Ultrasound assessment of the hamstrings complex of athletes with MRI correlation.

Due to anatomical complexity, ultrasound examination of the hamstring muscles is challenging, resulting in potential diagnostic uncertainty and under-confidence in the technique. This leads to a subsequent tendency to favour magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation, which can delay diagnosis and potential intervention. This article describes a comprehensive technique of ultrasound evaluation of the hamstrings complex, using key anatomical landmarks. A direct comparison of the sonographic landmarks with corresponding MRI appearances is also provided. If these landmarks can be identified successfully, the complex anatomy can be unlocked, thus improving the time and sensitivity of diagnosis of acute injuries, as well as providing a reliable framework for monitoring injury progress and helping to identify candidates for potential intervention. Many of the anatomical landmarks discussed are common areas of injury in elite athletes, encountered frequently in clinical practice.

British athletics muscle injury classification: a reliability study for a new grading system.

AIM: To implement and validate the newly proposed British athletics muscle injury classification in the assessment of hamstring injuries in track and field athletes and to analyse the nature and frequency of the discrepancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study analysing hamstring injuries in elite British athletes using the proposed classification system. Classification of 65 hamstring injuries in 45 high-level athletes by two radiologists at two time points 4 months apart to determine interrater variability, intrarater variability, and feasibility of the classification system was undertaken. RESULTS: Interrater Kappa values of 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.92; p<0.0001) for Round 1 and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.76-1.00; p<0.0001) for Round 2 of the review were observed. Percentages of agreement were 85% for Round 1 and 91% for Round 2. The intrarater Kappa value for the two reviewers were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.63-0.88; p<0.0001) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.53-0.76; p<0.0001) and the average was 0.71 suggesting substantial overall agreement. The percentages of agreement were 82% and 72%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This classification system is straightforward to use and produces both reproducible and consistent results based on interrater and intrarater Kappa values with at least substantial agreement in all groups. Further work is ongoing to investigate whether individual grades within this classification system provide prognostic information and could guide clinical management.

Radiological approach to a child with hip pain.

Hip pain in a child can be a diagnostic challenge partly because of barriers to communication in the paediatric age group. Pain or limp may result from infective, inflammatory, traumatic, neoplastic, or developmental causes. A meticulous history and detailed clinical examination guide the radiological investigation in the appropriate direction. The age of the child further helps to narrow the differential as certain diseases are more common in certain age groups. In most patients plain radiograph and/or ultrasound is adequate. Ultrasound has the added advantage of being real time and can be used to guide aspiration. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scintigraphy can be used for problem solving, looking for multifocal disease, and staging. Computed tomography (CT) has a limited role to play because of the risks associated with ionizing radiation. In this review we discuss the approach to imaging a child who presents with pain in the hip or with a limp. The various common and rare, but important, diseases are illustrated with examples from our clinical practice.

Identification of the correct lumbar level using passive intersegmental motion testing.

This study aimed to assess the accuracy and agreement between examiners when attempting to identify a single lumbar spinal level using passive intersegmental motion testing, a technique commonly used by physical therapists. Thirty-five adults were examined independently by an experienced and a novice clinician. Each examiner was asked to identify and note the interspace between the fifth lumbar vertebra and the first sacral vertebra, and to mark it. The mark was invisible to the second clinician asked to identify the same lumbar interspace. The true level was then identified by fluoroscopic imaging and was correct in 54-57% of cases. Interobserver agreement was poor. A significant learning effect was found for the experienced examiner, with proportionately more correct levels identified during the second part of the study (79%) when compared to the first (31%). The results show that intersegmental motion testing is a relatively unreliable method of identifying the correct spinal level.