Pain profiling of patients with temporomandibular joint arthralgia and osteoarthritis diagnosed with different imaging techniques.

BACKGROUND: Clinical differentiation between pain mechanisms of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthralgia and osteoarthritis (OA) is challenging. The aims were to compare somatosensory function at the TMJs and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) effects between TMJ arthralgia and OA patients diagnosed clinically and based on different imaging techniques and age- and gender-matched healthy controls (n = 41). METHODS: Patients (n = 58) underwent standard clinical examination and three different TMJ imaging modalities. After each examination, they were classified into arthralgia or OA based on the findings. TMJ region somatosensory testing was performed in all participants. Z-scores were calculated for patients based on healthy reference data. CPM was tested by comparing pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) at TMJ and thenar (control) before, during and after the application of painful and nonpainful cold stimuli. Data were analyzed using analyses of variance. RESULTS: Somatosensory abnormalities were commonly detected in both patient groups. Assessment of somatosensory function at the TMJ revealed that arthralgia patients were less sensitive to warmth, cold and tactile stimuli than OA patients (P < 0.048). OA patients showed pressure hyperalgesia compared with arthralgia patients (P = 0.025). There was a significant CPM effect at both test sites during painful cold application in all groups (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the relative CPM effect between groups except for clinically diagnosed arthralgia patients showing reduced CPM effect compared with controls (P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Pain profiles including somatosensory function differed between TMJ arthralgia and OA patients although CPM effects were similar in patients and controls. Thus, different TMJ pain conditions may share common pain mechanisms but the present study for the first time also indicated that differential pain mechanisms could be involved.

The diagnostic and prognostic value of ultrasonography in soccer players with acute hamstring injuries.

BACKGROUND: An injury to the hamstring muscle complex is the most common injury in soccer. Ultrasound of acute hamstring injuries is often used as a clinical tool for diagnosing hamstring injuries and guiding players in when they can return to play. PURPOSE: To (1) investigate the characteristic sonographic findings of acute hamstring injuries in soccer players, (2) compare the mean injury severity (time to return to play) in injured players with and without sonographically verified abnormalities, and (3) correlate the length of the injured area and absence from soccer play (time to return to play) to investigate if ultrasonography can be used as a prognostic indicator of time to return to play. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Players from 50 teams participating in 1 of the top 5 Danish soccer divisions were followed in the period from January to December 2008. Of 67 players with acute hamstring injuries, 51 underwent ultrasonographic examination of the injured thigh and were included in this study. RESULTS: Ultrasonographic examinations were performed 1 to 10 days after injury (mean, 5.2 ± 3.0 days), and sonographic findings were present in 31 of 51 cases (61%). Two thirds of the injuries were to the biceps femoris muscle and one third to the semitendinosus muscle. No total ruptures were documented. The 51 acute hamstring injuries resulted in absence from soccer of a mean 25.4 ± 15.7 days per injury, with no significant difference between players with and without sonographically verified abnormalities (P = .41). No correlation existed between the length of the injured area and injury severity (r = 0.19, P = .29). CONCLUSION: The biceps femoris is the most commonly injured hamstring muscle detected by ultrasound, and more than half of the injuries are intramuscular. Because neither the presence of sonographic findings nor the size of the findings was correlated with time to return to play in injured soccer players, the prognosis of hamstring injuries should not be guided by these findings alone.

Can contrast-enhanced ultrasonography replace multidetector-computed tomography in the detection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer?

PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and 4-slice multidetector-computed tomography (MDCT) in the detection of liver metastases in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidates for this prospective study were 461 consecutive patients referred to the Department of Colorectal Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital with primary or local recurrence of CRC. The patients underwent liver ultrasonography (US), CEUS, MDCT and intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS). Fine-needle biopsy was performed on all suspicious lesions. The examinations were interpreted blindly and the combination of US, CEUS, biphasic MDCT, IOUS, follow up and biopsy was the gold standard. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-five patients were included. All patients had undergone preoperative US, CEUS and MDCT and 65.5% had received IOUS. The gold standard found liver metastases in 54 patients (14.8%). Multidetector CT found significantly more metastases than CEUS in 15 (28%) of the patients (p=0.02). In a patient-by-patient analysis MDCT had a non-significantly higher sensitivity in the detection of liver metastases compared to CEUS (0.89 versus 0.80, p=0.06). The specificity of CEUS (0.98) was slightly better than that of MDCT (0.94) (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Multidetector CT found significant more metastases than CEUS, and MDCT had in patient-by-patient analysis a non-significant better sensitivity (p=0.06) in detecting liver metastases in patients with CRC.

The value of contrast enhanced ultrasonography in detection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a prospective double-blinded study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare sensitivity and specificity of contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) with conventional ultrasonography (US) in detection of liver metastases in patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC) in a patient-by-patient analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study of 461 consecutive patients referred to the Department of Colorectal Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital with primary or local recurrence of CRC. In order to detect possible liver metastases all patients underwent liver US, followed by CEUS by another investigator. Multislice CT scanning (MDCT), and intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) were then performed. Fine-needle biopsy was performed on all suspicious lesions. Each examination was interpreted blindly and the combination of biphasic MDCT, IOUS, follow up and biopsy was the gold standard. RESULTS: Standard of reference found liver metastases in 54 patients (14.8%). Contrast enhanced ultrasonography improved the sensitivity significantly in detection of liver metastases from 0.69 by US to 0.80 (p=0.031). In 24 patients, CEUS found a higher number of metastases than US (p<0.001). The specificity (0.98) and the positive predictive value (0.86) was the same. CONCLUSION: Contrast enhanced ultrasonography improves sensitivity in detection of liver metastases in patients with CRC and in nearly half of the cases CEUS found a higher number of metastases than US.