Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Musculoskeletal sonography technique: focused versus comprehensive evaluation.

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by Mart, Mar 14, 2008.

  1. Mart

    Mart Well-Known Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Musculoskeletal sonography technique: focused versus comprehensive evaluation.Jamadar DA, Jacobson JA, Caoili EM, Boon TA, Dong Q, Morag Y, Girish G.
    Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Hospitals, 1500 E Medical Center Dr., TC2910, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

    OBJECTIVE: This article evaluates the utility of performing a focused musculoskeletal sonography examination on the basis of patients' presenting complaints.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six hundred two patients evaluated over 6 months were scanned using a routine protocol. At the completion of the routine examination, each patient was asked to indicate a focal point of discomfort and, if present, was rescanned over the area of discomfort. Patients were classified in one of five categories depending on whether there was a focal point of discomfort and the presence or absence of an underlying sonographic abnormality.

    RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of the 602 patients had a sonographically detectable abnormality, 2.2% of whom had an abnormality not detectable by routine protocol-based scanning. The more peripheral the body part, the more likely that abnormalities detected by sonography correlated with focal symptoms: 81% in the wrist and hand and 73% in the ankle and foot, compared with the more central body parts of 15% in the shoulder and 31% in the hip. Chi-square analysis showed a significant association between the body part scanned and a detectable abnormality (p < 0.0001).

    CONCLUSION: Although a focused examination of the distal extremities correlated with an abnormality in most cases, a protocol-based approach ensured identifying 97.4% of the symptomatic abnormalities. The addition of a focused examination to an examination by protocol further increased the identification of abnormalities.

    PMID: 18094286 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



    I am unable to get copy of this locally, anyone with access please email me Id love to read this.

    cheers

    Martin

    The St. James Foot Clinic
    1749 Portage Ave.
    Winnipeg
    Manitoba
    R3J 0E6
    phone [204] 837 FOOT (3668)
    fax [204] 774 9918


    www.winnipegfootclinic.com
     
  2. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

Loading...

Share This Page