, 6 = ankle/foot area, 7 = muscle area, and 8 = overall.

Download figure to PowerPoint

In the shoulder, the most frequent clinical diagnosis was an unspecific lesion in the rotator cuff, whereas on MSUS we were able to detect inflammatory and structural damage lesions involving specific tendons (i.e., 1 case of long head biceps tendon tenosynovitis; 11 cases of tendinosis, including 6 of the supraspinatus tendon, 2 of the subscapularis tendon, and 3 of the biceps tendon; 7 cases of full-thickness tears, including 5 of the supraspinatus tendon and 2 of the subscapularis tendon; and 5 cases of partial-thickness tears, including 1 of the supraspinatus tendon, 2 of the subscapularis tendon, and 2 of the infraspinatus tendon), bursae (i.e., 8 cases of subdeltoid bursitis), or joints (i.e., 7 cases of acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis [OA] and 12 cases of glenohumeral joint OA). Impingement syndrome was clinically diagnosed in 16 cases. The presence of impingement syndrome was certified in 20 cases (versus 1 case not confirmed) while performing dynamic MSUS evaluation maneuvers, including 15 due to supraspinatus tendon acromial encroachment and 5 due to subscapularis tendon subcoracoid encroachment.

The clinical diagnosis suspicion for the 5 painful elbow areas was chronic epicondylitis, whereas MSUS evaluation was able to detect the underlying lesions responsible for the patient's symptoms. We found in all cases enthesopathy of the common extensor tendon, 3 cases with additional partial tears inside the enthesis, and 2 cases with calcific deposits inside the tendon.

After the evaluation of the hands area, clinical suspicion comprised 5 cases of carpal tunnel syndrome, 2 cases of OA, 3 cases of nonspecific arthralgia, 1 case of metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint oligoarthritis, and 2 cases of isolated finger tendon involvement. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) onset was suspected in only 3 cases after clinical examination.

Instead, MSUS evaluation (comprising the wrist and finger joints, extensor tendon compartments at the wrist level, extensor tendons at the finger level, and carpal tunnel anatomic structures as well as flexor tendons outside the carpal tunnel) was able to detect polysynovitis in 11 cases, certifying the presence of MCP joint erosions in 2 cases. Tenosynovitis was detected at several tendon compartments in 6 cases (Figure 2A). These findings focused attention on possible RA onset in 8 new cases and confirmed the clinical suspicion in the 3 other cases. Moreover, MSUS examination revealed the underlying pathologic condition for carpal tunnel syndrome development (3 patients with finger flexor compartment tenosynovitis and 2 patients with median nerve compression at the flexor retinaculum level) as well as the structural modifications of the entrapped median nerve.

thumbnail image

Figure 2. A, Longitudinal ultrasound (US) scanning position of the volar aspect of the finger showing synovitis (broken white arrow) and flexor tendon tenosynovitis (white arrow) in the second proximal interphalangeal joint. B, Longitudinal US scanning position of the dorsal aspect of the toe showing joint synovial hypertrophy (white arrows) and a double contour sign at the cartilage level characteristic for urate deposition (gout; broken white arrow) in the first metatarsophalangeal joint.

Download figure to PowerPoint

In the hip area, the clinical diagnoses were OA in 4 cases and chronic trochanteritis in 1 case. During the MSUS evaluation, we were able to detect coxofemoral joint synovitis in 2 cases. Confirmation of hip degenerative signs was made in all 4 areas with clinical suspicion. In addition, 3 new areas with calcific peritrochanteric enthesopathy were identified.

Knee OA was the main clinical diagnosis, with Baker's cyst detection only in 1 case. In all cases, MSUS evaluation identified inflammatory lesions (i.e., synovitis in 8 cases, infrapatellar bursitis in 1 case, and presence of Baker's cyst in 6 cases) accompanied by structural damage lesions at femoral cartilage. Calcific enthesopathy was depicted in 6 cases at the level of the quadriceps tendon and in 1 case at the patellar tendon site.

Clinical evaluation of the ankle and foot areas raised the suspicion of arthritis in the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint in 1 case. The rest of the cases were evaluated as having OA (2 cases) and unspecific ankle pain, tarsal tunnel syndrome, and mechanical talalgia (1 case each). MSUS evaluation depicted in 2 cases tibiotarsal joint synovitis, and confirmed synovitis in the first MTP joint together with the presence of juxtaarticular tophus (Figure 2B). A compressive tarsal ganglion was identified as the underlying cause of the tarsal tunnel syndrome. Moreover, during the MSUS evaluation, 2 cases of tenosynovitis of the medial ankle compartment and 1 case of plantar fasciitis at the calcaneal insertion were identified.

Seventeen patients, representing 28.33% of the group and totaling 17 (25%) anatomic areas (95% CI 15–37%), had a statistically significant change in systemic therapy after MSUS evaluation (Z = 2.983 [95% CI 15–37%], P = 0.0014) (Figure 3A). Nine of the patients had an initial indication for systemic therapy after clinical examination. Eight patients received a new indication for systemic therapy after the MSUS examination. The changes in systemic therapy were based on the detection of inflammatory findings in the hand joints (40%), knees (33.4%), ankles (33.3%), and shoulders (21%), and included adjustment of the previous systemic therapy strategy as well as a new indication for treatment with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (Table 2).

thumbnail image

Figure 3. Changes of A, systemic therapy, and B, local therapy, after musculoskeletal ultrasound evaluation, expressed as a percentage on the y-axis. On the x-axis, 1 = shoulder area, 2 = elbow area, 3 = hand area, 4 = hip area, 5 = knee area, 6 = ankle/foot area, 7 = muscle area, and 8 = overall.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 2. Initial clinical diagnosis, critical MSUS findings, new diagnosis suspicion, and change of therapy*
Initial diagnosisCritical MSUS findingsNew diagnosisChange of therapy
  • *

    MSUS = musculoskeletal ultrasound; RCL = rotator cuff lesion; LHBT = long head of biceps tendon; SST = supraspinatus tendon; SUBT = subscapularis tendon; NSAID = nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug; PKT = physiokinetotherapy; PMR = polymyalgia rheumatica; ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate; SASD = subacromial/subdeltoid; CS = corticosteroid; PIP = proximal interphalangeal; RA = rheumatoid arthritis; OA = osteoarthritis; MCP = metacarpophalangeal; DMARD = disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; CTS = carpal tunnel syndrome.

  • Cases with initial systemic therapy indication.

Unspecific RCLLHBT tenosynovitis, total SST rupture, partial SUBT ruptureSpecific RCL Rotator cuff interval syndrome LHBT tenosynovitisNSAID was added to PKT/local therapy
Unspecific RCLMultiple large calcifications inside the SST, SUBTs, also in subclinical shoulderSearch for metabolic diseaseAdded systemic therapy to local therapy/PKT
Shoulder pain (PMR?); high ESRRule out inflammatory findings at rotator cuff level; tendinosis LHBT right, left total rupture of SSTNo PMR confirmation Specific RCLChange of systemic therapy to local only
Unspecific RCLNo impingement syndrome on MSUS, probably fracture of the humeral head (very large bone cortex irregularity)Humeral head fracture suspicionAnalgesic drugs were recommended as well as radiograph/orthopedic consultation
Unspecific RCL (PMR relapse?); high ESRSASD bursitisPMR confirmationNew recommendation for CS
Hand arthralgia without clinical synovitisPIP joint symmetric synovitis, third flexor tenosynovitisRA onset?NSAID
PIP joint OAPIP joint symmetric synovitisRA onset?CS
PIP joint, wrist arthralgia, RA?Rotator cuff, MCP joint, PIP joint polysynovitisRA onset?CS, DMARD
RA? (CS therapy already and positive clinical response)MCP joint, PIP joint polysynovitisRA onset?DMARD added to CS
CTSFlexor tendon tenosynovitis, MCP and PIP joint polysynovitisRA onset?NSAID
Rotator cuff oligoarthritis, MCP jointRotator cuff, MCP polysynovitisRA onset?NSAID
Hip OACoxofemoral synovitisHip OANSAID
Knee OASynovitis (important synovial hypertrophy, popliteal cyst)Knee OANSAID
Knee OASynovitis, infrapatellar bursitis, popliteal cystKnee OANSAID; delay of initial recommended PKT
Knee OABilateral synovitis (important synovial hypertrophy)Knee OANSAID; delay of initial recommended PKT
Ankle OATibiotarsal joint synovitisReactive arthritis?NSAID added to initial PKT, antialgic drug
Tarsal tunnel syndromeTibialis posterior tendon tenosynovitis, tarsal tunnel gangliaTarsal tunnel syndromeNSAID added to local therapy, antialgic and neurotrophic drugs

The overall change of local therapy strategy was present in 36% of areas (95% CI 24–48%, P = 0.09), with the highest percentage identified in the knee area (66.7%) and the lowest percentage identified in the hand area (13.4%). The change was generated by a new decision for performing local guided injections in addition to initial topical NSAID therapy and/or a physiotherapy program prescription (Figure 3B). Therefore, guided aspiration for diagnostic purposes was performed in 15% of areas (95% CI 7.79–25.35%) versus guided therapeutic injections in 22% of areas (95% CI 13.46–34.31%). In 8 anatomic areas (11.94%), guided aspiration was accompanied by guided therapeutic injection.

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

The economic and financial analysis of the resources of the medical health care system as well as the strategy involved in the management of musculoskeletal pathologies in outpatient clinics can be expressed using the universal statement by Benjamin Franklin, “Time is money.” Today, this phrase is pivotal in the clinical approach to the patient because public and private medical units are confronted with an impressive number of consultations. Therefore, the rational approach to the patient's need and its real-time solution have become mandatory in the outpatient clinics. This implies an organizing effort involving clinical and instrumental procedures that may foster a rapid diagnosis followed by immediate therapeutic decisions. This may avoid additional hospital visits, prolonged patient pain, and persistent absence from work (16, 17).

Our data show the important real-life impact of MSUS assessment on rapid diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in a busy outpatient rheumatology clinic. Painful shoulder, elbow, hand, hip, knee, and/or ankle are frequent rheumatic symptoms. Clinical examination relies on several physical maneuvers testing the range of motion and the generation of pain in different anatomic structures; therefore, clinical diagnosis may be challenging when multiple structures are involved. Within the last decade, MSUS has demonstrated accuracy and reliability in the evaluation of different musculoskeletal areas for a wide range of pathologies (4–10). MSUS has become a valuable tool for improving diagnosis and care of patients with rheumatic diseases (18). MRI is a high-quality imaging technique for soft tissues as well as joints and bones, but important limitations in its use are high cost, low availability immediately after clinical examination, and static image acquisition. Indeed, concomitant examination of more than one anatomic area in the same patient would significantly increase the procedure exposure. The clear advantages of MSUS over MRI are noninvasiveness and dynamic, multiplanar, and contralateral site assessment. If necessary, additional anatomic areas may be examined.

The painful shoulder is the result of periarticular soft tissue involvement of the rotator cuff, subacromial/subdeltoid bursa, and biceps tendon, and more rarely, due to involvement of other structures. It is mandatory to differentiate true shoulder involvement from referred shoulder pain because an optimal treatment strategy is based on accurate diagnosis as the first step.

In our study, the most important informational benefit was obtained following dynamic shoulder assessment, whereas shoulder impingement syndrome could be demonstrated in 20 of 24 areas. Apart from this, identification of inflammatory lesions led to significant local therapy changes. Systemic therapy and/or guided invasive procedures were added to the initial physiotherapy program, representing a quick, accurate, and efficient therapy option applicable in the first patient visit (19).

The suspicion of entheseal involvement in the humeral epicondyles is easy to be raised after clinical examination, but the exact type of involvement is difficult to define unless a soft tissue imaging method is added. MSUS examination is able to detect inflammation and/or structural damage lesions and may help in the choice of different adapted physiotherapeutic strategies and/or corticosteroid injection (20, 21).

Traditional clinical techniques for evaluating hand arthritis rely on inspection, palpation, and dynamic examination of passive and active movements. In recent years, increasing medical data confirm that MSUS has clear superiority to clinical examination in detecting synovitis and erosions (22–24). In comparison to MRI (the gold standard evaluation method), MSUS has the advantage of being applicable to hands both in a multiplanar and dynamic examination in the same consultation room. In our study, when compared to clinical examination, MSUS evaluation detected polyarticular synovitis in a larger number of patients, raising the suspicion for RA onset. This was possible because of detection of subclinical inflammatory lesions at joints and the periarticular structure level. MSUS evaluation of the hands cannot sustain a clear RA diagnosis alone, but it may help in better defining the pattern of articular and periarticular inflammatory involvement. When considered appropriate, systemic therapy (i.e., with NSAIDs, corticosteroids, and DMARDs) was initiated immediately because in early RA, higher treatment efficacy with better outcome is expected when therapy is started promptly (25).

Clinical assessment of the hip area usually encounters difficulties because of the deep joint location. With respect to clinical examination, MSUS evaluation identifies more inflammatory and degenerative lesions at the joint as well as at the periarticular level (8, 26). In particular, when polymyalgia rheumatica onset or relapse is suspected, the detection of hip synovitis may contribute to radical change of the medical approach (27). Instead, detection of asymptomatic trochanteric enthesopathy may focus attention on the possible subclinical onset of spondyloarthritides (28).

Access to the knee area is much easier in clinical practice; however, despite this, MSUS complementary to clinical examination helps in identifying inflammatory and/or structural lesions at multiple structure levels (29–31). In our study, the detection of inflammatory lesions with MSUS determined the revision of the initial therapy strategies in some cases.

The ankle and foot region is well known for its complexity and difficulty of clinical examination assessment. MSUS allows frequent patient evaluation and is more sensitive in detecting tissue modifications than physical examination and radiographs (32, 33). In our patient group, the proportion of inflammatory findings detected by MSUS was higher in comparison to those identified by clinical examination, and the etiology of the tarsal tunnel syndrome was clarified. The knowledge of the MSUS findings led to more guided invasive procedures (aspiration as well as therapeutic injection), and this result is different from a previous study by D'Agostino et al (11). An explanation for the different results may be due to the different number of patients and the type of ankle/foot involvement.

In our study, we have shown that in well-trained hands during the same consultation, MSUS can facilitate a quick, objective, and detailed diagnosis immediately after clinical examination. MSUS assessment in daily practice spares time for the patient and the doctor as well as pain for the patients because it avoids referral to other imaging specialists and the second rheumatology visit. In this context, rheumatologists may recognize in rheumatic diseases characteristic patterns and distribution of the joint/periarticular abnormalities and search for subclinically involved areas, therefore optimizing a rapid therapeutic decision (23, 33, 34). The fact that rheumatologists may have access to more objective and detailed information via MSUS may determine a change in the classic therapeutic approach.

The results of our study are in agreement with previous reports demonstrating once again the poor correlation between MSUS and clinical examination in detecting inflammatory lesions and the danger of underestimating the disease activity and/or extension resulting in a large number of undertreated patients when relying only on clinical examination (12). On the other hand, in case of false clinical suspicion, therapy can be completely reset, avoiding unnecessary patient drug exposure.

Our study has some limitations, since we did not longitudinally assess the impact of MSUS on the outcome and prognosis of the patients. However, we carried out a cross-sectional study focused on the impact of MSUS performance on clinical diagnosis and therapeutic decisions in an outpatient clinic setting. Future studies on the impact of MSUS on the outcome of regional pain syndromes are warranted.

Another limitation is that we did not compare MSUS assessment with MRI examination (considered as a gold standard), a target that was not possible to be reached during the first visit. Moreover, the fact that 2 of the 3 doctors involved in the clinical examination perform MSUS assessment in daily practice (already being aware of the MSUS benefit) may have subconsciously biased the results of the study.

In conclusion, MSUS assessment has a relevant impact over a conventional clinical approach and may drive the therapeutic choice in many rheumatologic conditions, especially when a rapid and efficient medical service is desirable for optimizing health resources. Changes in the therapeutic approach are generated mainly by the MSUS detection of inflammatory and symptomatic as well as subclinical lesions.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and all authors approved the final version to be published. Dr. Micu had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study conception and design. Micu, Naredo.

Acquisition of data. Micu, Alcalde, Sáenz, Crespo, Collado, Naredo.

Analysis and interpretation of data. Micu, Bolboacă, Naredo.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

The authors wish to thank to Ms Nieves Guzmán-Cañas, BSN, and Ms Esther Peira-Ramírez, BSN, from the Rheumatology Department, Hospital Universitario Severo Ochoa, Madrid, Spain, for their valuable contribution in performing this study.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Grassi W, Filippucci E, Carotti M, Salaffi F. Imaging modalities for identifying the origin of regional musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2003; 17: 1732.
  • 2
    Huda W, Slone RM. Review of radiologic physics. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1995.
  • 3
    Naredo E, Aguado P, De Miguel E, Uson J, Mayordomo L, Gijon-Banos J, et al. Painful shoulder: comparison of physical examination and ultrasonographic findings. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 1326.
  • 4
    Meenagh G, Iagnocco A, Filippucci E, Riente L, Delle Sedie A, Bombardieri S, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist IV: ultrasonography of the knee. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006; 24: 35760.
  • 5
    Wakefield RJ, Freeston JE, O'Connor P, Reay N, Budgen A, Hensor EM, et al. The optimal assessment of the rheumatoid arthritis hindfoot: a comparative study of clinical examination, ultrasound and high field MRI. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67: 167882.
  • 6
    Iagnocco A, Filippucci E, Meenagh G, Delle Sedie A, Riente L, Bombardieri S, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist I: ultrasonography of the shoulder. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006; 24: 611.
  • 7
    Augustin J, Schmidt WA. Reliability of ultrasonography in detecting shoulder disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68: 35761.
  • 8
    Iagnocco A, Filippucci E, Meenagh G, Delle Sedie A, Riente L, Bombardieri S, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist III: ultrasonography of the hip. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006; 24: 22932.
  • 9
    Riente L, Delle Sedie A, Iagnocco A, Fillipucci E, Meenagh G, Valensini G, et al. Ultrasound imaging of the rheumatologist V: ultrasonography of the ankle and foot. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006; 24: 4938.
  • 10
    Bruyn GA, Pineda C, Hernandez-Diaz C, Ventura-Rios L, Moya C, Garrido J, et al. Validity of ultrasonography and measures of adult shoulder function and reliability of ultrasonography in detecting shoulder synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using magnetic resonance imaging as a gold standard [published erratum appears in Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010;62:1514]. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010; 62: 107986.
  • 11
    D'Agostino MA, Ayral X, Baron G, Ravaud P, Breban M, Dougados M. Impact of ultrasound imaging on local corticosteroid injections of symptomatic ankle, hind-, and mid-foot in chronic inflammatory diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 53: 28492.
  • 12
    Karim Z, Wakefield RJ, Conaghan PG, Lawson CA, Goh E, Quinn MA, et al. The impact of ultrasonography on diagnosis and management of patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 29323.
  • 13
    Backhaus M, Burmester G, Gerber T, Grassi W, Machold K, Swen W, et al. Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 6419.
  • 14
    Bianchi S, Martinoli C. Ultrasound of the musculoskeletal system. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2007.
  • 15
    Jantschi L, Bolboaca SD. Exact probabilities and confidence limits for binomial samples: applied to the difference between two proportions. ScientificWorldJournal 2010; 10: 86578.
  • 16
    Wakefield RJ, Goh E, Conaghan PG, Karim Z, Emery P. Musculoskeletal ultrasonography in Europe: results of a rheumatologist-based survey at a EULAR meeting. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003; 42: 12513.
  • 17
    Naredo E, Bijlsma JW. Becoming a musculoskeletal ultrasonographer. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2009; 23: 25767.
  • 18
    Brown AK, O'Connor PJ, Roberts TE, Wakefield RJ, Karim Z, Emery P. Recommendations for musculoskeletal ultrasonography by rheumatologists: setting global standards for best practice by expert consensus. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 53: 8392.
  • 19
    Naredo E, Cabero F, Cruz A, Uson J, Palop M, Crespo M. Ultrasound guided musculoskeletal injections [letter]. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 341.
  • 20
    Delle Sedie A, Riente L, Iagnocco A, Filippucci E, Meenagh G, Valensini G, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist VI: ultrasonography of the elbow, sacroiliac, parasternal, and temporomandibular joints. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006; 24: 61721.
  • 21
    D'Agostino MA, Aegerter P, Jousse-Joulin S, Chary-Valckenaere I, Lecoq B, Gaudin P, et al. How to evaluate and improve the reliability of power Doppler ultrasonography for assessing enthesitis in spondylarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61: 619.
  • 22
    Szkudlarek M, Narvestad E, Klarlund M, Court-Payen M, Thomsen HS, Ostergaard M. Ultrasonography of the metatarsophalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging, conventional radiography and clinical examination. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50: 210312.
  • 23
    Wakefield RJ, Green MJ, Marzo-Ortega H, Conaghan PG, Gibbon WW, McGonagle D, et al. Should oligoarthritis be reclassified? Ultrasound reveals a high prevalence of subclinical disease. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 3825.
  • 24
    Fillipucci E, Iagnocco A, Meenagh G, Riente L, Delle Sedie A, Bombardieri S, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist II: ultrasonography of the hand and wrist. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006; 24: 11822.
  • 25
    Van der Linden MP, le Cessie S, Raza K, van der Woude D, Knevel R, Huizinga TW, et al. Long-term impact of delay in assessment of patients with early arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2010; 62: 353746.
  • 26
    Ovistgaard E, Torp-Pederson S, Christensen R, Bliddal H. Reproducibility and inter-reader agreement of a scoring system for ultrasound evaluation of hip osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65: 16139.
  • 27
    Dasgupta B, Cimmino MA, Maradit-Kremers H, Schmidt WA, Schirmer M, Salvarani C, et al. 2012 provisional classification criteria for polymyalgia rheumatica: a European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71: 48492.
  • 28
    Gutierrez M, Filippucci E, De Angelis R, Salaffi F, Filosa G, Ruta S, et al. Subclinical entheseal involvement in patients with psoriasis: an ultrasound study. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2011; 40: 40712.
  • 29
    Kane D, Balint PV, Sturrock RD. Ultrasonography is superior to clinical examination in the detection and localization of knee joint effusion in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 96671.
  • 30
    Meenagh G, Filippucci E, Delle Sedie A, Iagnocco A, Scire CA, Riente L, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist XXX: sonographic assessment of the painful knee. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2010; 28: 8035.
  • 31
    Iagnocco A, Meenagh G, Riente L, Filippucci E, Delle Sedie A, Scire CA, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist XXIX: sonographic assessment of the knee in patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2010; 28: 6436.
  • 32
    Balint PV, Kane D, Wilson H, McInnes IB, Sturrock RD. Ultrasonography of entheseal insertions in the lower limb in spondylarthropathy. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 90510.
  • 33
    Iagnocco A. Imaging the joint in osteoarthritis: a place for ultrasound? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2010; 24: 2738.
  • 34
    Epis O, Iagnocco A, Meenagh G, Riente L, Delle Sedie A, Filippucci E, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist XVI: ultrasound-guided procedures. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2008; 26: 5158.