首页> 外文期刊>Asian spine journal. >Biceps-Related Physical Findings Are Useful to Prevent Misdiagnosis of Cervical Spondylotic Amyotrophy as a Rotator Cuff Tear
【24h】

Biceps-Related Physical Findings Are Useful to Prevent Misdiagnosis of Cervical Spondylotic Amyotrophy as a Rotator Cuff Tear

机译:与二头肌有关的身体检查结果有助于预防误诊为颈袖撕脱性颈椎病性肌萎缩症

获取原文
           

摘要

Study Design Case–control study. Purpose The aim of the present study was to identify physical findings useful for differentiating between cervical spondylotic amyotrophy (CSA) and rotator cuff tears to prevent the misdiagnosis of CSA as a rotator cuff tear. Overview of Literature CSA and rotator cuff tears are often confused among patients presenting with difficulty in shoulder elevation. Methods Twenty-five patients with CSA and 27 with rotator cuff tears were enrolled. We included five physical findings specific to CSA that were observed in both CSA and rotator cuff tear patients. The findings were as follows: (1) weakness of the deltoid muscle, (2) weakness of the biceps muscle, (3) atrophy of the deltoid muscle, (4) atrophy of the biceps muscle, and (5) swallow-tail sign (assessment of the posterior fibers of the deltoid). Results Among 25 CSA patients, 10 (40.0%) were misdiagnosed with a rotator cuff tear on initial diagnosis. The sensitivity and specificity of each physical finding were as follows: (1) deltoid weakness (sensitivity, 92.0%; specificity, 55.6%), (2) biceps weakness (sensitivity, 80.0%; specificity, 100%), (3) deltoid atrophy (sensitivity, 96.0%; specificity, 77.8%), (4) biceps atrophy (sensitivity, 88.8%; specificity, 92.6%), and (5) swallow-tail sign (sensitivity, 56.0%; specificity, 74.1%). There were statistically significant differences in each physical finding. Conclusions CSA is likely to be misdiagnosed as a rotator cuff tear; however, weakness and atrophy of the biceps are useful findings for differentiating between CSA and rotator cuff tears to prevent misdiagnosis.
机译:研究设计案例对照研究。目的本研究的目的是确定有助于区分颈椎肌萎缩症(CSA)和肩袖撕裂的物理发现,以防止将CSA误诊为肩袖撕裂。文献综述CSA和肩袖撕裂常在肩部抬高困难的患者中引起混淆。方法纳入25例CSA患者和27例肩袖撕裂患者。我们纳入了在CSA和肩袖撕裂患者中均观察到的五个针对CSA的物理发现。结果如下:(1)三角肌无力,(2)二头肌肌肉无力,(3)三角肌萎缩,(4)二头肌肌肉萎缩,(5)燕尾征(三角肌后纤维的评估)。结果在25例CSA患者中,有10例(40.0%)在初诊时被误诊为肩袖撕裂。每个物理发现的敏感性和特异性如下:(1)三角肌无力(敏感性为92.0%;特异性为55.6%),(2)二头肌无力(敏感性为80.0%;特异性为100%),(3)三角肌萎缩(敏感性为96.0%;特异性为77.8%),(4)肱二头肌萎缩症(敏感性为88.8%;特异性为92.6%)和(5)燕尾征(敏感性为56.0%;特异性为74.1%)。每个物理发现都有统计学上的显着差异。结论CSA可能被误诊为肩袖撕裂。然而,二头肌的无力和萎缩对于区分CSA和肩袖撕裂以防止误诊是有用的发现。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号