User login
Superior Capsular Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes After Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up
Take-Home Points
- The SCR is a viable treatment option for massive, irreparable RCTs.
- Arm position and exact measurement between anchors will help ensure proper graft tensioning.
- Anterior and posterior tension and margin convergence are critical to stabilizing the graft.
- Acromial-humeral distance, ASES, and VAS scores are improved and maintained over long-term follow-up.
- The dermal allograft should be 3.0 mm or thicker.
Conventional treatments for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) have ranged from nonoperative care to débridement and biceps tenotomy,1,2 partial cuff repair,3,4 bridging patch grafts,5 tendon transfers,6,7 and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA).8,9 Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), originally described by Mihata and colleagues,10 has been developed as an alternative to these interventions. Dr. Hirahara modified the technique to use dermal allograft instead of fascia lata autograft.10,11
Biomechanical analysis has confirmed the integral role of the superior capsule in shoulder function.10,12-14 In the presence of a massive RCT, the humeral head migrates superiorly, causing significant pain and functional deficits, such as pseudoparalysis. It is theorized that reestablishing this important stabilizer—centering the humeral head in the glenoid and allowing the larger muscles to move the arm about a proper fulcrum—improves function and decreases pain.
Using ultrasonography (US), radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), clinical outcome scores, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, we prospectively evaluated minimum 2-year clinical outcomes of performing SCR with dermal allograft for irreparable RCTs.
Methods
Except where noted otherwise, all products mentioned in this section were made by Arthrex.
Surgical Technique
The surgical technique used here was described by Hirahara and Adams.11 ArthroFlex dermal allograft was attached to the greater tuberosity and the glenoid, creating a superior restraint that replaced the anatomical superior capsule (Figures 1A, 1B). Some cases included biceps tenotomy, subscapularis repair, or infraspinatus repair. Mean number of anchors used was 6.13 (range, 4-8). A SpeedBridge construct, which was used for the greater tuberosity, had 2 medial anchors with FiberWire and FiberTape attached. The medial and lateral anchors typically used were 4.75-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLocks; in 1 case, significant bone defects were found after removal of previous anchors, and 6.5-mm corkscrew anchors were medially augmented with QuickSet cement. A double pulley using the FiberWire eyelet sutures from the medial row anchors was fixated into the anterior anchor in the lateral row.
Medial fixation was obtained with a PASTA (partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion) bridge-type construct15 that consisted of two 3.0-mm BioComposite SutureTak anchors (placed medially on the glenoid rim, medial to the labrum) and a 3.5-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLock. In some cases, a significant amount of tissue was present medially, and the third anchor was not used; instead, a double surgeon knot was used to fixate the double pulley medially.
Posterior margin convergence (PMC) was performed in all cases. Anterior margin convergence (AMC) was performed in only 3 cases.
Clinical Evaluation
All patients who underwent SCR were followed prospectively, and all signed an informed consent form. Between 2014 and the time of this study, 9 patients had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Before surgery, all patients received a diagnosis of full-thickness RCT with decreased acromial-humeral distance (AHD). One patient had RTSA 18 months after surgery, did not reach the 2-year follow-up, and was excluded from the data analysis. Patients were clinically evaluated on the 100-point American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder index and on a 10-point VAS for pain—before surgery, monthly for the first 6 months after surgery, then every 6 months until 2 years after surgery, and yearly thereafter. These patients were compared with Dr. Hirahara’s historical control patients, who had undergone repair of massive RCTs. Mean graft size was calculated and reported. Cases were separated and analyzed on the basis of whether AMC was performed. Student t tests were used to determine statistical differences between study patients’ preoperative and postoperative scores, between study and historical control patients, and between patients who had AMC performed and those who did not (P < .05).
Imaging
For all SCR patients, preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained in 2 planes: anterior-posterior with arm in neutral rotation, and scapular Y. On anteroposterior radiographs, AHD was measured from the most proximal aspect of the humeral head in a vertical line to the most inferior portion of the acromion (Figures 2A, 2B). Student t tests were used to identify statistical differences (P < .05) between preoperative and postoperative groups for radiographs obtained immediately after surgery and most recent radiographs at time of study (minimum 24 months after surgery). US, performed by either Dr. Hirahara or Dr. Panero in the same clinic with the same machine (X-Porte; FujiFilm SonoSite), was used to assess patients 1 month after surgery, between 4 months and 8 months after surgery, and 1 year and 2 years after surgery. MRI was ordered if there was any concern about the reconstruction.
Results
The Table provides an overview of the study results. Eight patients (6 men, 2 women) met the final inclusion criteria for postoperative ASES and VAS data analysis. Mean age at time of surgery was 61.33 years (range, 47-78 years). Of the 8 surgeries, 7 were performed on the dominant arm. Mean number of previous rotator cuff surgeries was 1.50 (SD, 0.93; range, 0-3). Mean follow-up was 32.38 months (range, 25-39 months). For 1 patient, who lived out of state, a postoperative radiograph, a 2-year ASES score, and a 2-year VAS pain score were obtained, but postoperative US could not be arranged.
From before surgery to 2 years after surgery, mean ASES score improved significantly (P < .00002), from 41.75 (SD, 12.71; range, 25-58) to 86.50 (SD, 12.66; range, 63-100) (Figure 3), and mean VAS pain score decreased significantly (P < .00002), from 6.25 (SD, 1.56; range, 4-8.5) to 0.38 (SD, 1.06; range, 0-3) (Figure 4).
The historical control patients’ mean (SD) postoperative VAS pain score, 3.00 (3.37), was significantly (P < .05) higher than that of the study patients, 0.38 (1.06). However, there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ mean (SD) ASES scores: historical control patients, 70.71 (29.09), and study patients, 86.50 (12.66).
AHD was measured on a standard anteroposterior radiograph in neutral rotation. The Hamada grading scale16 was used to classify the massive RCTs before and after surgery. Before surgery, 4 were grade 4A, 1 grade 3, 2 grade 2, and 1 grade 1; immediately after surgery, all were grade 1 (AHD, ≥6 mm). Two years after surgery, 1 patient had an AHD of 4.6 mm after a failure caused by a fall. Mean (SD) preoperative AHD was 4.50 (2.25) mm (range, 1.7-7.9 mm). Radiographs obtained immediately (mean, 1.22 months; range, 1 day-2.73 months) after surgery showed AHD was significantly (P < .0008) increased (mean, 8.48 mm; SD, 1.25 mm; range, 6.0-10.0 mm) (Figure 5). The case of the out-of-state patient with only an immediate postoperative (day after surgery) radiograph was included only in the immediate postoperative AHD data. As of this writing, radiographs were most recently obtained at a mean (SD) follow-up of 27.24 (4.37) months (range, 24.03-36.57 months). Mean (SD) postoperative AHD was 7.70 (2.08) mm (range, 4.6-11.0 mm), which was significantly (P < .05) larger than the preoperative AHD. There was no significant difference between the immediate postoperative and the 2-year postoperative AHD measurements (Figure 5).
Mean graft size was 2.9 mm medial × 3.6 mm lateral × 5.4 mm anterior × 5.4 mm posterior. Three patients had AMC performed. There was a significant (P < .05) difference in ASES scores between patients who had AMC performed (93) and those who did not (77).
Ultrasonography
Two weeks to 2 months after surgery, all patients had an intact capsular graft and no pulsatile vessels on US. Between 4 months and 10 months, US showed the construct intact laterally in all cases, a pulsatile vessel in the graft at the tuberosity (evidence of blood flow) in 4 of 5 cases, and a pulsatile vessel hypertrophied in 2 cases (Figures 6A, 6B). After 1 year, all pulsatile vessels were gone. Between 25 months and 36 months, 5 patients had an intact graft construct. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents during the postoperative period. One had an intact graft laterally, and the other had a ruptured midsubstance. In both cases, MRI was ordered.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Before surgery, 4 patients had Goutallier17 stage 4 rotator cuff muscle degeneration, 2 had stage 3 degeneration, and 2 had stage 2 degeneration. Throughout the follow-up period, US was as effective as MRI in determining graft integrity, graft thickness, and greater tuberosity fixation. Therefore, the SCRs were assessed primarily with US. MRI was ordered only if a failure was suspected or if the patient had some form of trauma. A total of 7 MRIs were ordered for 5 of the 8 patients in the study. The graft was intact in 4 of the 5 (Figures 7A-7C) and ruptured in the fifth. One patient fell just after surgery. The graft was intact, but the infraspinatus was torn. As this patient was doing well, there was no need for treatment. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. One was found to have a detached glenoid-sided graft, but refused treatment because symptoms were tolerable (this patient had been improving before the accident). The other patient, who had an MRI-confirmed rupture of the graft midsubstance, was considering revision SCR or RTSA.
Discussion
Mihata and colleagues10 published 2-year data for their reconstructive procedure with fascia lata autograft. In a modification of their procedure, Dr. Hirahara used dermal allograft to recreate the superior capsule.11 The results of the present 2-year study mirror the clinical outcomes reported by Mihata and colleagues10 and confirm that SCR improves functional outcomes and increases AHD regardless of graft type used.
The outcomes of the SCR patients in our study were significantly better than the outcomes of the historical control patients, who underwent repair of massive RCTs. Although there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ ASES scores, the control patients had significantly higher postoperative VAS pain scores. We think that, as more patients undergo SCR and the population sample increases, we will see a significant difference in ASES scores as well (our SCR patients already showed a trend toward improved ASES scores).
Compared with RTSA, SCR has fewer risks and fewer complications and does not limit further surgical options.8,9,18 The 9 patients who had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up in our study had 4 complications. Six months after surgery, 1 patient fell and tore the infraspinatus and subscapularis muscles. Outcomes continued to improve, and no issues were reported, despite a decrease in AHD, from 8 mm immediately after surgery to 4.6 mm 2 years after surgery.
Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. In 1 case, the accident occurred about 2 months after surgery. This patient also sustained a possible injury in a fall after receiving general anesthesia for a dental procedure. After having done very well the preceding months, the patient now reported increasing pain and dysfunction. MRI showed loss of glenoid fixation. Improved ASES and VAS pain scores were maintained throughout the follow-up period. AHD was increased at 13 months and mildly decreased at 2 years. Glenoid fixation was obtained with 2 anchors and a double surgeon knot. When possible, however, it is best to add an anchor and double-row fixation, as 3 anchors and a double-row construct are biomechanically stronger.19-24
The other motor vehicle accident occurred about 23 months after surgery. Two months later, a graft rupture was found on US and MRI, but the patient was maintaining full range of motion, AHD, and improved strength. The 1.5-mm graft in this patient was thinner than the 3.5-mm grafts in the rest of the study group. This was the only patient who developed a graft rupture rather than loss of fixation.
If only patients with graft thickness >3.0 mm are included in the data analysis, mean ASES score rises to 89.76, and mean VAS pain score drops to 0. Therefore, we argue against using a graft thinner than 3.5 mm. Our excellent study results indicate that larger grafts are unnecessary. Mihata and colleagues10 used fascia lata grafts of 6 mm to 8 mm. Ultimate load to failure is significantly higher for dermal allograft than for fascia lata graft.25 In SCR, the stronger dermal allograft withstands applied forces and repeated deformations and has excellent clinical outcomes.
Only 1 patient had a failure that required RTSA. VAS pain scores were lower and ASES scores were improved the first year after surgery, but then function deteriorated. The patient said there was no specific precipitating incident. Computed tomography arthrogram, ordered to assess the construct, showed anterior and superior subluxation of the humeral head, even with an intact subscapularis tendon—an indication of underlying instability, which most likely caused the failure. Eighteen months after surgery, the patient was able to undergo RTSA. On further evaluation of this patient’s procedure, it was determined that the graft needed better fixation anteriorly.
Mihata and colleagues10,12,14 indicated that AMC was unnecessary, and our procedure did not require it. However, data in our prospective evaluation began showing improved outcomes with AMC. As dermal allograft is more elastic than fascia lata autograft,25 we concluded that graft tensioning is key to the success of this procedure. Graft tension depends on many factors, including exact measurement of the distances between the anchors to punch holes in the graft, arm position to set the relationship between the anchor distances, and AMC and PMC. We recommend placing the arm in neutral rotation, neutral flexion, and abduction with the patient at rest, based on the size of the patient’s latissimus dorsi. Too much abduction causes overtensioning, and excess rotation or flexion-extension changes the distance between the glenoid and the greater tuberosity asymmetrically, from anterior to posterior. With the arm in neutral position, distances between anchors are accurately measured, and these measurements are used to determine graft size.
Graft tension is also needed to control the amount of elasticity allowed by the graft and thereby maintain stability, as shown by the Poisson ratio, the ratio of transverse contraction to longitudinal extension on a material in the presence of a stretching force. As applied to SCR, it is the ratio of mediolateral elasticity to anteroposterior deformation or constraint. If the graft is appropriately secured in the anteroposterior direction by way of ACM and PMC, elongation in the medial-lateral direction will be limited—reducing the elasticity of the graft, improving overall stability, and ultimately producing better clinical outcomes. This issue was discussed by Burkhart and colleagues26 with respect to the “rotator cable complex,” which now might be best described as the “rotator-capsule cable complex.” In our study, this phenomenon was evident in the finding that patients who had AMC performed did significantly better than patients who did not have AMC performed. The ability of dermal allograft to deform in these dimensions without failure while allowing excellent range of motion makes dermal allograft an exceptional choice for grafting during SCR. Mihata25 also found dermal allograft had a clear advantage in providing better range of motion, whereas fascia lata autograft resulted in a stiffer construct.
Dermal allograft can also incorporate into the body and transform into host tissue. The literature has described musculoskeletal US as an effective diagnostic and interventional tool.27-31 We used it to evaluate graft size, patency, and viability. As can be seen on US, the native rotator cuff does not have any pulsatile vessels and is fed by capillary flow. Dermal allograft has native vasculature built into the tissue. After 4 months to 8 months, presence of pulsatile vessels within the graft at the greater tuberosity indicates clear revascularization and incorporation of the tissue (Figure 6B). Disappearance of pulsatile vessels on US after 1 year indicates transformation to a stabilizing structure analogous to capsule or ligament with capillary flow. US also showed graft hypertrophy after 2 years, supporting a finding of integration and growth.
Conclusion
In the past, patients with irreparable massive RCTs had few good surgical management options, RTSA being the most definitive. SCR is technically challenging and requires use of specific implantation methods but can provide patients with outstanding relief. Our clinical data showed that technically well executed SCR effectively restores the superior restraints in the glenohumeral joint and thereby increases function and decreases pain in patients with irreparable massive RCTs, even after 2 years.
1 Lee BG, Cho NS, Rhee YG. Results of arthroscopic decompression and tuberoplasty for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(10):1341-1350.
2. Liem D, Lengers N, Dedy N, Poetzl W, Steinbeck J, Marquardt B. Arthroscopic debridement of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(7):743-748.
3. Kim SJ, Lee IS, Kim SH, Lee WY, Chun YM. Arthroscopic partial repair of irreparable large to massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(6):761-768.
4. Wellmann M, Lichtenberg S, da Silva G, Magosch P, Habermeyer P. Results of arthroscopic partial repair of large retracted rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(8):1275-1282.
5. Mori D, Funakoshi N, Yamashita F. Arthroscopic surgery of irreparable large or massive rotator cuff tears with low-grade fatty degeneration of the infraspinatus: patch autograft procedure versus partial repair procedure. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(12):1911-1921.
6. Gavriilidis I, Kircher J, Mogasch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Pectoralis major transfer for the treatment of irreparable anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):689-694.
7. Grimberg J, Kany J, Valenti P, Amaravathi R, Ramalingam AT. Arthroscopic-assisted latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for irreparable posterosuperior cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):599-607.
8. Bedi A, Dines J, Warren RF, Dines DM. Massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(9):1894-1908.
9. Ek ET, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1199-1208.
10. Mihata T, Lee TQ, Watanabe C, et al. Clinical results of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(3):459-470.
11. Hirahara AM, Adams CR. Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction for treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(6):e637-e641.
12. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Kahn T, Goldberg I, Neo M, Lee TQ. Biomechanical role of capsular continuity in superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable tears of the supraspinatus tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1423-1430.
13. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Ishihara Y, et al. Biomechanical analysis of articular-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tear and repair. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(2):439-446.
14. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Pirolo JM, Kinoshita M, Lee TQ. Superior capsule reconstruction to restore superior stability in irreparable rotator cuff tears: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(10):2248-2255.
15. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. The PASTA bridge: a technique for the arthroscopic repair of PASTA lesions [published online ahead of print September 18, 2017]. Arthrosc Tech. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2017.06.022.
16. Hamada K, Yamanaka K, Uchiyama Y, Mikasa T, Mikasa M. A radiographic classification of massive rotator cuff tear arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2452-2460.
17. Oh JH, Kim SH, Choi JA, Kim Y, Oh CH. Reliability of the grading system for fatty degeneration of rotator cuff muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1558-1564.
18. Boileau P, Sinnerton RJ, Chuinard C, Walch G. Arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(5):562-575.
19. Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJ. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair site area. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):519-526.
20. Baums MH, Spahn G, Steckel H, Fischer A, Schultz W, Klinger HM. Comparative evaluation of the tendon–bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(12):1466-1472.
21. Lo IK, Burkhart SS. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):1035-1042.
22. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868.
23. Pauly S, Fiebig D, Kieser B, Albrecht B, Schill A, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of four double-row speed-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques with or without medial or lateral row enhancement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(12):2090-2097.
24. Pauly S, Kieser B, Schill A, Gerhardt C, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of 4 double-row suture-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques using different medial-row configurations. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(10):1281-1288.
25. Mihata T. Superior capsule reconstruction using human dermal allograft: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Presentation at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; March 1-5, 2016; Orlando, FL.
26. Burkhart SS, Esch JC, Jolson RS. The rotator crescent and rotator cable: an anatomic description of the shoulder’s “suspension bridge.” Arthroscopy. 1993;9(6):611-616.
27. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament: surgical technique and case report. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):418-422, 460.
28. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair of medial patellofemoral ligament: surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157.
29. Hirahara AM, Mackay G, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided InternalBrace of the medial collateral ligament. Arthrosc Tech. Accepted for publication.
30. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 3: interventional and procedural uses. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):440-445.
31. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):233-238.
Take-Home Points
- The SCR is a viable treatment option for massive, irreparable RCTs.
- Arm position and exact measurement between anchors will help ensure proper graft tensioning.
- Anterior and posterior tension and margin convergence are critical to stabilizing the graft.
- Acromial-humeral distance, ASES, and VAS scores are improved and maintained over long-term follow-up.
- The dermal allograft should be 3.0 mm or thicker.
Conventional treatments for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) have ranged from nonoperative care to débridement and biceps tenotomy,1,2 partial cuff repair,3,4 bridging patch grafts,5 tendon transfers,6,7 and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA).8,9 Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), originally described by Mihata and colleagues,10 has been developed as an alternative to these interventions. Dr. Hirahara modified the technique to use dermal allograft instead of fascia lata autograft.10,11
Biomechanical analysis has confirmed the integral role of the superior capsule in shoulder function.10,12-14 In the presence of a massive RCT, the humeral head migrates superiorly, causing significant pain and functional deficits, such as pseudoparalysis. It is theorized that reestablishing this important stabilizer—centering the humeral head in the glenoid and allowing the larger muscles to move the arm about a proper fulcrum—improves function and decreases pain.
Using ultrasonography (US), radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), clinical outcome scores, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, we prospectively evaluated minimum 2-year clinical outcomes of performing SCR with dermal allograft for irreparable RCTs.
Methods
Except where noted otherwise, all products mentioned in this section were made by Arthrex.
Surgical Technique
The surgical technique used here was described by Hirahara and Adams.11 ArthroFlex dermal allograft was attached to the greater tuberosity and the glenoid, creating a superior restraint that replaced the anatomical superior capsule (Figures 1A, 1B). Some cases included biceps tenotomy, subscapularis repair, or infraspinatus repair. Mean number of anchors used was 6.13 (range, 4-8). A SpeedBridge construct, which was used for the greater tuberosity, had 2 medial anchors with FiberWire and FiberTape attached. The medial and lateral anchors typically used were 4.75-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLocks; in 1 case, significant bone defects were found after removal of previous anchors, and 6.5-mm corkscrew anchors were medially augmented with QuickSet cement. A double pulley using the FiberWire eyelet sutures from the medial row anchors was fixated into the anterior anchor in the lateral row.
Medial fixation was obtained with a PASTA (partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion) bridge-type construct15 that consisted of two 3.0-mm BioComposite SutureTak anchors (placed medially on the glenoid rim, medial to the labrum) and a 3.5-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLock. In some cases, a significant amount of tissue was present medially, and the third anchor was not used; instead, a double surgeon knot was used to fixate the double pulley medially.
Posterior margin convergence (PMC) was performed in all cases. Anterior margin convergence (AMC) was performed in only 3 cases.
Clinical Evaluation
All patients who underwent SCR were followed prospectively, and all signed an informed consent form. Between 2014 and the time of this study, 9 patients had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Before surgery, all patients received a diagnosis of full-thickness RCT with decreased acromial-humeral distance (AHD). One patient had RTSA 18 months after surgery, did not reach the 2-year follow-up, and was excluded from the data analysis. Patients were clinically evaluated on the 100-point American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder index and on a 10-point VAS for pain—before surgery, monthly for the first 6 months after surgery, then every 6 months until 2 years after surgery, and yearly thereafter. These patients were compared with Dr. Hirahara’s historical control patients, who had undergone repair of massive RCTs. Mean graft size was calculated and reported. Cases were separated and analyzed on the basis of whether AMC was performed. Student t tests were used to determine statistical differences between study patients’ preoperative and postoperative scores, between study and historical control patients, and between patients who had AMC performed and those who did not (P < .05).
Imaging
For all SCR patients, preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained in 2 planes: anterior-posterior with arm in neutral rotation, and scapular Y. On anteroposterior radiographs, AHD was measured from the most proximal aspect of the humeral head in a vertical line to the most inferior portion of the acromion (Figures 2A, 2B). Student t tests were used to identify statistical differences (P < .05) between preoperative and postoperative groups for radiographs obtained immediately after surgery and most recent radiographs at time of study (minimum 24 months after surgery). US, performed by either Dr. Hirahara or Dr. Panero in the same clinic with the same machine (X-Porte; FujiFilm SonoSite), was used to assess patients 1 month after surgery, between 4 months and 8 months after surgery, and 1 year and 2 years after surgery. MRI was ordered if there was any concern about the reconstruction.
Results
The Table provides an overview of the study results. Eight patients (6 men, 2 women) met the final inclusion criteria for postoperative ASES and VAS data analysis. Mean age at time of surgery was 61.33 years (range, 47-78 years). Of the 8 surgeries, 7 were performed on the dominant arm. Mean number of previous rotator cuff surgeries was 1.50 (SD, 0.93; range, 0-3). Mean follow-up was 32.38 months (range, 25-39 months). For 1 patient, who lived out of state, a postoperative radiograph, a 2-year ASES score, and a 2-year VAS pain score were obtained, but postoperative US could not be arranged.
From before surgery to 2 years after surgery, mean ASES score improved significantly (P < .00002), from 41.75 (SD, 12.71; range, 25-58) to 86.50 (SD, 12.66; range, 63-100) (Figure 3), and mean VAS pain score decreased significantly (P < .00002), from 6.25 (SD, 1.56; range, 4-8.5) to 0.38 (SD, 1.06; range, 0-3) (Figure 4).
The historical control patients’ mean (SD) postoperative VAS pain score, 3.00 (3.37), was significantly (P < .05) higher than that of the study patients, 0.38 (1.06). However, there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ mean (SD) ASES scores: historical control patients, 70.71 (29.09), and study patients, 86.50 (12.66).
AHD was measured on a standard anteroposterior radiograph in neutral rotation. The Hamada grading scale16 was used to classify the massive RCTs before and after surgery. Before surgery, 4 were grade 4A, 1 grade 3, 2 grade 2, and 1 grade 1; immediately after surgery, all were grade 1 (AHD, ≥6 mm). Two years after surgery, 1 patient had an AHD of 4.6 mm after a failure caused by a fall. Mean (SD) preoperative AHD was 4.50 (2.25) mm (range, 1.7-7.9 mm). Radiographs obtained immediately (mean, 1.22 months; range, 1 day-2.73 months) after surgery showed AHD was significantly (P < .0008) increased (mean, 8.48 mm; SD, 1.25 mm; range, 6.0-10.0 mm) (Figure 5). The case of the out-of-state patient with only an immediate postoperative (day after surgery) radiograph was included only in the immediate postoperative AHD data. As of this writing, radiographs were most recently obtained at a mean (SD) follow-up of 27.24 (4.37) months (range, 24.03-36.57 months). Mean (SD) postoperative AHD was 7.70 (2.08) mm (range, 4.6-11.0 mm), which was significantly (P < .05) larger than the preoperative AHD. There was no significant difference between the immediate postoperative and the 2-year postoperative AHD measurements (Figure 5).
Mean graft size was 2.9 mm medial × 3.6 mm lateral × 5.4 mm anterior × 5.4 mm posterior. Three patients had AMC performed. There was a significant (P < .05) difference in ASES scores between patients who had AMC performed (93) and those who did not (77).
Ultrasonography
Two weeks to 2 months after surgery, all patients had an intact capsular graft and no pulsatile vessels on US. Between 4 months and 10 months, US showed the construct intact laterally in all cases, a pulsatile vessel in the graft at the tuberosity (evidence of blood flow) in 4 of 5 cases, and a pulsatile vessel hypertrophied in 2 cases (Figures 6A, 6B). After 1 year, all pulsatile vessels were gone. Between 25 months and 36 months, 5 patients had an intact graft construct. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents during the postoperative period. One had an intact graft laterally, and the other had a ruptured midsubstance. In both cases, MRI was ordered.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Before surgery, 4 patients had Goutallier17 stage 4 rotator cuff muscle degeneration, 2 had stage 3 degeneration, and 2 had stage 2 degeneration. Throughout the follow-up period, US was as effective as MRI in determining graft integrity, graft thickness, and greater tuberosity fixation. Therefore, the SCRs were assessed primarily with US. MRI was ordered only if a failure was suspected or if the patient had some form of trauma. A total of 7 MRIs were ordered for 5 of the 8 patients in the study. The graft was intact in 4 of the 5 (Figures 7A-7C) and ruptured in the fifth. One patient fell just after surgery. The graft was intact, but the infraspinatus was torn. As this patient was doing well, there was no need for treatment. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. One was found to have a detached glenoid-sided graft, but refused treatment because symptoms were tolerable (this patient had been improving before the accident). The other patient, who had an MRI-confirmed rupture of the graft midsubstance, was considering revision SCR or RTSA.
Discussion
Mihata and colleagues10 published 2-year data for their reconstructive procedure with fascia lata autograft. In a modification of their procedure, Dr. Hirahara used dermal allograft to recreate the superior capsule.11 The results of the present 2-year study mirror the clinical outcomes reported by Mihata and colleagues10 and confirm that SCR improves functional outcomes and increases AHD regardless of graft type used.
The outcomes of the SCR patients in our study were significantly better than the outcomes of the historical control patients, who underwent repair of massive RCTs. Although there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ ASES scores, the control patients had significantly higher postoperative VAS pain scores. We think that, as more patients undergo SCR and the population sample increases, we will see a significant difference in ASES scores as well (our SCR patients already showed a trend toward improved ASES scores).
Compared with RTSA, SCR has fewer risks and fewer complications and does not limit further surgical options.8,9,18 The 9 patients who had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up in our study had 4 complications. Six months after surgery, 1 patient fell and tore the infraspinatus and subscapularis muscles. Outcomes continued to improve, and no issues were reported, despite a decrease in AHD, from 8 mm immediately after surgery to 4.6 mm 2 years after surgery.
Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. In 1 case, the accident occurred about 2 months after surgery. This patient also sustained a possible injury in a fall after receiving general anesthesia for a dental procedure. After having done very well the preceding months, the patient now reported increasing pain and dysfunction. MRI showed loss of glenoid fixation. Improved ASES and VAS pain scores were maintained throughout the follow-up period. AHD was increased at 13 months and mildly decreased at 2 years. Glenoid fixation was obtained with 2 anchors and a double surgeon knot. When possible, however, it is best to add an anchor and double-row fixation, as 3 anchors and a double-row construct are biomechanically stronger.19-24
The other motor vehicle accident occurred about 23 months after surgery. Two months later, a graft rupture was found on US and MRI, but the patient was maintaining full range of motion, AHD, and improved strength. The 1.5-mm graft in this patient was thinner than the 3.5-mm grafts in the rest of the study group. This was the only patient who developed a graft rupture rather than loss of fixation.
If only patients with graft thickness >3.0 mm are included in the data analysis, mean ASES score rises to 89.76, and mean VAS pain score drops to 0. Therefore, we argue against using a graft thinner than 3.5 mm. Our excellent study results indicate that larger grafts are unnecessary. Mihata and colleagues10 used fascia lata grafts of 6 mm to 8 mm. Ultimate load to failure is significantly higher for dermal allograft than for fascia lata graft.25 In SCR, the stronger dermal allograft withstands applied forces and repeated deformations and has excellent clinical outcomes.
Only 1 patient had a failure that required RTSA. VAS pain scores were lower and ASES scores were improved the first year after surgery, but then function deteriorated. The patient said there was no specific precipitating incident. Computed tomography arthrogram, ordered to assess the construct, showed anterior and superior subluxation of the humeral head, even with an intact subscapularis tendon—an indication of underlying instability, which most likely caused the failure. Eighteen months after surgery, the patient was able to undergo RTSA. On further evaluation of this patient’s procedure, it was determined that the graft needed better fixation anteriorly.
Mihata and colleagues10,12,14 indicated that AMC was unnecessary, and our procedure did not require it. However, data in our prospective evaluation began showing improved outcomes with AMC. As dermal allograft is more elastic than fascia lata autograft,25 we concluded that graft tensioning is key to the success of this procedure. Graft tension depends on many factors, including exact measurement of the distances between the anchors to punch holes in the graft, arm position to set the relationship between the anchor distances, and AMC and PMC. We recommend placing the arm in neutral rotation, neutral flexion, and abduction with the patient at rest, based on the size of the patient’s latissimus dorsi. Too much abduction causes overtensioning, and excess rotation or flexion-extension changes the distance between the glenoid and the greater tuberosity asymmetrically, from anterior to posterior. With the arm in neutral position, distances between anchors are accurately measured, and these measurements are used to determine graft size.
Graft tension is also needed to control the amount of elasticity allowed by the graft and thereby maintain stability, as shown by the Poisson ratio, the ratio of transverse contraction to longitudinal extension on a material in the presence of a stretching force. As applied to SCR, it is the ratio of mediolateral elasticity to anteroposterior deformation or constraint. If the graft is appropriately secured in the anteroposterior direction by way of ACM and PMC, elongation in the medial-lateral direction will be limited—reducing the elasticity of the graft, improving overall stability, and ultimately producing better clinical outcomes. This issue was discussed by Burkhart and colleagues26 with respect to the “rotator cable complex,” which now might be best described as the “rotator-capsule cable complex.” In our study, this phenomenon was evident in the finding that patients who had AMC performed did significantly better than patients who did not have AMC performed. The ability of dermal allograft to deform in these dimensions without failure while allowing excellent range of motion makes dermal allograft an exceptional choice for grafting during SCR. Mihata25 also found dermal allograft had a clear advantage in providing better range of motion, whereas fascia lata autograft resulted in a stiffer construct.
Dermal allograft can also incorporate into the body and transform into host tissue. The literature has described musculoskeletal US as an effective diagnostic and interventional tool.27-31 We used it to evaluate graft size, patency, and viability. As can be seen on US, the native rotator cuff does not have any pulsatile vessels and is fed by capillary flow. Dermal allograft has native vasculature built into the tissue. After 4 months to 8 months, presence of pulsatile vessels within the graft at the greater tuberosity indicates clear revascularization and incorporation of the tissue (Figure 6B). Disappearance of pulsatile vessels on US after 1 year indicates transformation to a stabilizing structure analogous to capsule or ligament with capillary flow. US also showed graft hypertrophy after 2 years, supporting a finding of integration and growth.
Conclusion
In the past, patients with irreparable massive RCTs had few good surgical management options, RTSA being the most definitive. SCR is technically challenging and requires use of specific implantation methods but can provide patients with outstanding relief. Our clinical data showed that technically well executed SCR effectively restores the superior restraints in the glenohumeral joint and thereby increases function and decreases pain in patients with irreparable massive RCTs, even after 2 years.
Take-Home Points
- The SCR is a viable treatment option for massive, irreparable RCTs.
- Arm position and exact measurement between anchors will help ensure proper graft tensioning.
- Anterior and posterior tension and margin convergence are critical to stabilizing the graft.
- Acromial-humeral distance, ASES, and VAS scores are improved and maintained over long-term follow-up.
- The dermal allograft should be 3.0 mm or thicker.
Conventional treatments for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) have ranged from nonoperative care to débridement and biceps tenotomy,1,2 partial cuff repair,3,4 bridging patch grafts,5 tendon transfers,6,7 and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA).8,9 Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), originally described by Mihata and colleagues,10 has been developed as an alternative to these interventions. Dr. Hirahara modified the technique to use dermal allograft instead of fascia lata autograft.10,11
Biomechanical analysis has confirmed the integral role of the superior capsule in shoulder function.10,12-14 In the presence of a massive RCT, the humeral head migrates superiorly, causing significant pain and functional deficits, such as pseudoparalysis. It is theorized that reestablishing this important stabilizer—centering the humeral head in the glenoid and allowing the larger muscles to move the arm about a proper fulcrum—improves function and decreases pain.
Using ultrasonography (US), radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), clinical outcome scores, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, we prospectively evaluated minimum 2-year clinical outcomes of performing SCR with dermal allograft for irreparable RCTs.
Methods
Except where noted otherwise, all products mentioned in this section were made by Arthrex.
Surgical Technique
The surgical technique used here was described by Hirahara and Adams.11 ArthroFlex dermal allograft was attached to the greater tuberosity and the glenoid, creating a superior restraint that replaced the anatomical superior capsule (Figures 1A, 1B). Some cases included biceps tenotomy, subscapularis repair, or infraspinatus repair. Mean number of anchors used was 6.13 (range, 4-8). A SpeedBridge construct, which was used for the greater tuberosity, had 2 medial anchors with FiberWire and FiberTape attached. The medial and lateral anchors typically used were 4.75-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLocks; in 1 case, significant bone defects were found after removal of previous anchors, and 6.5-mm corkscrew anchors were medially augmented with QuickSet cement. A double pulley using the FiberWire eyelet sutures from the medial row anchors was fixated into the anterior anchor in the lateral row.
Medial fixation was obtained with a PASTA (partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion) bridge-type construct15 that consisted of two 3.0-mm BioComposite SutureTak anchors (placed medially on the glenoid rim, medial to the labrum) and a 3.5-mm BioComposite Vented SwiveLock. In some cases, a significant amount of tissue was present medially, and the third anchor was not used; instead, a double surgeon knot was used to fixate the double pulley medially.
Posterior margin convergence (PMC) was performed in all cases. Anterior margin convergence (AMC) was performed in only 3 cases.
Clinical Evaluation
All patients who underwent SCR were followed prospectively, and all signed an informed consent form. Between 2014 and the time of this study, 9 patients had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Before surgery, all patients received a diagnosis of full-thickness RCT with decreased acromial-humeral distance (AHD). One patient had RTSA 18 months after surgery, did not reach the 2-year follow-up, and was excluded from the data analysis. Patients were clinically evaluated on the 100-point American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder index and on a 10-point VAS for pain—before surgery, monthly for the first 6 months after surgery, then every 6 months until 2 years after surgery, and yearly thereafter. These patients were compared with Dr. Hirahara’s historical control patients, who had undergone repair of massive RCTs. Mean graft size was calculated and reported. Cases were separated and analyzed on the basis of whether AMC was performed. Student t tests were used to determine statistical differences between study patients’ preoperative and postoperative scores, between study and historical control patients, and between patients who had AMC performed and those who did not (P < .05).
Imaging
For all SCR patients, preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained in 2 planes: anterior-posterior with arm in neutral rotation, and scapular Y. On anteroposterior radiographs, AHD was measured from the most proximal aspect of the humeral head in a vertical line to the most inferior portion of the acromion (Figures 2A, 2B). Student t tests were used to identify statistical differences (P < .05) between preoperative and postoperative groups for radiographs obtained immediately after surgery and most recent radiographs at time of study (minimum 24 months after surgery). US, performed by either Dr. Hirahara or Dr. Panero in the same clinic with the same machine (X-Porte; FujiFilm SonoSite), was used to assess patients 1 month after surgery, between 4 months and 8 months after surgery, and 1 year and 2 years after surgery. MRI was ordered if there was any concern about the reconstruction.
Results
The Table provides an overview of the study results. Eight patients (6 men, 2 women) met the final inclusion criteria for postoperative ASES and VAS data analysis. Mean age at time of surgery was 61.33 years (range, 47-78 years). Of the 8 surgeries, 7 were performed on the dominant arm. Mean number of previous rotator cuff surgeries was 1.50 (SD, 0.93; range, 0-3). Mean follow-up was 32.38 months (range, 25-39 months). For 1 patient, who lived out of state, a postoperative radiograph, a 2-year ASES score, and a 2-year VAS pain score were obtained, but postoperative US could not be arranged.
From before surgery to 2 years after surgery, mean ASES score improved significantly (P < .00002), from 41.75 (SD, 12.71; range, 25-58) to 86.50 (SD, 12.66; range, 63-100) (Figure 3), and mean VAS pain score decreased significantly (P < .00002), from 6.25 (SD, 1.56; range, 4-8.5) to 0.38 (SD, 1.06; range, 0-3) (Figure 4).
The historical control patients’ mean (SD) postoperative VAS pain score, 3.00 (3.37), was significantly (P < .05) higher than that of the study patients, 0.38 (1.06). However, there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ mean (SD) ASES scores: historical control patients, 70.71 (29.09), and study patients, 86.50 (12.66).
AHD was measured on a standard anteroposterior radiograph in neutral rotation. The Hamada grading scale16 was used to classify the massive RCTs before and after surgery. Before surgery, 4 were grade 4A, 1 grade 3, 2 grade 2, and 1 grade 1; immediately after surgery, all were grade 1 (AHD, ≥6 mm). Two years after surgery, 1 patient had an AHD of 4.6 mm after a failure caused by a fall. Mean (SD) preoperative AHD was 4.50 (2.25) mm (range, 1.7-7.9 mm). Radiographs obtained immediately (mean, 1.22 months; range, 1 day-2.73 months) after surgery showed AHD was significantly (P < .0008) increased (mean, 8.48 mm; SD, 1.25 mm; range, 6.0-10.0 mm) (Figure 5). The case of the out-of-state patient with only an immediate postoperative (day after surgery) radiograph was included only in the immediate postoperative AHD data. As of this writing, radiographs were most recently obtained at a mean (SD) follow-up of 27.24 (4.37) months (range, 24.03-36.57 months). Mean (SD) postoperative AHD was 7.70 (2.08) mm (range, 4.6-11.0 mm), which was significantly (P < .05) larger than the preoperative AHD. There was no significant difference between the immediate postoperative and the 2-year postoperative AHD measurements (Figure 5).
Mean graft size was 2.9 mm medial × 3.6 mm lateral × 5.4 mm anterior × 5.4 mm posterior. Three patients had AMC performed. There was a significant (P < .05) difference in ASES scores between patients who had AMC performed (93) and those who did not (77).
Ultrasonography
Two weeks to 2 months after surgery, all patients had an intact capsular graft and no pulsatile vessels on US. Between 4 months and 10 months, US showed the construct intact laterally in all cases, a pulsatile vessel in the graft at the tuberosity (evidence of blood flow) in 4 of 5 cases, and a pulsatile vessel hypertrophied in 2 cases (Figures 6A, 6B). After 1 year, all pulsatile vessels were gone. Between 25 months and 36 months, 5 patients had an intact graft construct. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents during the postoperative period. One had an intact graft laterally, and the other had a ruptured midsubstance. In both cases, MRI was ordered.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Before surgery, 4 patients had Goutallier17 stage 4 rotator cuff muscle degeneration, 2 had stage 3 degeneration, and 2 had stage 2 degeneration. Throughout the follow-up period, US was as effective as MRI in determining graft integrity, graft thickness, and greater tuberosity fixation. Therefore, the SCRs were assessed primarily with US. MRI was ordered only if a failure was suspected or if the patient had some form of trauma. A total of 7 MRIs were ordered for 5 of the 8 patients in the study. The graft was intact in 4 of the 5 (Figures 7A-7C) and ruptured in the fifth. One patient fell just after surgery. The graft was intact, but the infraspinatus was torn. As this patient was doing well, there was no need for treatment. Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. One was found to have a detached glenoid-sided graft, but refused treatment because symptoms were tolerable (this patient had been improving before the accident). The other patient, who had an MRI-confirmed rupture of the graft midsubstance, was considering revision SCR or RTSA.
Discussion
Mihata and colleagues10 published 2-year data for their reconstructive procedure with fascia lata autograft. In a modification of their procedure, Dr. Hirahara used dermal allograft to recreate the superior capsule.11 The results of the present 2-year study mirror the clinical outcomes reported by Mihata and colleagues10 and confirm that SCR improves functional outcomes and increases AHD regardless of graft type used.
The outcomes of the SCR patients in our study were significantly better than the outcomes of the historical control patients, who underwent repair of massive RCTs. Although there was no significant difference in the 2 groups’ ASES scores, the control patients had significantly higher postoperative VAS pain scores. We think that, as more patients undergo SCR and the population sample increases, we will see a significant difference in ASES scores as well (our SCR patients already showed a trend toward improved ASES scores).
Compared with RTSA, SCR has fewer risks and fewer complications and does not limit further surgical options.8,9,18 The 9 patients who had surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up in our study had 4 complications. Six months after surgery, 1 patient fell and tore the infraspinatus and subscapularis muscles. Outcomes continued to improve, and no issues were reported, despite a decrease in AHD, from 8 mm immediately after surgery to 4.6 mm 2 years after surgery.
Two patients were in motor vehicle accidents. In 1 case, the accident occurred about 2 months after surgery. This patient also sustained a possible injury in a fall after receiving general anesthesia for a dental procedure. After having done very well the preceding months, the patient now reported increasing pain and dysfunction. MRI showed loss of glenoid fixation. Improved ASES and VAS pain scores were maintained throughout the follow-up period. AHD was increased at 13 months and mildly decreased at 2 years. Glenoid fixation was obtained with 2 anchors and a double surgeon knot. When possible, however, it is best to add an anchor and double-row fixation, as 3 anchors and a double-row construct are biomechanically stronger.19-24
The other motor vehicle accident occurred about 23 months after surgery. Two months later, a graft rupture was found on US and MRI, but the patient was maintaining full range of motion, AHD, and improved strength. The 1.5-mm graft in this patient was thinner than the 3.5-mm grafts in the rest of the study group. This was the only patient who developed a graft rupture rather than loss of fixation.
If only patients with graft thickness >3.0 mm are included in the data analysis, mean ASES score rises to 89.76, and mean VAS pain score drops to 0. Therefore, we argue against using a graft thinner than 3.5 mm. Our excellent study results indicate that larger grafts are unnecessary. Mihata and colleagues10 used fascia lata grafts of 6 mm to 8 mm. Ultimate load to failure is significantly higher for dermal allograft than for fascia lata graft.25 In SCR, the stronger dermal allograft withstands applied forces and repeated deformations and has excellent clinical outcomes.
Only 1 patient had a failure that required RTSA. VAS pain scores were lower and ASES scores were improved the first year after surgery, but then function deteriorated. The patient said there was no specific precipitating incident. Computed tomography arthrogram, ordered to assess the construct, showed anterior and superior subluxation of the humeral head, even with an intact subscapularis tendon—an indication of underlying instability, which most likely caused the failure. Eighteen months after surgery, the patient was able to undergo RTSA. On further evaluation of this patient’s procedure, it was determined that the graft needed better fixation anteriorly.
Mihata and colleagues10,12,14 indicated that AMC was unnecessary, and our procedure did not require it. However, data in our prospective evaluation began showing improved outcomes with AMC. As dermal allograft is more elastic than fascia lata autograft,25 we concluded that graft tensioning is key to the success of this procedure. Graft tension depends on many factors, including exact measurement of the distances between the anchors to punch holes in the graft, arm position to set the relationship between the anchor distances, and AMC and PMC. We recommend placing the arm in neutral rotation, neutral flexion, and abduction with the patient at rest, based on the size of the patient’s latissimus dorsi. Too much abduction causes overtensioning, and excess rotation or flexion-extension changes the distance between the glenoid and the greater tuberosity asymmetrically, from anterior to posterior. With the arm in neutral position, distances between anchors are accurately measured, and these measurements are used to determine graft size.
Graft tension is also needed to control the amount of elasticity allowed by the graft and thereby maintain stability, as shown by the Poisson ratio, the ratio of transverse contraction to longitudinal extension on a material in the presence of a stretching force. As applied to SCR, it is the ratio of mediolateral elasticity to anteroposterior deformation or constraint. If the graft is appropriately secured in the anteroposterior direction by way of ACM and PMC, elongation in the medial-lateral direction will be limited—reducing the elasticity of the graft, improving overall stability, and ultimately producing better clinical outcomes. This issue was discussed by Burkhart and colleagues26 with respect to the “rotator cable complex,” which now might be best described as the “rotator-capsule cable complex.” In our study, this phenomenon was evident in the finding that patients who had AMC performed did significantly better than patients who did not have AMC performed. The ability of dermal allograft to deform in these dimensions without failure while allowing excellent range of motion makes dermal allograft an exceptional choice for grafting during SCR. Mihata25 also found dermal allograft had a clear advantage in providing better range of motion, whereas fascia lata autograft resulted in a stiffer construct.
Dermal allograft can also incorporate into the body and transform into host tissue. The literature has described musculoskeletal US as an effective diagnostic and interventional tool.27-31 We used it to evaluate graft size, patency, and viability. As can be seen on US, the native rotator cuff does not have any pulsatile vessels and is fed by capillary flow. Dermal allograft has native vasculature built into the tissue. After 4 months to 8 months, presence of pulsatile vessels within the graft at the greater tuberosity indicates clear revascularization and incorporation of the tissue (Figure 6B). Disappearance of pulsatile vessels on US after 1 year indicates transformation to a stabilizing structure analogous to capsule or ligament with capillary flow. US also showed graft hypertrophy after 2 years, supporting a finding of integration and growth.
Conclusion
In the past, patients with irreparable massive RCTs had few good surgical management options, RTSA being the most definitive. SCR is technically challenging and requires use of specific implantation methods but can provide patients with outstanding relief. Our clinical data showed that technically well executed SCR effectively restores the superior restraints in the glenohumeral joint and thereby increases function and decreases pain in patients with irreparable massive RCTs, even after 2 years.
1 Lee BG, Cho NS, Rhee YG. Results of arthroscopic decompression and tuberoplasty for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(10):1341-1350.
2. Liem D, Lengers N, Dedy N, Poetzl W, Steinbeck J, Marquardt B. Arthroscopic debridement of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(7):743-748.
3. Kim SJ, Lee IS, Kim SH, Lee WY, Chun YM. Arthroscopic partial repair of irreparable large to massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(6):761-768.
4. Wellmann M, Lichtenberg S, da Silva G, Magosch P, Habermeyer P. Results of arthroscopic partial repair of large retracted rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(8):1275-1282.
5. Mori D, Funakoshi N, Yamashita F. Arthroscopic surgery of irreparable large or massive rotator cuff tears with low-grade fatty degeneration of the infraspinatus: patch autograft procedure versus partial repair procedure. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(12):1911-1921.
6. Gavriilidis I, Kircher J, Mogasch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Pectoralis major transfer for the treatment of irreparable anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):689-694.
7. Grimberg J, Kany J, Valenti P, Amaravathi R, Ramalingam AT. Arthroscopic-assisted latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for irreparable posterosuperior cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):599-607.
8. Bedi A, Dines J, Warren RF, Dines DM. Massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(9):1894-1908.
9. Ek ET, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1199-1208.
10. Mihata T, Lee TQ, Watanabe C, et al. Clinical results of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(3):459-470.
11. Hirahara AM, Adams CR. Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction for treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(6):e637-e641.
12. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Kahn T, Goldberg I, Neo M, Lee TQ. Biomechanical role of capsular continuity in superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable tears of the supraspinatus tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1423-1430.
13. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Ishihara Y, et al. Biomechanical analysis of articular-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tear and repair. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(2):439-446.
14. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Pirolo JM, Kinoshita M, Lee TQ. Superior capsule reconstruction to restore superior stability in irreparable rotator cuff tears: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(10):2248-2255.
15. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. The PASTA bridge: a technique for the arthroscopic repair of PASTA lesions [published online ahead of print September 18, 2017]. Arthrosc Tech. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2017.06.022.
16. Hamada K, Yamanaka K, Uchiyama Y, Mikasa T, Mikasa M. A radiographic classification of massive rotator cuff tear arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2452-2460.
17. Oh JH, Kim SH, Choi JA, Kim Y, Oh CH. Reliability of the grading system for fatty degeneration of rotator cuff muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1558-1564.
18. Boileau P, Sinnerton RJ, Chuinard C, Walch G. Arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(5):562-575.
19. Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJ. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair site area. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):519-526.
20. Baums MH, Spahn G, Steckel H, Fischer A, Schultz W, Klinger HM. Comparative evaluation of the tendon–bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(12):1466-1472.
21. Lo IK, Burkhart SS. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):1035-1042.
22. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868.
23. Pauly S, Fiebig D, Kieser B, Albrecht B, Schill A, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of four double-row speed-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques with or without medial or lateral row enhancement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(12):2090-2097.
24. Pauly S, Kieser B, Schill A, Gerhardt C, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of 4 double-row suture-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques using different medial-row configurations. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(10):1281-1288.
25. Mihata T. Superior capsule reconstruction using human dermal allograft: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Presentation at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; March 1-5, 2016; Orlando, FL.
26. Burkhart SS, Esch JC, Jolson RS. The rotator crescent and rotator cable: an anatomic description of the shoulder’s “suspension bridge.” Arthroscopy. 1993;9(6):611-616.
27. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament: surgical technique and case report. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):418-422, 460.
28. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair of medial patellofemoral ligament: surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157.
29. Hirahara AM, Mackay G, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided InternalBrace of the medial collateral ligament. Arthrosc Tech. Accepted for publication.
30. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 3: interventional and procedural uses. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):440-445.
31. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):233-238.
1 Lee BG, Cho NS, Rhee YG. Results of arthroscopic decompression and tuberoplasty for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(10):1341-1350.
2. Liem D, Lengers N, Dedy N, Poetzl W, Steinbeck J, Marquardt B. Arthroscopic debridement of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(7):743-748.
3. Kim SJ, Lee IS, Kim SH, Lee WY, Chun YM. Arthroscopic partial repair of irreparable large to massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(6):761-768.
4. Wellmann M, Lichtenberg S, da Silva G, Magosch P, Habermeyer P. Results of arthroscopic partial repair of large retracted rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(8):1275-1282.
5. Mori D, Funakoshi N, Yamashita F. Arthroscopic surgery of irreparable large or massive rotator cuff tears with low-grade fatty degeneration of the infraspinatus: patch autograft procedure versus partial repair procedure. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(12):1911-1921.
6. Gavriilidis I, Kircher J, Mogasch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Pectoralis major transfer for the treatment of irreparable anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):689-694.
7. Grimberg J, Kany J, Valenti P, Amaravathi R, Ramalingam AT. Arthroscopic-assisted latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for irreparable posterosuperior cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):599-607.
8. Bedi A, Dines J, Warren RF, Dines DM. Massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(9):1894-1908.
9. Ek ET, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1199-1208.
10. Mihata T, Lee TQ, Watanabe C, et al. Clinical results of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(3):459-470.
11. Hirahara AM, Adams CR. Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction for treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(6):e637-e641.
12. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Kahn T, Goldberg I, Neo M, Lee TQ. Biomechanical role of capsular continuity in superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable tears of the supraspinatus tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1423-1430.
13. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Ishihara Y, et al. Biomechanical analysis of articular-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tear and repair. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(2):439-446.
14. Mihata T, McGarry MH, Pirolo JM, Kinoshita M, Lee TQ. Superior capsule reconstruction to restore superior stability in irreparable rotator cuff tears: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(10):2248-2255.
15. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. The PASTA bridge: a technique for the arthroscopic repair of PASTA lesions [published online ahead of print September 18, 2017]. Arthrosc Tech. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2017.06.022.
16. Hamada K, Yamanaka K, Uchiyama Y, Mikasa T, Mikasa M. A radiographic classification of massive rotator cuff tear arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2452-2460.
17. Oh JH, Kim SH, Choi JA, Kim Y, Oh CH. Reliability of the grading system for fatty degeneration of rotator cuff muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1558-1564.
18. Boileau P, Sinnerton RJ, Chuinard C, Walch G. Arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(5):562-575.
19. Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJ. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair site area. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):519-526.
20. Baums MH, Spahn G, Steckel H, Fischer A, Schultz W, Klinger HM. Comparative evaluation of the tendon–bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(12):1466-1472.
21. Lo IK, Burkhart SS. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):1035-1042.
22. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868.
23. Pauly S, Fiebig D, Kieser B, Albrecht B, Schill A, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of four double-row speed-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques with or without medial or lateral row enhancement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(12):2090-2097.
24. Pauly S, Kieser B, Schill A, Gerhardt C, Scheibel M. Biomechanical comparison of 4 double-row suture-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques using different medial-row configurations. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(10):1281-1288.
25. Mihata T. Superior capsule reconstruction using human dermal allograft: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Presentation at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; March 1-5, 2016; Orlando, FL.
26. Burkhart SS, Esch JC, Jolson RS. The rotator crescent and rotator cable: an anatomic description of the shoulder’s “suspension bridge.” Arthroscopy. 1993;9(6):611-616.
27. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament: surgical technique and case report. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):418-422, 460.
28. Hirahara AM, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair of medial patellofemoral ligament: surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(3):152-157.
29. Hirahara AM, Mackay G, Andersen WJ. Ultrasound-guided InternalBrace of the medial collateral ligament. Arthrosc Tech. Accepted for publication.
30. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 3: interventional and procedural uses. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):440-445.
31. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(4):233-238.
A Guide to Ultrasound of the Shoulder, Part 3: Interventional and Procedural Uses
Ultrasound has classically been marketed and used as a diagnostic tool. Radiologists, emergency physicians, and sports physicians used ultrasound units to rapidly and appropriately diagnose numerous injuries and disorders, in a timely and cost effective manner. Part 11 and Part 22 of this series showed how to use ultrasound in the shoulder for diagnosis and how to code and get reimbursed for its use.Ultrasound can also be used to help guide procedures and interventions performed to treat patients. Currently, more physicians are beginning to recognize the utility of this modality as an aid to interventional procedures.
First-generation procedures use ultrasound to improve accuracy of joint, bursal, tendon, and muscular injections.3 Recent studies have shown a significant improvement in accuracy, outcomes, and patient satisfaction using ultrasound guidance for injections.3-12 Within the limitation of using a needle, second-generation procedures—hydrodissection of peripherally entrapped nerves, capsular distention, mechanical disruption of neovascularization, and needle fenestration or barbotage in chronic tendinopathy—try to simulate surgical objectives while minimizing tissue burden and other complications of surgery.3 More advanced procedures include needle fenestration/release of the carpal ligament in carpal tunnel syndrome and A1 pulley needle release in the setting of trigger finger.3 Innovative third-generation procedures involve the use of surgical tools such as hook blades under ultrasound guidance to perform surgical procedures. Surgeons are now improving already established percutaneous, arthroscopic, and open surgical procedures with ultrasound assistance.3 Aside from better guidance, reducing cost and improving surgeon comfort may be additional benefits of ultrasound assisted surgery.
Image-Guided Treatment Options
Prior to image guidance, palpation of surface anatomy helped physicians determine the anatomic placement of injections, incisions, or portals. Joints and bursas that do not have any inflammation or fluid can sometimes be difficult to identify or locate by palpation alone. Palpation-guided joint injections often miss their target and cause significant pain when the therapeutic agent is injected into a muscle, tendon, ligament, fat, or other tissue. Ultrasound-guided injections have proven to be more accurate and have better patient satisfaction when compared to blind injections.3-12
X-ray fluoroscopy has been the primary option for surgeons to assist in surgery. This is a natural modality for orthopedic surgeons; their primary use is for bone to help with fracture reduction and fixation as the bone, instrumentation, and fixation methods are usually radio-opaque. With the advancement in technology, many orthopedic surgeons are regularly using radiolucent fixation devices and working with soft tissue as opposed to bone. Fixation of tendons, ligaments, and muscles would be done using a large incision, palpation of the anatomy, then fixation or repair. Many surgeons began looking for ways to minimize the incisions. Turning to fluoroscopy, a traditional and well-used modality, was a natural progression. Guides and methods were developed to isolate insertions and drill placements. However, fluoroscopy is limited by its difficulty in changing planes and the large equipment required. Also, it is limited in its ability to image soft tissue.
Computed tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are far better at imaging soft tissue but cannot be taken for use into the office or surgical suite. These modalities are also far more expensive and take up significant space.
Ultrasound Procedural Basics
Appropriate use of ultrasound still remains highly technician-dependent. Unlike other imaging modalities, ultrasound requires a higher skill level by the physician to implement the use of ultrasound and identification of pathology to treat these disease processes. However, this is no different from the use of arthroscopy or fluoroscopy to treat patients. Training is required, as well as an understanding of the ultrasound machine, anatomy, and sono-anatomy—identification of anatomy and pathology as shown by the ultrasound machine.2
In ultrasound, the long axis refers to looking at a structure along its length, as in longitudinal. The short axis refers to evaluating a structure in cross-section, transverse, or along its shortest length. “In plane” refers to performing a procedure where the needle or object being used enters the ultrasound field along the plane of the transducer, allowing visualization of the majority of the needle as it crosses tissue planes. “Out of plane” has the needle entering perpendicular to the plane of the transducer, showing the needle on the monitor as a bright, hyperechoic dot. Some studies have suggested that novice ultrasonographers should start in a long axis view and use the in plane technique when injecting, as doing so may decrease time to identify the target and improve mean imaging quality during needle advancement.13
Anisotropy is the property of being directionally dependent. The ultrasound beam needs to be perpendicular to the structure being imaged to give the optimal image. When the beam hits a longitudinal structure like a needle at an angle <90°, the linear structure might reflect most of the beam away from the transducer. So when using a needle to localize or inject a specific area, maintaining the probe as close to perpendicular as possible with the needle will give a better image. New technology exists to better visualize needles even at high acuity angles by using a multi-beam processing algorithm, which can significantly aid the physician without the need for specialized needles.
Despite better technology, advance planning is key to a successful procedure. Positioning the patient and ultrasound machine in a manner that is comfortable and makes the desired target accessible while being able to visualize the ultrasound monitor comes first. Identifying the target, mapping the needle trajectory using depth markings, and scanning for nerves, vessels, and other structures that may be damaged along the needle path comes next. Using the in plane ultrasound technique with color Doppler and the nerve contrast setting can ensure that the physician has placed the therapeutic agent to the proper location while avoiding any nerves, arteries, or veins. Marking the borders of the ultrasound probe and needle entry site can be helpful to return to the same area after sterile preparation is done. As in any procedure, sterile technique is paramount. Sterile technique considerations may include using sterile gloves and a probe cover with sterile gel, cleaning the area thoroughly, planning the needle entry point 3 cm to 5 cm away from the probe, and maintaining a dry and gel-free needle entry.14-15 The probe should be sterilized between patients to avoid cross-contamination; note that certain solutions like alcohol or ethyl chloride can damage the transducer.14-15 However, simple injections do not require such stringent standards when simple sterile technique is observed by cleaning and then never touching the cleaned area again except with the needle to avoid contamination. Also, ethyl chloride has been found to not contaminate a sterile site and can be used safely to anesthetize the skin.
Ultrasound-Guided Procedures
Many injectable therapeutic options exist as interventions. Cortisone, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), stem cells/bone marrow concentrate (BMC), amniotic fluid, prolotherapy, and saline are now commonly used.16-17 A meta-analysis of the literature assessing the accuracy of ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections vs a landmark-guided injection was done in 2015.18 It showed that for the acromioclavicular joint, accuracy was 93.6% vs 68.2% (P < .0001), based on single studies. The accuracy of ultrasound vs a landmark-guided injection was 65% vs 70% for the subacromial space (P > .05); 86.7% vs 26.7% for the biceps tendon sheath (P < .05); and 92.5% vs 72.5% for the glenohumeral joint (P = .025).18
With cortisone, injecting into muscle, ligament, or tendons could potentially harm the tissue or cause worsening of the disease process.19-20 With the advent of orthobiologics, injecting into these structures is now desirable, instead of a potential complication.19-20 Ultrasound has become even more important to the accurate delivery of these therapies to the disease locations. Multiple studies using leukocyte-poor PRP for osteoarthritis show significant differences in pain scores.21-23 Peerbooms and colleagues24,25 also showed that PRP reduced pain and increased function compared to cortisone injections for lateral epicondylitis in 1- and 2-year double-blind randomized controlled trials. Centeno and colleagues26 performed a prospective, multi-site registry study on 102 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis and/or rotator cuff tears that were injected with bone marrow concentrate. There was a statistically significant improvement in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores from 36.1 to 17.1 (P < .001) and numeric pain scores improved from 4.3 to 2.4 (P < .001).
By being able to see the pathology, like a hypoechoic region in a tendon, ligament, or muscle, the physician can reliably place the therapeutic agent into the precise location. Also, adjacent para-tendon or para-ligament injections allow for in-season athletes to get some relief from symptoms while allowing to return to play quickly; injections into muscle, ligament, or tendon can damage the structure and require days or weeks of rest, while para-tendon and para-ligament injections are far less painful.
Second-generation techniques have provided patients with great options that can help avoid surgery. Calcific tendonitis appears brightly hyperechoic on ultrasound and is easily identified. The physician can attempt to break up the calcium by fenestration or barbotage of the calcium. The same can be accomplished by injecting the density with PRP or stem cells. If the calcium is soft or “toothpaste-like,” the negative pressure will make it easy to aspirate it into the syringe. A 2-year, longitudinal prospective study of 121 patients demonstrated that visual analog score (VAS) pain scores and size of calcium significantly decreased with ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage; 89% of patients were pain-free at 1-year follow-up.27 Moreover, a randomized controlled trial of 48 patients comparing needle lavage vs subacromial steroid injection showed statistically significant radiographic and clinically better outcomes with the needle lavage group at the 1-year mark.28
The Tenex procedure is a novel technique that uses ultrasonic energy to fenestrate diseased tendon tissue. It also can be used to break up calcific deposits. After the Tenex probe is guided to the diseased tendon/calcium, the TX-1 tip oscillates at the speed of sound, fenestrating/cutting through the tendon or calcium while lavaging the tendon with saline. Multiple prospective, noncontrolled studies done in common extensor, patellar, and rotator cuff tendinopathy have demonstrated good to excellent improvements in pain scores with the Tenex procedure.29-31
Ultrasound is extremely useful in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.32 The posterior glenohumeral capsule can be distended using a large volume (60 cc) of saline to loosen adhesions in preparation for manipulation. Because the manipulation can be an extremely painful procedure, ultrasound can be used to perform an inter-scalene block for regional anesthesia prior to the procedure. In 2014, Park and colleagues33 performed a randomized prospective trial that showed that capsular distension followed by manipulation was more effective than cortisone injection alone for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.Ultrasound guidance was found to be just as efficacious as fluoroscopy in a randomized controlled trial in 2014; the authors noted that ultrasound does not expose the patient or clinician to radiation and can be done in office.34
Currently, techniques to perform ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomies of the long head of the biceps tendon using hook blades are being studied.35
Ultrasound-Assisted Surgery
Ultrasound has been a boon to surgeons who perform minimally invasive procedures. It is far less cumbersome than classic fluoroscopy. Fluoroscopy requires the use of heavy lead aprons by the surgeons. Combining this with the impervious gowns and hot lights, the surgeons’ comfort level is severely sacrificed. When having to do many long surgeries in a row, this situation can take a toll on the surgeons’ endurance and strength. Improving the comfort of the surgeon is not the primary goal of surgery, but can significantly help our ability to do a better job.
Ultrasound allows the surgeon to localize any superficial foreign objects, especially with radiolucent objects like fragments of glass. Small glass fragments or pieces of wood have always been extremely difficult to remove. X-rays cannot localize these objects, so getting a proper orientation is difficult. MRI and CT scans easily identify these types of foreign objects, but cannot be used intraoperatively (Figure 1A). Often, these objects cannot be felt and therefore require a large dissection. The objects may encapsulate and be easily confused with other soft tissues.
By using the ultrasound intraoperatively, the surgeon can identify the exact position of the biceps tendon (medial/lateral) and where it lies just below the groove and above the pectoralis major (superior/inferior) (Figure 2A).
Reconstruction of ligaments is another ideal use of ultrasound. Surface anatomy cannot always tell the exact location of a ligament or tendon insertion. The best example of this is the anterolateral ligament (ALL). Identification of the lateral epicondyle of the femur and anatomic insertion of the ALL can be difficult in some patients. Ultrasound can be used to identify the origin and insertion of the ALL during surgery under sterile conditions (see page 418). A spinal needle can be placed under direct vision with an in-plane ultrasound guidance over the bony insertion (Figure 3A). A percutaneous incision is made.
This technique is also used by the senior author (AMH) to repair, reconstruct, or internally brace the medial collateral ligament, medial patellofemoral ligament, and lateral collateral ligament. This technique is ideally suited to superficial ligament and tendon reattachment, reconstruction, or internal bracing. The knee, ankle, and elbow superficial ligaments are especially amenable to this easy, percutaneous technique.
Conclusion
Ultrasound is quickly becoming a popular imaging modality due to its simplicity, portability, and cost efficiency. Its use as a diagnostic tool is widely known. As an adjunct for procedures and interventions, its advantages over larger, more expensive modalities such as fluoroscopy, CT, or MRI make it stand out. Ultrasound is not the perfect solution to all problems, but it is clearly a technology that is gaining traction. Ultrasound is another imaging modality and tool that physicians and surgeons can use to improve their patients’ treatment.
1. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 1: coding and reimbursement. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(3):176-182.
2. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016; 45(4):233-238.
3. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: Interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(3):145-150.
4. Sivan M, Brown J, Brennan S, Bhakta B. A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography. Musculoskeletal Care. 2011;9(2):63-68.
5. Eustace J, Brophy D, Gibney R, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):59-63.
6. Partington P, Broome G. Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: Hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):147-150.
7. Rutten M, Maresch B, Jager G, de Waal Malefijt M. Injection of the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa: Blind or ultrasound-guided? Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):254-257.
8. Kang M, Rizio L, Prybicien M, Middlemas D, Blacksin M. The accuracy of subacromial corticosteroid injections: A comparison of multiple methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1 Suppl):61S-66S.
9. Yamakado K. The targeting accuracy of subacromial injection to the shoulder: An arthrographic evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2002;19(8):887-891.
10. Henkus HE, Cobben M, Coerkamp E, Nelissen R, van Arkel E. The accuracy of subacromial injections: A prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):277-282.
11. Sethi P, El Attrache N. Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: A cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2006;29(2):149-152.
12. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):308-314.
13. Speer M, McLennan N, Nixon C. Novice learner in-plane ultrasound imaging: which visualization technique? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38(4):350-352.
14. Marhofer P, Schebesta K, Marhofer D. [Hygiene aspects in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia]. Anaesthesist. 2016;65(7):492-498.
15. Sherman T, Ferguson J, Davis W, Russo M, Argintar E. Does the use of ultrasound affect contamination of musculoskeletal injection sites? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):351-357.
16. Bashir J, Panero AJ, Sherman AL. The emerging use of platelet-rich plasma in musculoskeletal medicine. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2015;115(1):23-31.
17. Royall NA, Farrin E, Bahner DP, Stanislaw PA. Ultrasound-assisted musculoskeletal procedures: A practical overview of current literature. World J Orthop. 2011;2(7):57-66.
18. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Ashworth N. Ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections are more accurate and more effective than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(16):1042-1049.
19. Maman E, Yehuda C, Pritsch T, et al. Detrimental effect of repeated and single subacromial corticosteroid injections on the intact and injured rotator cuff: A biomechanical and imaging study in rats. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):177-182.
20. Gautam VK, Verma S, Batra S, Bhatnagar N, Arora S. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015;23(1):1-5.
21. Patel S, Dhillon MS, Aggarwal S, Marwaha N, Jain A. Treatment with platelet-rich plasma is more effective than placebo for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(2):356-364.
22. Cerza F, Carni S, Carcangiu A, et al. Comparison between hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma, intra-articular infiltration in the treatment of gonarthrosis. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(12):2822-2827.
23. Spakova T, Rosocha J, Lacko M, Harvanova D, Gharaibeh A. Treatment of knee joint osteoarthritis with autologous platelet-rich plasma in comparison with hyaluronic acid. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(5):411-417.
24. Peerbooms JC, Sluimer J, Brujin DJ, Gosens T. Positive effects of an autologous platelet concentrate in lateral epicondylitis in a double-blind randomized controlled trial: platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection with a 1-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):255-262.
25. Gosens T, Peerbooms JC, van Laar W, den Oudsten BL. Ongoing positive effects of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(6):1200-1208.
26. Centeno CJ, Al-Sayegh H, Bashir J, Goodyear S, Freeman MD. A prospective multi-site registry study of a specific protocol of autologous bone marrow concentrate for the treatment of shoulder rotator cuff tears and osteoarthritis. J Pain Res. 2015;8:269-276.
27. Del Castillo-Gonzalez F, Ramos-Alvarez JJ, Rodriguez-Fabian G, Gonzalez-Perez J, Calderon-Montero J. Treatment of the calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff by ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage. Two years prospective study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2015;4(4):407-412.
28. De Witte PB, Selten JW, Navas A, et al. Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: a randomized controlled trial of ultrasound-guided needling and lavage versus subacromial corticosteroids. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(7):1665-1673.
29. Koh J, Mohan P, Morrey B, et al. Fasciotomy and surgical tenotomy for recalcitrant lateral elbow tendinopathy: early clinical experience with a novel device for minimally invasive percutaneous microresection. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(3):636-644.
30. Elattrache N, Morrey B. Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy as a treatment for chronic patellar tendinopathy–Jumper’s knee. Oper Tech Orthop. 2013;23(2):98-103
31. Patel MM. A novel treatment for refractory plantar fasciitis. Am J Orthop. 2015;444(3):107-110.
32. Harris G, Bou-Haidar P, Harris C. Adhesive capsulitis: Review of imaging and treatment. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57:633-643.
33. Park SW, Lee HS, Kim JH. The effectiveness of intensive mobilization techniques combined with capsular distention for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(11):1776-1770.
34. Bae JH, Park YS, Chang HJ, et al. Randomized controlled trial for efficacy of capsular distension for adhesive capsulitis: Fluoroscopy-guided anterior versus ultrasonography-guided posterolateral approach. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(3):360-368.
35. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Mohamed A, Beavis C, Obaid H. Feasibility of ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomy of long head of the biceps tendon–A pilot cadaveric study. J Clin Ultrasound. 2015;43(6):361-366.
Ultrasound has classically been marketed and used as a diagnostic tool. Radiologists, emergency physicians, and sports physicians used ultrasound units to rapidly and appropriately diagnose numerous injuries and disorders, in a timely and cost effective manner. Part 11 and Part 22 of this series showed how to use ultrasound in the shoulder for diagnosis and how to code and get reimbursed for its use.Ultrasound can also be used to help guide procedures and interventions performed to treat patients. Currently, more physicians are beginning to recognize the utility of this modality as an aid to interventional procedures.
First-generation procedures use ultrasound to improve accuracy of joint, bursal, tendon, and muscular injections.3 Recent studies have shown a significant improvement in accuracy, outcomes, and patient satisfaction using ultrasound guidance for injections.3-12 Within the limitation of using a needle, second-generation procedures—hydrodissection of peripherally entrapped nerves, capsular distention, mechanical disruption of neovascularization, and needle fenestration or barbotage in chronic tendinopathy—try to simulate surgical objectives while minimizing tissue burden and other complications of surgery.3 More advanced procedures include needle fenestration/release of the carpal ligament in carpal tunnel syndrome and A1 pulley needle release in the setting of trigger finger.3 Innovative third-generation procedures involve the use of surgical tools such as hook blades under ultrasound guidance to perform surgical procedures. Surgeons are now improving already established percutaneous, arthroscopic, and open surgical procedures with ultrasound assistance.3 Aside from better guidance, reducing cost and improving surgeon comfort may be additional benefits of ultrasound assisted surgery.
Image-Guided Treatment Options
Prior to image guidance, palpation of surface anatomy helped physicians determine the anatomic placement of injections, incisions, or portals. Joints and bursas that do not have any inflammation or fluid can sometimes be difficult to identify or locate by palpation alone. Palpation-guided joint injections often miss their target and cause significant pain when the therapeutic agent is injected into a muscle, tendon, ligament, fat, or other tissue. Ultrasound-guided injections have proven to be more accurate and have better patient satisfaction when compared to blind injections.3-12
X-ray fluoroscopy has been the primary option for surgeons to assist in surgery. This is a natural modality for orthopedic surgeons; their primary use is for bone to help with fracture reduction and fixation as the bone, instrumentation, and fixation methods are usually radio-opaque. With the advancement in technology, many orthopedic surgeons are regularly using radiolucent fixation devices and working with soft tissue as opposed to bone. Fixation of tendons, ligaments, and muscles would be done using a large incision, palpation of the anatomy, then fixation or repair. Many surgeons began looking for ways to minimize the incisions. Turning to fluoroscopy, a traditional and well-used modality, was a natural progression. Guides and methods were developed to isolate insertions and drill placements. However, fluoroscopy is limited by its difficulty in changing planes and the large equipment required. Also, it is limited in its ability to image soft tissue.
Computed tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are far better at imaging soft tissue but cannot be taken for use into the office or surgical suite. These modalities are also far more expensive and take up significant space.
Ultrasound Procedural Basics
Appropriate use of ultrasound still remains highly technician-dependent. Unlike other imaging modalities, ultrasound requires a higher skill level by the physician to implement the use of ultrasound and identification of pathology to treat these disease processes. However, this is no different from the use of arthroscopy or fluoroscopy to treat patients. Training is required, as well as an understanding of the ultrasound machine, anatomy, and sono-anatomy—identification of anatomy and pathology as shown by the ultrasound machine.2
In ultrasound, the long axis refers to looking at a structure along its length, as in longitudinal. The short axis refers to evaluating a structure in cross-section, transverse, or along its shortest length. “In plane” refers to performing a procedure where the needle or object being used enters the ultrasound field along the plane of the transducer, allowing visualization of the majority of the needle as it crosses tissue planes. “Out of plane” has the needle entering perpendicular to the plane of the transducer, showing the needle on the monitor as a bright, hyperechoic dot. Some studies have suggested that novice ultrasonographers should start in a long axis view and use the in plane technique when injecting, as doing so may decrease time to identify the target and improve mean imaging quality during needle advancement.13
Anisotropy is the property of being directionally dependent. The ultrasound beam needs to be perpendicular to the structure being imaged to give the optimal image. When the beam hits a longitudinal structure like a needle at an angle <90°, the linear structure might reflect most of the beam away from the transducer. So when using a needle to localize or inject a specific area, maintaining the probe as close to perpendicular as possible with the needle will give a better image. New technology exists to better visualize needles even at high acuity angles by using a multi-beam processing algorithm, which can significantly aid the physician without the need for specialized needles.
Despite better technology, advance planning is key to a successful procedure. Positioning the patient and ultrasound machine in a manner that is comfortable and makes the desired target accessible while being able to visualize the ultrasound monitor comes first. Identifying the target, mapping the needle trajectory using depth markings, and scanning for nerves, vessels, and other structures that may be damaged along the needle path comes next. Using the in plane ultrasound technique with color Doppler and the nerve contrast setting can ensure that the physician has placed the therapeutic agent to the proper location while avoiding any nerves, arteries, or veins. Marking the borders of the ultrasound probe and needle entry site can be helpful to return to the same area after sterile preparation is done. As in any procedure, sterile technique is paramount. Sterile technique considerations may include using sterile gloves and a probe cover with sterile gel, cleaning the area thoroughly, planning the needle entry point 3 cm to 5 cm away from the probe, and maintaining a dry and gel-free needle entry.14-15 The probe should be sterilized between patients to avoid cross-contamination; note that certain solutions like alcohol or ethyl chloride can damage the transducer.14-15 However, simple injections do not require such stringent standards when simple sterile technique is observed by cleaning and then never touching the cleaned area again except with the needle to avoid contamination. Also, ethyl chloride has been found to not contaminate a sterile site and can be used safely to anesthetize the skin.
Ultrasound-Guided Procedures
Many injectable therapeutic options exist as interventions. Cortisone, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), stem cells/bone marrow concentrate (BMC), amniotic fluid, prolotherapy, and saline are now commonly used.16-17 A meta-analysis of the literature assessing the accuracy of ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections vs a landmark-guided injection was done in 2015.18 It showed that for the acromioclavicular joint, accuracy was 93.6% vs 68.2% (P < .0001), based on single studies. The accuracy of ultrasound vs a landmark-guided injection was 65% vs 70% for the subacromial space (P > .05); 86.7% vs 26.7% for the biceps tendon sheath (P < .05); and 92.5% vs 72.5% for the glenohumeral joint (P = .025).18
With cortisone, injecting into muscle, ligament, or tendons could potentially harm the tissue or cause worsening of the disease process.19-20 With the advent of orthobiologics, injecting into these structures is now desirable, instead of a potential complication.19-20 Ultrasound has become even more important to the accurate delivery of these therapies to the disease locations. Multiple studies using leukocyte-poor PRP for osteoarthritis show significant differences in pain scores.21-23 Peerbooms and colleagues24,25 also showed that PRP reduced pain and increased function compared to cortisone injections for lateral epicondylitis in 1- and 2-year double-blind randomized controlled trials. Centeno and colleagues26 performed a prospective, multi-site registry study on 102 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis and/or rotator cuff tears that were injected with bone marrow concentrate. There was a statistically significant improvement in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores from 36.1 to 17.1 (P < .001) and numeric pain scores improved from 4.3 to 2.4 (P < .001).
By being able to see the pathology, like a hypoechoic region in a tendon, ligament, or muscle, the physician can reliably place the therapeutic agent into the precise location. Also, adjacent para-tendon or para-ligament injections allow for in-season athletes to get some relief from symptoms while allowing to return to play quickly; injections into muscle, ligament, or tendon can damage the structure and require days or weeks of rest, while para-tendon and para-ligament injections are far less painful.
Second-generation techniques have provided patients with great options that can help avoid surgery. Calcific tendonitis appears brightly hyperechoic on ultrasound and is easily identified. The physician can attempt to break up the calcium by fenestration or barbotage of the calcium. The same can be accomplished by injecting the density with PRP or stem cells. If the calcium is soft or “toothpaste-like,” the negative pressure will make it easy to aspirate it into the syringe. A 2-year, longitudinal prospective study of 121 patients demonstrated that visual analog score (VAS) pain scores and size of calcium significantly decreased with ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage; 89% of patients were pain-free at 1-year follow-up.27 Moreover, a randomized controlled trial of 48 patients comparing needle lavage vs subacromial steroid injection showed statistically significant radiographic and clinically better outcomes with the needle lavage group at the 1-year mark.28
The Tenex procedure is a novel technique that uses ultrasonic energy to fenestrate diseased tendon tissue. It also can be used to break up calcific deposits. After the Tenex probe is guided to the diseased tendon/calcium, the TX-1 tip oscillates at the speed of sound, fenestrating/cutting through the tendon or calcium while lavaging the tendon with saline. Multiple prospective, noncontrolled studies done in common extensor, patellar, and rotator cuff tendinopathy have demonstrated good to excellent improvements in pain scores with the Tenex procedure.29-31
Ultrasound is extremely useful in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.32 The posterior glenohumeral capsule can be distended using a large volume (60 cc) of saline to loosen adhesions in preparation for manipulation. Because the manipulation can be an extremely painful procedure, ultrasound can be used to perform an inter-scalene block for regional anesthesia prior to the procedure. In 2014, Park and colleagues33 performed a randomized prospective trial that showed that capsular distension followed by manipulation was more effective than cortisone injection alone for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.Ultrasound guidance was found to be just as efficacious as fluoroscopy in a randomized controlled trial in 2014; the authors noted that ultrasound does not expose the patient or clinician to radiation and can be done in office.34
Currently, techniques to perform ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomies of the long head of the biceps tendon using hook blades are being studied.35
Ultrasound-Assisted Surgery
Ultrasound has been a boon to surgeons who perform minimally invasive procedures. It is far less cumbersome than classic fluoroscopy. Fluoroscopy requires the use of heavy lead aprons by the surgeons. Combining this with the impervious gowns and hot lights, the surgeons’ comfort level is severely sacrificed. When having to do many long surgeries in a row, this situation can take a toll on the surgeons’ endurance and strength. Improving the comfort of the surgeon is not the primary goal of surgery, but can significantly help our ability to do a better job.
Ultrasound allows the surgeon to localize any superficial foreign objects, especially with radiolucent objects like fragments of glass. Small glass fragments or pieces of wood have always been extremely difficult to remove. X-rays cannot localize these objects, so getting a proper orientation is difficult. MRI and CT scans easily identify these types of foreign objects, but cannot be used intraoperatively (Figure 1A). Often, these objects cannot be felt and therefore require a large dissection. The objects may encapsulate and be easily confused with other soft tissues.
By using the ultrasound intraoperatively, the surgeon can identify the exact position of the biceps tendon (medial/lateral) and where it lies just below the groove and above the pectoralis major (superior/inferior) (Figure 2A).
Reconstruction of ligaments is another ideal use of ultrasound. Surface anatomy cannot always tell the exact location of a ligament or tendon insertion. The best example of this is the anterolateral ligament (ALL). Identification of the lateral epicondyle of the femur and anatomic insertion of the ALL can be difficult in some patients. Ultrasound can be used to identify the origin and insertion of the ALL during surgery under sterile conditions (see page 418). A spinal needle can be placed under direct vision with an in-plane ultrasound guidance over the bony insertion (Figure 3A). A percutaneous incision is made.
This technique is also used by the senior author (AMH) to repair, reconstruct, or internally brace the medial collateral ligament, medial patellofemoral ligament, and lateral collateral ligament. This technique is ideally suited to superficial ligament and tendon reattachment, reconstruction, or internal bracing. The knee, ankle, and elbow superficial ligaments are especially amenable to this easy, percutaneous technique.
Conclusion
Ultrasound is quickly becoming a popular imaging modality due to its simplicity, portability, and cost efficiency. Its use as a diagnostic tool is widely known. As an adjunct for procedures and interventions, its advantages over larger, more expensive modalities such as fluoroscopy, CT, or MRI make it stand out. Ultrasound is not the perfect solution to all problems, but it is clearly a technology that is gaining traction. Ultrasound is another imaging modality and tool that physicians and surgeons can use to improve their patients’ treatment.
Ultrasound has classically been marketed and used as a diagnostic tool. Radiologists, emergency physicians, and sports physicians used ultrasound units to rapidly and appropriately diagnose numerous injuries and disorders, in a timely and cost effective manner. Part 11 and Part 22 of this series showed how to use ultrasound in the shoulder for diagnosis and how to code and get reimbursed for its use.Ultrasound can also be used to help guide procedures and interventions performed to treat patients. Currently, more physicians are beginning to recognize the utility of this modality as an aid to interventional procedures.
First-generation procedures use ultrasound to improve accuracy of joint, bursal, tendon, and muscular injections.3 Recent studies have shown a significant improvement in accuracy, outcomes, and patient satisfaction using ultrasound guidance for injections.3-12 Within the limitation of using a needle, second-generation procedures—hydrodissection of peripherally entrapped nerves, capsular distention, mechanical disruption of neovascularization, and needle fenestration or barbotage in chronic tendinopathy—try to simulate surgical objectives while minimizing tissue burden and other complications of surgery.3 More advanced procedures include needle fenestration/release of the carpal ligament in carpal tunnel syndrome and A1 pulley needle release in the setting of trigger finger.3 Innovative third-generation procedures involve the use of surgical tools such as hook blades under ultrasound guidance to perform surgical procedures. Surgeons are now improving already established percutaneous, arthroscopic, and open surgical procedures with ultrasound assistance.3 Aside from better guidance, reducing cost and improving surgeon comfort may be additional benefits of ultrasound assisted surgery.
Image-Guided Treatment Options
Prior to image guidance, palpation of surface anatomy helped physicians determine the anatomic placement of injections, incisions, or portals. Joints and bursas that do not have any inflammation or fluid can sometimes be difficult to identify or locate by palpation alone. Palpation-guided joint injections often miss their target and cause significant pain when the therapeutic agent is injected into a muscle, tendon, ligament, fat, or other tissue. Ultrasound-guided injections have proven to be more accurate and have better patient satisfaction when compared to blind injections.3-12
X-ray fluoroscopy has been the primary option for surgeons to assist in surgery. This is a natural modality for orthopedic surgeons; their primary use is for bone to help with fracture reduction and fixation as the bone, instrumentation, and fixation methods are usually radio-opaque. With the advancement in technology, many orthopedic surgeons are regularly using radiolucent fixation devices and working with soft tissue as opposed to bone. Fixation of tendons, ligaments, and muscles would be done using a large incision, palpation of the anatomy, then fixation or repair. Many surgeons began looking for ways to minimize the incisions. Turning to fluoroscopy, a traditional and well-used modality, was a natural progression. Guides and methods were developed to isolate insertions and drill placements. However, fluoroscopy is limited by its difficulty in changing planes and the large equipment required. Also, it is limited in its ability to image soft tissue.
Computed tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are far better at imaging soft tissue but cannot be taken for use into the office or surgical suite. These modalities are also far more expensive and take up significant space.
Ultrasound Procedural Basics
Appropriate use of ultrasound still remains highly technician-dependent. Unlike other imaging modalities, ultrasound requires a higher skill level by the physician to implement the use of ultrasound and identification of pathology to treat these disease processes. However, this is no different from the use of arthroscopy or fluoroscopy to treat patients. Training is required, as well as an understanding of the ultrasound machine, anatomy, and sono-anatomy—identification of anatomy and pathology as shown by the ultrasound machine.2
In ultrasound, the long axis refers to looking at a structure along its length, as in longitudinal. The short axis refers to evaluating a structure in cross-section, transverse, or along its shortest length. “In plane” refers to performing a procedure where the needle or object being used enters the ultrasound field along the plane of the transducer, allowing visualization of the majority of the needle as it crosses tissue planes. “Out of plane” has the needle entering perpendicular to the plane of the transducer, showing the needle on the monitor as a bright, hyperechoic dot. Some studies have suggested that novice ultrasonographers should start in a long axis view and use the in plane technique when injecting, as doing so may decrease time to identify the target and improve mean imaging quality during needle advancement.13
Anisotropy is the property of being directionally dependent. The ultrasound beam needs to be perpendicular to the structure being imaged to give the optimal image. When the beam hits a longitudinal structure like a needle at an angle <90°, the linear structure might reflect most of the beam away from the transducer. So when using a needle to localize or inject a specific area, maintaining the probe as close to perpendicular as possible with the needle will give a better image. New technology exists to better visualize needles even at high acuity angles by using a multi-beam processing algorithm, which can significantly aid the physician without the need for specialized needles.
Despite better technology, advance planning is key to a successful procedure. Positioning the patient and ultrasound machine in a manner that is comfortable and makes the desired target accessible while being able to visualize the ultrasound monitor comes first. Identifying the target, mapping the needle trajectory using depth markings, and scanning for nerves, vessels, and other structures that may be damaged along the needle path comes next. Using the in plane ultrasound technique with color Doppler and the nerve contrast setting can ensure that the physician has placed the therapeutic agent to the proper location while avoiding any nerves, arteries, or veins. Marking the borders of the ultrasound probe and needle entry site can be helpful to return to the same area after sterile preparation is done. As in any procedure, sterile technique is paramount. Sterile technique considerations may include using sterile gloves and a probe cover with sterile gel, cleaning the area thoroughly, planning the needle entry point 3 cm to 5 cm away from the probe, and maintaining a dry and gel-free needle entry.14-15 The probe should be sterilized between patients to avoid cross-contamination; note that certain solutions like alcohol or ethyl chloride can damage the transducer.14-15 However, simple injections do not require such stringent standards when simple sterile technique is observed by cleaning and then never touching the cleaned area again except with the needle to avoid contamination. Also, ethyl chloride has been found to not contaminate a sterile site and can be used safely to anesthetize the skin.
Ultrasound-Guided Procedures
Many injectable therapeutic options exist as interventions. Cortisone, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), stem cells/bone marrow concentrate (BMC), amniotic fluid, prolotherapy, and saline are now commonly used.16-17 A meta-analysis of the literature assessing the accuracy of ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections vs a landmark-guided injection was done in 2015.18 It showed that for the acromioclavicular joint, accuracy was 93.6% vs 68.2% (P < .0001), based on single studies. The accuracy of ultrasound vs a landmark-guided injection was 65% vs 70% for the subacromial space (P > .05); 86.7% vs 26.7% for the biceps tendon sheath (P < .05); and 92.5% vs 72.5% for the glenohumeral joint (P = .025).18
With cortisone, injecting into muscle, ligament, or tendons could potentially harm the tissue or cause worsening of the disease process.19-20 With the advent of orthobiologics, injecting into these structures is now desirable, instead of a potential complication.19-20 Ultrasound has become even more important to the accurate delivery of these therapies to the disease locations. Multiple studies using leukocyte-poor PRP for osteoarthritis show significant differences in pain scores.21-23 Peerbooms and colleagues24,25 also showed that PRP reduced pain and increased function compared to cortisone injections for lateral epicondylitis in 1- and 2-year double-blind randomized controlled trials. Centeno and colleagues26 performed a prospective, multi-site registry study on 102 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis and/or rotator cuff tears that were injected with bone marrow concentrate. There was a statistically significant improvement in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores from 36.1 to 17.1 (P < .001) and numeric pain scores improved from 4.3 to 2.4 (P < .001).
By being able to see the pathology, like a hypoechoic region in a tendon, ligament, or muscle, the physician can reliably place the therapeutic agent into the precise location. Also, adjacent para-tendon or para-ligament injections allow for in-season athletes to get some relief from symptoms while allowing to return to play quickly; injections into muscle, ligament, or tendon can damage the structure and require days or weeks of rest, while para-tendon and para-ligament injections are far less painful.
Second-generation techniques have provided patients with great options that can help avoid surgery. Calcific tendonitis appears brightly hyperechoic on ultrasound and is easily identified. The physician can attempt to break up the calcium by fenestration or barbotage of the calcium. The same can be accomplished by injecting the density with PRP or stem cells. If the calcium is soft or “toothpaste-like,” the negative pressure will make it easy to aspirate it into the syringe. A 2-year, longitudinal prospective study of 121 patients demonstrated that visual analog score (VAS) pain scores and size of calcium significantly decreased with ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage; 89% of patients were pain-free at 1-year follow-up.27 Moreover, a randomized controlled trial of 48 patients comparing needle lavage vs subacromial steroid injection showed statistically significant radiographic and clinically better outcomes with the needle lavage group at the 1-year mark.28
The Tenex procedure is a novel technique that uses ultrasonic energy to fenestrate diseased tendon tissue. It also can be used to break up calcific deposits. After the Tenex probe is guided to the diseased tendon/calcium, the TX-1 tip oscillates at the speed of sound, fenestrating/cutting through the tendon or calcium while lavaging the tendon with saline. Multiple prospective, noncontrolled studies done in common extensor, patellar, and rotator cuff tendinopathy have demonstrated good to excellent improvements in pain scores with the Tenex procedure.29-31
Ultrasound is extremely useful in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.32 The posterior glenohumeral capsule can be distended using a large volume (60 cc) of saline to loosen adhesions in preparation for manipulation. Because the manipulation can be an extremely painful procedure, ultrasound can be used to perform an inter-scalene block for regional anesthesia prior to the procedure. In 2014, Park and colleagues33 performed a randomized prospective trial that showed that capsular distension followed by manipulation was more effective than cortisone injection alone for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.Ultrasound guidance was found to be just as efficacious as fluoroscopy in a randomized controlled trial in 2014; the authors noted that ultrasound does not expose the patient or clinician to radiation and can be done in office.34
Currently, techniques to perform ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomies of the long head of the biceps tendon using hook blades are being studied.35
Ultrasound-Assisted Surgery
Ultrasound has been a boon to surgeons who perform minimally invasive procedures. It is far less cumbersome than classic fluoroscopy. Fluoroscopy requires the use of heavy lead aprons by the surgeons. Combining this with the impervious gowns and hot lights, the surgeons’ comfort level is severely sacrificed. When having to do many long surgeries in a row, this situation can take a toll on the surgeons’ endurance and strength. Improving the comfort of the surgeon is not the primary goal of surgery, but can significantly help our ability to do a better job.
Ultrasound allows the surgeon to localize any superficial foreign objects, especially with radiolucent objects like fragments of glass. Small glass fragments or pieces of wood have always been extremely difficult to remove. X-rays cannot localize these objects, so getting a proper orientation is difficult. MRI and CT scans easily identify these types of foreign objects, but cannot be used intraoperatively (Figure 1A). Often, these objects cannot be felt and therefore require a large dissection. The objects may encapsulate and be easily confused with other soft tissues.
By using the ultrasound intraoperatively, the surgeon can identify the exact position of the biceps tendon (medial/lateral) and where it lies just below the groove and above the pectoralis major (superior/inferior) (Figure 2A).
Reconstruction of ligaments is another ideal use of ultrasound. Surface anatomy cannot always tell the exact location of a ligament or tendon insertion. The best example of this is the anterolateral ligament (ALL). Identification of the lateral epicondyle of the femur and anatomic insertion of the ALL can be difficult in some patients. Ultrasound can be used to identify the origin and insertion of the ALL during surgery under sterile conditions (see page 418). A spinal needle can be placed under direct vision with an in-plane ultrasound guidance over the bony insertion (Figure 3A). A percutaneous incision is made.
This technique is also used by the senior author (AMH) to repair, reconstruct, or internally brace the medial collateral ligament, medial patellofemoral ligament, and lateral collateral ligament. This technique is ideally suited to superficial ligament and tendon reattachment, reconstruction, or internal bracing. The knee, ankle, and elbow superficial ligaments are especially amenable to this easy, percutaneous technique.
Conclusion
Ultrasound is quickly becoming a popular imaging modality due to its simplicity, portability, and cost efficiency. Its use as a diagnostic tool is widely known. As an adjunct for procedures and interventions, its advantages over larger, more expensive modalities such as fluoroscopy, CT, or MRI make it stand out. Ultrasound is not the perfect solution to all problems, but it is clearly a technology that is gaining traction. Ultrasound is another imaging modality and tool that physicians and surgeons can use to improve their patients’ treatment.
1. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 1: coding and reimbursement. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(3):176-182.
2. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016; 45(4):233-238.
3. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: Interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(3):145-150.
4. Sivan M, Brown J, Brennan S, Bhakta B. A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography. Musculoskeletal Care. 2011;9(2):63-68.
5. Eustace J, Brophy D, Gibney R, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):59-63.
6. Partington P, Broome G. Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: Hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):147-150.
7. Rutten M, Maresch B, Jager G, de Waal Malefijt M. Injection of the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa: Blind or ultrasound-guided? Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):254-257.
8. Kang M, Rizio L, Prybicien M, Middlemas D, Blacksin M. The accuracy of subacromial corticosteroid injections: A comparison of multiple methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1 Suppl):61S-66S.
9. Yamakado K. The targeting accuracy of subacromial injection to the shoulder: An arthrographic evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2002;19(8):887-891.
10. Henkus HE, Cobben M, Coerkamp E, Nelissen R, van Arkel E. The accuracy of subacromial injections: A prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):277-282.
11. Sethi P, El Attrache N. Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: A cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2006;29(2):149-152.
12. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):308-314.
13. Speer M, McLennan N, Nixon C. Novice learner in-plane ultrasound imaging: which visualization technique? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38(4):350-352.
14. Marhofer P, Schebesta K, Marhofer D. [Hygiene aspects in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia]. Anaesthesist. 2016;65(7):492-498.
15. Sherman T, Ferguson J, Davis W, Russo M, Argintar E. Does the use of ultrasound affect contamination of musculoskeletal injection sites? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):351-357.
16. Bashir J, Panero AJ, Sherman AL. The emerging use of platelet-rich plasma in musculoskeletal medicine. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2015;115(1):23-31.
17. Royall NA, Farrin E, Bahner DP, Stanislaw PA. Ultrasound-assisted musculoskeletal procedures: A practical overview of current literature. World J Orthop. 2011;2(7):57-66.
18. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Ashworth N. Ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections are more accurate and more effective than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(16):1042-1049.
19. Maman E, Yehuda C, Pritsch T, et al. Detrimental effect of repeated and single subacromial corticosteroid injections on the intact and injured rotator cuff: A biomechanical and imaging study in rats. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):177-182.
20. Gautam VK, Verma S, Batra S, Bhatnagar N, Arora S. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015;23(1):1-5.
21. Patel S, Dhillon MS, Aggarwal S, Marwaha N, Jain A. Treatment with platelet-rich plasma is more effective than placebo for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(2):356-364.
22. Cerza F, Carni S, Carcangiu A, et al. Comparison between hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma, intra-articular infiltration in the treatment of gonarthrosis. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(12):2822-2827.
23. Spakova T, Rosocha J, Lacko M, Harvanova D, Gharaibeh A. Treatment of knee joint osteoarthritis with autologous platelet-rich plasma in comparison with hyaluronic acid. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(5):411-417.
24. Peerbooms JC, Sluimer J, Brujin DJ, Gosens T. Positive effects of an autologous platelet concentrate in lateral epicondylitis in a double-blind randomized controlled trial: platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection with a 1-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):255-262.
25. Gosens T, Peerbooms JC, van Laar W, den Oudsten BL. Ongoing positive effects of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(6):1200-1208.
26. Centeno CJ, Al-Sayegh H, Bashir J, Goodyear S, Freeman MD. A prospective multi-site registry study of a specific protocol of autologous bone marrow concentrate for the treatment of shoulder rotator cuff tears and osteoarthritis. J Pain Res. 2015;8:269-276.
27. Del Castillo-Gonzalez F, Ramos-Alvarez JJ, Rodriguez-Fabian G, Gonzalez-Perez J, Calderon-Montero J. Treatment of the calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff by ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage. Two years prospective study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2015;4(4):407-412.
28. De Witte PB, Selten JW, Navas A, et al. Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: a randomized controlled trial of ultrasound-guided needling and lavage versus subacromial corticosteroids. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(7):1665-1673.
29. Koh J, Mohan P, Morrey B, et al. Fasciotomy and surgical tenotomy for recalcitrant lateral elbow tendinopathy: early clinical experience with a novel device for minimally invasive percutaneous microresection. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(3):636-644.
30. Elattrache N, Morrey B. Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy as a treatment for chronic patellar tendinopathy–Jumper’s knee. Oper Tech Orthop. 2013;23(2):98-103
31. Patel MM. A novel treatment for refractory plantar fasciitis. Am J Orthop. 2015;444(3):107-110.
32. Harris G, Bou-Haidar P, Harris C. Adhesive capsulitis: Review of imaging and treatment. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57:633-643.
33. Park SW, Lee HS, Kim JH. The effectiveness of intensive mobilization techniques combined with capsular distention for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(11):1776-1770.
34. Bae JH, Park YS, Chang HJ, et al. Randomized controlled trial for efficacy of capsular distension for adhesive capsulitis: Fluoroscopy-guided anterior versus ultrasonography-guided posterolateral approach. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(3):360-368.
35. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Mohamed A, Beavis C, Obaid H. Feasibility of ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomy of long head of the biceps tendon–A pilot cadaveric study. J Clin Ultrasound. 2015;43(6):361-366.
1. Hirahara AM, Panero AJ. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 1: coding and reimbursement. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(3):176-182.
2. Panero AJ, Hirahara AM. A guide to ultrasound of the shoulder, part 2: the diagnostic evaluation. Am J Orthop. 2016; 45(4):233-238.
3. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: Interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(3):145-150.
4. Sivan M, Brown J, Brennan S, Bhakta B. A one-stop approach to the management of soft tissue and degenerative musculoskeletal conditions using clinic-based ultrasonography. Musculoskeletal Care. 2011;9(2):63-68.
5. Eustace J, Brophy D, Gibney R, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):59-63.
6. Partington P, Broome G. Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: Hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):147-150.
7. Rutten M, Maresch B, Jager G, de Waal Malefijt M. Injection of the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa: Blind or ultrasound-guided? Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):254-257.
8. Kang M, Rizio L, Prybicien M, Middlemas D, Blacksin M. The accuracy of subacromial corticosteroid injections: A comparison of multiple methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1 Suppl):61S-66S.
9. Yamakado K. The targeting accuracy of subacromial injection to the shoulder: An arthrographic evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2002;19(8):887-891.
10. Henkus HE, Cobben M, Coerkamp E, Nelissen R, van Arkel E. The accuracy of subacromial injections: A prospective randomized magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):277-282.
11. Sethi P, El Attrache N. Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: A cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2006;29(2):149-152.
12. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(2):308-314.
13. Speer M, McLennan N, Nixon C. Novice learner in-plane ultrasound imaging: which visualization technique? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38(4):350-352.
14. Marhofer P, Schebesta K, Marhofer D. [Hygiene aspects in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia]. Anaesthesist. 2016;65(7):492-498.
15. Sherman T, Ferguson J, Davis W, Russo M, Argintar E. Does the use of ultrasound affect contamination of musculoskeletal injection sites? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):351-357.
16. Bashir J, Panero AJ, Sherman AL. The emerging use of platelet-rich plasma in musculoskeletal medicine. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2015;115(1):23-31.
17. Royall NA, Farrin E, Bahner DP, Stanislaw PA. Ultrasound-assisted musculoskeletal procedures: A practical overview of current literature. World J Orthop. 2011;2(7):57-66.
18. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Ashworth N. Ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections are more accurate and more effective than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(16):1042-1049.
19. Maman E, Yehuda C, Pritsch T, et al. Detrimental effect of repeated and single subacromial corticosteroid injections on the intact and injured rotator cuff: A biomechanical and imaging study in rats. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):177-182.
20. Gautam VK, Verma S, Batra S, Bhatnagar N, Arora S. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015;23(1):1-5.
21. Patel S, Dhillon MS, Aggarwal S, Marwaha N, Jain A. Treatment with platelet-rich plasma is more effective than placebo for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(2):356-364.
22. Cerza F, Carni S, Carcangiu A, et al. Comparison between hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma, intra-articular infiltration in the treatment of gonarthrosis. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(12):2822-2827.
23. Spakova T, Rosocha J, Lacko M, Harvanova D, Gharaibeh A. Treatment of knee joint osteoarthritis with autologous platelet-rich plasma in comparison with hyaluronic acid. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(5):411-417.
24. Peerbooms JC, Sluimer J, Brujin DJ, Gosens T. Positive effects of an autologous platelet concentrate in lateral epicondylitis in a double-blind randomized controlled trial: platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection with a 1-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):255-262.
25. Gosens T, Peerbooms JC, van Laar W, den Oudsten BL. Ongoing positive effects of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(6):1200-1208.
26. Centeno CJ, Al-Sayegh H, Bashir J, Goodyear S, Freeman MD. A prospective multi-site registry study of a specific protocol of autologous bone marrow concentrate for the treatment of shoulder rotator cuff tears and osteoarthritis. J Pain Res. 2015;8:269-276.
27. Del Castillo-Gonzalez F, Ramos-Alvarez JJ, Rodriguez-Fabian G, Gonzalez-Perez J, Calderon-Montero J. Treatment of the calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff by ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage. Two years prospective study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2015;4(4):407-412.
28. De Witte PB, Selten JW, Navas A, et al. Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: a randomized controlled trial of ultrasound-guided needling and lavage versus subacromial corticosteroids. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(7):1665-1673.
29. Koh J, Mohan P, Morrey B, et al. Fasciotomy and surgical tenotomy for recalcitrant lateral elbow tendinopathy: early clinical experience with a novel device for minimally invasive percutaneous microresection. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(3):636-644.
30. Elattrache N, Morrey B. Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy as a treatment for chronic patellar tendinopathy–Jumper’s knee. Oper Tech Orthop. 2013;23(2):98-103
31. Patel MM. A novel treatment for refractory plantar fasciitis. Am J Orthop. 2015;444(3):107-110.
32. Harris G, Bou-Haidar P, Harris C. Adhesive capsulitis: Review of imaging and treatment. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57:633-643.
33. Park SW, Lee HS, Kim JH. The effectiveness of intensive mobilization techniques combined with capsular distention for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(11):1776-1770.
34. Bae JH, Park YS, Chang HJ, et al. Randomized controlled trial for efficacy of capsular distension for adhesive capsulitis: Fluoroscopy-guided anterior versus ultrasonography-guided posterolateral approach. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(3):360-368.
35. Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Mohamed A, Beavis C, Obaid H. Feasibility of ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomy of long head of the biceps tendon–A pilot cadaveric study. J Clin Ultrasound. 2015;43(6):361-366.