calcific tendinitis of the shoulder whom and how to treat n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: Whom and how to treat? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: Whom and how to treat?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 34

Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: Whom and how to treat? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on

Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: Whom and how to treat?. Rafic Baddoura MD, MPH Head, Rheumatology Department Hotel-Dieu Hospital St Joseph University. What are the available treatment options? What is the evidence these options are effective? What prognostic factors we may use?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: Whom and how to treat?' - daphne


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
calcific tendinitis of the shoulder whom and how to treat

Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: Whom and how to treat?

Rafic Baddoura MD, MPH

Head, Rheumatology Department

Hotel-Dieu Hospital

St Joseph University

slide2

What are the available treatment options?

  • What is the evidence these options are effective?
  • What prognostic factors we may use?
clinical assessment
Clinical assessment
  • Constant and Murley score
    • minimum score of 0 andmaximum score of 100
    • higher scores reflecting increasedfunction)
  • Total score is obtainedby adding the results of 4 subscales:
    • subjective pain (15 points)
    • function (20 points)
    • objective clinician assessment of rangeof motion (40 points)
    • strength (25 points)
  • The UCLA Shoulder Rating Scale is a 35-pointshoulder scale that combines scores for
    • pain, from 1 to 10 points
    • function, from 1 to 10 points
    • activerange of forward flexion, strength of forward flexion (manualmuscle testing), scoredfrom 0 to 5 points,
    • patient satisfaction scoredfrom 0 to 5 points.
  • The outcome defined as follows:
    • 34to 35 points, excellent;
    • 29 to 33 points, good;
    • 21 to 28 points,mild;
    • 20 points or less, poor.

Phys Ther Vol. 86, No. 5, May 2006, pp. 672-682

calcific deposit classification
Calcific deposit classification
  • Clearly circumscribed with a dense appearance (type I)
  • heterogeneousstructure with sharp outline or homogenous structure withno defined border (type II)
  • Translucent and cloudy appearance without clear circumscription (type III)

Gartner J, Simons B. Analysis of calcific deposits in calcifying tendinitis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;254:111–120

slide6

What are the available treatment options?

  • What is the evidence these options are effective?
  • What prognostic factors we may use?
extracorporeal shock wave therapy eswt
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy ESWT
  • ESWT classified according focal energy flux density (EFD) levels
    • Low : up to 0.08 mJ/mm2
    • Moderate: between 0.09 and 0.28 mJ/mm2
    • High: up to 0.6 mJ/mm2

Skeletal Radiol. 2007 Sep;36(9):803-11

arthroscopy bursoscopy
Arthroscopy, bursoscopy

Orthop Clin N Am 34 (2003) 567– 575

slide10

What are the available treatment options?

  • What is the evidence these options are effective?
  • What prognostic factors we may use?
single needle aspiration
Single-needle aspiration 
  • Prospective study, 33 patients with calcifying tendinitis had a needling under control of an image converter. At least one year follow-up period.
  • Resorption of the hydroxyapatite deposits in 23 (70%);
  • Remission of symptoms or considerable improvement in 75%
    • type I: complete resorption in 33%
    • type II: complete resorption in 71%; only half were symptom free
    • type III: complete resorption in 85%
  • Surgical removal was necessary in 3 patients because of persisting pains

J. Gärtner Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1993; 131: 461-469

two needle us guided aspiration
Two-needle us-guided aspiration
  • 219 (86 men, 133 women) cases; mean age, 40 years +/- 11
  • 68 (31 men, 37 women); mean age, 40 years +/- 11) refused treatment and served as controls.
needle fragmentation irrigation versus removal under bursoscopy
Needle fragmentation irrigation versus removal under bursoscopy
  • 102 shoulders (96 patients) with calcifications >5 mm whose medical treatment had failed (>4 months) were first injected with corticosteroid
  • 49 shoulders improved by >70%
  • The other 53 shoulders were randomized in 3 groups:
    • Needle Fragmentation Irrigation NFI (n = 16)
    • BursoscopyBS (n = 20)
    • Control group CT: NSAID and analgesics on request (n = 17)

Joint Bone Spine Volume 76, July 2009, Pages 369-377

needle fragmentation irrigation versus removal under bursoscopy1
Needle fragmentation irrigation versus removal under bursoscopy

Joint Bone Spine Volume 76, July 2009, Pages 369-377

eswt at high energy versus sham eswt
Shoulder pain that failed to respond

to > 3 months of non-operative

treatment; NSAIDs, corticosteroid

injections, physical therapy, and

immobilization in a sling.

ESWT at high energy versus sham ESWT
  • Cases: (n = 33) ESWT in 2 sessions, 2 wks apart. Each session 1000 impulses with an energy flux density 0.55 mJ/mm
  • Controls: sham ESWT (n = 13)

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Jan-Feb;17(1):55-9.

high versus low energy eswt
High versus low energy ESWT
  • 100 patients who had had calcific tendinitis for > 12 months randomized to:
  • Group 1: 1500 impulses of 0.06 mJ/mm2,
  • group 2: 1500 impulses of 0.28 mJ/mm2, brachial plexus anesthesia.
  • Partial or complete disintegration of Ca deposits in
    • 50% in group 1
    • 64% in group 2
  • Constant score increased from
    • 48 to 71 in group 1 (P < .001)
    • 53 to 88 in group 2 (P < .001)
  • At 24 weeks, percent rating treatment as good or excellent,
    • 52% in group 1
    • 68% in group 2

(P < .01)

(P < .01)

(P < .01)

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 Sep-Oct;7(5):505-9

high versus low energy eswt1
High versus low energy ESWT
  • Shoulder pain for at least 12 months
  • Resistant to regular physiotherapy and subacromial injections of steroids.
  • An area of radiological calcification at least 1 cm in diameter with no signs of disintegration (type I or II)
  • Cloudy and transparent calcifications (type III) were excluded.
  • Rotator cuff lesions were excluded by means of sonography and in some cases by magnetic resonance imaging
  • Additional reasons for exclusion were evidence of subacromial impingement of the rotator cuff independent of calcareous deposits

Cases (n=40): 2000 impulses, twice, with an energy flux density of 0.42 mJ/mm2

Controls (n=40): 2000 impulses, twice, with an energy flux density of 0.23 mJ/mm2

J Orthop Sci (2003) 8:777–783

high versus low energy eswt2
High versus low energy ESWT

Constant score

Clinical versus radiographic

  • X-ray regression:
  • Cases: 22 patients (55%)
  • Controls: 15 patients (38%)

J Orthop Sci (2003) 8:777–783

high versus low energy rswt
High versus low energyRSWT
  • Cases: 4 sessions at 1-week intervals, with 2,500 impulses per session (500 impulses with a pressure of 1.5 bar and a frequency of 4.5 Hz and 2,000 impulses with a pressure of 2.5 bar and a frequency of 10 Hz), and a fixed impulse time of 2 milliseconds. EFD/impulse = 0.10 mJ/mm2.
  • Controls: 4 sessions at 1-week intervals, with 25 impulses per session (5 impulses with a pressure of 1.5 bar and a frequency of 4.5 Hz and 20 impulses with a pressure of 2.5 bar and a frequency of 10 Hz).

Phys Ther. 2006 May;86(5):672-82.

high versus low energy eswt3
High versus low energy ESWT
  • High-energy group received 1500 shock waves of 0.32 mJ/mm2/treatment, 120 impulses /min
  • Low-energy group received 6000shock waves of 0.08 mJ/mm2/treatment, 120 impulses /min
  • Adequate IV analgesia and sedation. Local anesthetics were prohibited.
  • All patients received a second ESWT treatment at 12 to 16 days
  • Each treatment session lasted as long as 1 hour.
  • In each group patients received a cumulative energy doseof 0.960 J/mm2.
  • Sham treatment: an air-chambered polyethylene foil withcoupling gel was placed against the patient's skin, but no couplinggel was applied to the site of the shock wave head.
  • Calcific deposits > 5 mm in diameter,and symptoms for > 6 months.
  • Rotator cuff tearsand subacromial bursitis were ruled out in all patients by clinicaland sonographic examination, and when in doubt, by MRI prior to randomization and at all follow-upvisits.
  • Type III Gärtner deposits wereexcluded
  • All participants had previous conservativetreatments, including both physiotherapy (active and passiveexercise, mobilization, manual therapy and massage, muscle strengthening)and local anesthetic or corticosteroid injections.

Gerdesmeyer JAMA Vol. 290 No. 19, November 19, 2003

high versus low energy eswt4
High versus low energy ESWT

Pain and Constant score

Gerdesmeyer JAMA Vol. 290 No. 19, November 19, 2003

high versus low energy eswt5
High versus low energy ESWT

Calcium deposits

Gerdesmeyer JAMA Vol. 290 No. 19, November 19, 2003

eswt with or without localization
ESWT with or without localization
  • 3 sessions of low-energy focused shock wave therapy was administered in weekly intervals in both groups.
  • Cases: calcium deposit was localized using a radiographically guided, 3-D, computer-assisted device.
  • Controls: calcium deposit was localized using the point of maximum tenderness through palpation with feedback from the patient.
high versus low energy fluoroscopy guided eswt
High versus low energy fluoroscopy-guided ESWT
  • High-energy ESWT, low-energy ESWT, or placebo (sham therapy).
  • The 2 ESWT groups received the same cumulative energy dose.
  • Patients in all 3 groups received 2 treatment sessions approximately 2 weeks apart, followed by physical therapy.

P<0.001

P<0.001

eswt versus conventional surgery in calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder
ESWT versus conventional surgery in calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder
  • University of California Los Angeles Rating
    • 12 months
      • Group I 30 points with 75% good or excellent results
      • Group II 28 points with 60% good or excellent results
    • 24 months
      • 32 points with 90% good or excellent results after.
      • 29 points with 64% good or excellent results
  • Radiologically, at 12 months
    • Group I no calcific deposit in 85% of the patients
    • Group II no calcific deposit in in 47% of the patients
  • homogenous deposit: surgery superior to high-energy ESWT
  • inhomogenous deposit: high-energy ESWT equivalent to surgery
  • A prospective quasirandomized chronic calcifying tendinitis
  • surgical extirpation (Group I, 29 patients)
  • high-energy ESWT (Group II, 50 patients) 3,000 impulses, EFD 0.6 mJ/mm2
arthroscopy surgery versus eswt for chronic calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder
Arthroscopy surgery versus ESWT for chronic calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder
  • Retrospective study in patients with chronic calcific deposit
  • Arthroscopic extirpation (group I, 22 cases)
  • Low ESWT: 3 treatment sessions with 1,500 impulses/session of 0.10-0.13 mJ/mm2. (group II, 24 cases).
  • Patients included in the study had
    • unsuccessful conservative therapy for six months
    • no evidence of subacromial impingement of the rotator cuff detected by sonography or magnetic resonance imaging.
  • Ca deposits had to be types I and II / Gärtner classification.
  • (UCLA) rating system after 24 months,
    • group I: mean score rose from 9.36 (+/-5.2) to 30.3 (+/-7.62), with 81.81% reporting good or excellent results (P < 0.001).
    • group II mean score rose from 12.38 (+/-6.5) to 28.13 (+/-9.34), with 70.83% reporting good or excellent results (P < 0.001).
  • Radiologically, after 24 months,
    • No calcific deposit in 86.35% (P < 0.001) of group I
    • No calcific deposit in 58.33 % (P < 0.001) of group II.

(P =0.38)

J Orthop Traumatol. 2008 Dec;9(4):179-85.

slide27

What are the available treatment options?

  • What is the evidence these options are effective?
  • What prognostic factors we may use?
effect of ca deposit radiographic shape on eswt outcome
Effect of Ca deposit radiographic shape on ESWT outcome

Cases: (n = 33) ESWT in 2 sessions, 2 wks apart. Each session 1000 impulses with an energy flux density 0.55 mJ/mm

Controls: sham ESWT (n = 13)

No significant difference in Constant score between type I and type II Gartner Classification

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Jan-Feb;17(1):55-9.

effect of ca deposit radiographic shape on eswt outcome1
Effect of Ca deposit radiographic shape on ESWT outcome
  • Case-series of 80 subjects
  • ESWT: one to five sessions at an interval of 4-6 weeks. Each patient received 1800 impulses in each session. EFD 0.08-0.42 mJ/mm2

X-ray regression by calcium deposit shape:

Amorphous: 100%Mixed: 64.7-77%Homogeneous: 44.4%

effect of mri negative contrast reaction around ca deposit on eswt outcome
Effect of MRI negative contrast reaction around Ca deposit on ESWT outcome
  • Case-series 62 patients with chronic courses of calcifying tendinitis
  • Clinical assessment before and after low-energy ESWT
  • Size (p = 0.61) and morphology (p = 0.7) of the deposits before ESWT not associated with the clinical outcome

MRI negative contrast reaction around

P< 0.0001

P<0.0049

P<0.01

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2000

effect of subacromial decompression on calcific tendinitis
Effect of subacromial decompression on calcific tendinitis
  • 50 patients reviewed after arthroscopic subacromial decompression.
    • Cases: 25, had calcific deposits in the rotator cuff visible on x-rays. Calcific deposits were left untouched in all cases.
    • Controls: 25, without calcification, similar state of the rotator cuff, date of surgery, age, and sex.
  • No significant difference in postoperative Constant score

p < 0.001

effect of ca deposit resection and acromioplasty in rotator cuff tendinopathy
Effect of Ca deposit resection and acromioplasty in rotator cuff tendinopathy
  • Multi-center study (112 patients) / French Society of Arthroscopy
  • Several arthroscopic procedures on
    • the calcification (respect or removal),
    • The coracoacromial arch (respect, ACL release or acromioplasty)
  • Results were better when the calcification had been removed
  • Acromioplasty gave no better results: necessary only when no calcification is found (12 %)
slide33
Influence of deposit stage and failed ESWT on the results of arthroscopic resection of calcific tendonitis
  • 45 (17 men, 28 women)
    • mean age of 49 +/- 8 years
    • mean follow-up 36 months (14-89)
  • 24 patients (53.3%) underwent preoperative ESWT.
  • For the clinical evaluation the
    • Constant and Murley Score
    • Simple Shoulder Test (SST)
    • Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)
    • visual analog scales for pain, function and satisfaction
  • For the radiological evaluation, the classifications according to Gartner and Bosworth were used.

No significant correlation of the clinical results with the pre- or post-op findings

Patients who underwent ESWT before surgery (n=24) did not show significantly better results than patients without ESWT

Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc. 2008 May;16(5):516-21.

take home message
Take home message
  • Type III Ca deposits are likely to resolve spontaneously
  • Needling is a simple low-cost straight forward procedure in type II Ca deposits with persistent pain despite conservative therapy
  • No significant difference in terms of pain and function between high energy ESWT and arthroscopic removalin type II Ca deposits
  • Type I Ca deposits are associated with lower rate of radiographic regression with ESWT
  • No significant correlation between radiographic and clinical outcomes