Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
HSS Journal ®
Published in: HSS Journal ® 3/2011

01-10-2011 | Original Article

Reliability of Determining and Measuring Acromial Enthesophytes

Authors: Keith M. Baumgarten, MD, James L. Carey, MD, MPH, Joseph A. Abboud, MD, Grant L. Jones, MD, John E. Kuhn, MD, Brian R. Wolf, MD, MS, Robert H. Brophy, MD, Charles L. Cox, MD, Rick W. Wright, MD, Armando F. Vidal, MD, C. Benjamin Ma, MD, Eric C. McCarty, MD, G. Brian Holloway, MD, Edwin E. Spencer Jr, MD, Warren R. Dunn, MD, MPH

Published in: HSS Journal ® | Issue 3/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Although the reliability of determining acromial morphology has been examined, to date, there has not been an analysis of interobserver and intraobserver reliability on determining the presence and measuring the size of an acromial enthesophyte.

Questions/Purposes

The hypothesis of this study was that there will be poor intraobserver and interobserver reliability in the (1) determination of the presence of an acromial enthesophyte, (2) determination of the size of an acromial enthesophyte, and (3) determination of acromial morphology.

Patients and Methods

Fifteen fellowship-trained orthopedic shoulder surgeons reviewed the radiographs of 15 patients at two different intervals. Measurement of acromial enthesophytes was performed using two techniques: (1) enthesophyte length and (2) enthesophyte–humeral distance. Acromial morphology was also determined. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was determined using intraclass correlation and kappa statistical methods.

Results

The interobserver reliability was fair to moderate and the intraobserver reliability moderate for determining the presence of an acromial enthesophyte. The measurement of the enthesophyte length showed poor interobserver and intraobserver reliability. The measurement of the enthesophyte–humeral distance showed poor interobserver reliability and moderate intraobserver reliability. The interobserver and intraobserver reliability in determining acromial morphology was found to be moderate and good, respectively.

Conclusions

There is fair to moderate reliability among fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons in determining the presence of an acromial enthesophyte. However, there is poor reliability among observers in measuring the size of the enthesophyte. This study suggests that the enthesophyte–humeral distance may be more reliable than the enthesophyte length when measuring the size of the enthesophyte.
Literature
1.
Aoki M, Ishii S, Usui M. The morphology of the acromion and its relationship to rotator cuff impingement. Orthop Trans. 1986;10:228.
2.
Banas MP, Miller RJ, Totterman S. Relationship between the lateral acromion angle and rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(6):454–461.CrossRef
3.
Bigliani LU, Morrison DS, April EW. The morphology of the acromion and its relationship to rotator cuff tears. Orthop Trans. 1986;10:216.
4.
Bright AS, Torpey B, Magid D, Codd T, McFarland EG. Reliability of radiographic evaluation for acromial morphology. Skeletal Radiol. 1997;26(12):718–721.CrossRef
5.
Chambler AF, Bull AM, Reilly P, Amis AA, Emery RJ. Coracoacromial ligament tension in vivo. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(4):365–367.CrossRef
6.
Chambler AF, Emery RJ. Acromial morphology: the enigma of terminology. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1997;5(4):268–272.CrossRef
7.
Chambler AF, Pitsillides AA, Emery RJ. Acromial spur formation in patients with rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(4):314–321.CrossRef
8.
Edelson JG. The ‘hooked’ acromion revisited. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(2):284–287.CrossRef
9.
Edelson JG, Taitz C. Anatomy of the coraco-acromial arch. Relation to degeneration of the acromion. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74(4):589–594.CrossRef
10.
Epstein RE, Schweitzer ME, Frieman BG, Fenlin JM, Jr., Mitchell DG. Hooked acromion: prevalence on MR images of painful shoulders. Radiology. 1993;187(2):479–481.CrossRef
11.
Farley TE, Neumann CH, Steinbach LS, Petersen SA. The coracoacromial arch: MR evaluation and correlation with rotator cuff pathology. Skeletal Radiol. 1994;23(8):641–645.CrossRef
12.
Fealy S, April EW, Khazzam M, Armengol-Barallat J, Bigliani LU. The coracoacromial ligament: morphology and study of acromial enthesopathy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(5):542–548.CrossRef
13.
Fleiss J. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley; 1981.
14.
Getz JD, Recht MP, Piraino DW, Schils JP, Latimer BM, Jellema LM, et al. Acromial morphology: relation to sex, age, symmetry, and subacromial enthesophytes. Radiology. 1996;199(3):737–742.CrossRef
15.
Gill TJ, McIrvin E, Kocher MS, Homa K, Mair SD, Hawkins RJ. The relative importance of acromial morphology and age with respect to rotator cuff pathology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):327–330.CrossRef
16.
Graves WW. Observation on ages changes in the scapula. Am j Phys Anthrop. 1922;5:21–34.CrossRef
17.
Haygood TM, Langlotz CP, Kneeland JB, Iannotti JP, Williams GR, Jr., Dalinka MK. Categorization of acromial shape: interobserver variability with MR imaging and conventional radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162(6):1377–1382.CrossRef
18.
Hirano M, Ide J, Takagi K. Acromial shapes and extension of rotator cuff tears: magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(6):576–578.CrossRef
19.
Jacobson SR, Speer KP, Moor JT, Janda DH, Saddemi SR, MacDonald PB, et al. Reliability of radiographic assessment of acromial morphology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(6):449–453.CrossRef
20.
Karanicolas PJ, Bhandari M, Kreder H, Moroni A, Richardson M, Walter SD, et al. Evaluating agreement: conducting a reliability study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91 Suppl 3:99–106.CrossRef
21.
Kitay GS, Iannotti JP, Williams GR, Haygood T, Kneeland BJ, Berlin J. Roentgenographic assessment of acromial morphologic condition in rotator cuff impingement syndrome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(6):441–448.CrossRef
22.
Kramer M. Undersurface acromial osteophyte or deltoid tendon attachment to the acromion? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(6):W376-377; author reply W378.CrossRef
23.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.CrossRef
24.
MacGillivray JD, Fealy S, Potter HG, O’Brien SJ. Multiplanar analysis of acromion morphology. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(6):836–840.CrossRef
25.
Mahakkanukrauh P, Surin P. Prevalence of osteophytes associated with the acromion and acromioclavicular joint. Clin Anat. 2003;16(6):506–510.CrossRef
26.
Mayerhoefer ME, Breitenseher MJ, Roposch A, Treitl C, Wurnig C. Comparison of MRI and conventional radiography for assessment of acromial shape. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(2):671–675.CrossRef
27.
Milz S, Jakob J, Buttner A, Tischer T, Putz R, Benjamin M. The structure of the coracoacromial ligament: fibrocartilage differentiation does not necessarily mean pathology. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008;18:16–22.CrossRef
28.
Morrison DS, Frogameni AD, Woodworth P. Non-operative treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(5):732–737.CrossRef
29.
Natsis K, Tsikaras P, Totlis T, Gigis I, Skandalakis P, Appell HJ, et al. Correlation between the four types of acromion and the existence of enthesophytes: a study on 423 dried scapulas and review of the literature. Clin Anat. 2007;20(3):267–272.CrossRef
30.
Neer CS, 2nd. Anterior acromioplasty for the chronic impingement syndrome in the shoulder: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972;54(1):41–50.CrossRef
31.
Nicholson GP, Goodman DA, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU. The acromion: morphologic condition and age-related changes. A study of 420 scapulas. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(1):1–11.CrossRef
32.
Ogata S, Uhthoff HK. Acromial enthesopathy and rotator cuff tear. A radiologic and histologic postmortem investigation of the coracoacromial arch. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990(254):39–48.
33.
Ogawa K, Yoshida A, Inokuchi W, Naniwa T. Acromial spur: relationship to aging and morphologic changes in the rotator cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(6):591–598.CrossRef
34.
Panni AS, Milano G, Lucania L, Fabbriciani C, Logroscino CA. Histological analysis of the coracoacromial arch: correlation between age-related changes and rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 1996;12(5):531–540.CrossRef
35.
Paraskevas G, Tzaveas A, Papaziogas B, Kitsoulis P, Natsis K, Spanidou S. Morphological parameters of the acromion. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2008;67(4):255–260.PubMed
36.
Park TS, Park DW, Kim SI, Kweon TH. Roentgenographic assessment of acromial morphology using supraspinatus outlet radiographs. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(5):496–501.CrossRef
37.
Pearsall AWt, Bonsell S, Heitman RJ, Helms CA, Osbahr D, Speer KP. Radiographic findings associated with symptomatic rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(2):122–127.CrossRef
38.
Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. New Jersey Prentice Hall Health; 2000.
39.
Sangiampong A, Chompoopong S, Sangvichien S, Thongtong P, Wongjittraporn S. The acromial morphology of Thais in relation to gender and age: study in scapular dried bone. J Med Assoc Thai. 2007;90(3):502–507.PubMed
40.
Taheriazam A, Sadatsafavi M, Moayyeri A. Outcome predictors in nonoperative management of newly diagnosed subacromial impingement syndrome: a longitudinal study. MedGenMed. 2005;7(1):63.PubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Toivonen DA, Tuite MJ, Orwin JF. Acromial structure and tears of the rotator cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(5):376–383.CrossRef
42.
Wang JC, Horner G, Brown ED, Shapiro MS. The relationship between acromial morphology and conservative treatment of patients with impingement syndrome. Orthopedics. 2000;23(6):557–559.PubMed
43.
Wang JC, Shapiro MS. Changes in acromial morphology with age. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(1):55–59.CrossRef
44.
Zuckerman JD, Kummer FJ, Cuomo F, Greller M. Interobserver reliability of acromial morphology classification: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(3):286–287.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reliability of Determining and Measuring Acromial Enthesophytes
Authors
Keith M. Baumgarten, MD
James L. Carey, MD, MPH
Joseph A. Abboud, MD
Grant L. Jones, MD
John E. Kuhn, MD
Brian R. Wolf, MD, MS
Robert H. Brophy, MD
Charles L. Cox, MD
Rick W. Wright, MD
Armando F. Vidal, MD
C. Benjamin Ma, MD
Eric C. McCarty, MD
G. Brian Holloway, MD
Edwin E. Spencer Jr, MD
Warren R. Dunn, MD, MPH
Publication date
01-10-2011
Publisher
Springer New York
Published in
HSS Journal ® / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 1556-3316
Electronic ISSN: 1556-3324
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-011-9209-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

HSS Journal ® 3/2011 Go to the issue

Original Article

Allograft Use in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Original Article

Locking and Non-locking Constructs Achieve Similar Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes for Internal Fixation of Intra-articular Distal Humerus Fractures

Case Report

Guillain–Barré Syndrome Mimicking Nerve Injury After Total Hip Arthroplasty

Review Article

Cervical Radiculopathy: A Review

Abstracts

Hospital for Special Surgery 2011 Resident and Fellow Research Presentations Award-Winning Abstracts

Original Article

Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Utilizing Mini-Stem Humeral Components: Technique and Short-Term Results