ACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty

Soterios Gyftopoulos, Zehava S. Rosenberg, Catherine C. Roberts, Jenny T. Bencardino, Marc Appel, Steven J. Baccei, R. Carter Cassidy, Eric Y. Chang, Michael G. Fox, Bennett Steven Greenspan, Mary G. Hochman, Jon A. Jacobson, Douglas N. Mintz, Joel S. Newman, Nehal A. Shah, Kirstin M. Small, Barbara N. Weissman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There has been a rapid increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties, including partial or complete humeral head resurfacing, hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, performed in the United States over the past two decades. Imaging can play an important role in diagnosing the complications that can occur in the setting of these shoulder arthroplasties. This review is divided into two parts. The first part provides a general discussion of various imaging modalities, comprising radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine, and their role in providing useful, treatment-guiding information. The second part focuses on the most appropriate imaging algorithms for shoulder arthroplasty complications such as aseptic loosening, infection, fracture, rotator cuff tendon tear, and nerve injury. The evidence-based ACR Appropriateness Criteria guidelines offered in this report were reached via an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) for rating the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. Further analysis and review of the guidelines were performed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. In those instances in which there was insufficient or equivocal data for recommending the appropriate imaging algorithm, expert opinion may have supplemented the available evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1324-1336
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume13
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Arthroplasty
Guidelines
Hemiarthroplasty
Humeral Head
Nuclear Medicine
Expert Testimony
Radiography
Tendons
Wounds and Injuries
Therapeutics
Infection

Keywords

  • Appropriateness Criteria
  • CT
  • MRI
  • aseptic loosening
  • periprosthetic infection
  • shoulder arthroplasty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Gyftopoulos, S., Rosenberg, Z. S., Roberts, C. C., Bencardino, J. T., Appel, M., Baccei, S. J., ... Weissman, B. N. (2016). ACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 13(11), 1324-1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty. / Gyftopoulos, Soterios; Rosenberg, Zehava S.; Roberts, Catherine C.; Bencardino, Jenny T.; Appel, Marc; Baccei, Steven J.; Cassidy, R. Carter; Chang, Eric Y.; Fox, Michael G.; Greenspan, Bennett Steven; Hochman, Mary G.; Jacobson, Jon A.; Mintz, Douglas N.; Newman, Joel S.; Shah, Nehal A.; Small, Kirstin M.; Weissman, Barbara N.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 13, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 1324-1336.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gyftopoulos, S, Rosenberg, ZS, Roberts, CC, Bencardino, JT, Appel, M, Baccei, SJ, Cassidy, RC, Chang, EY, Fox, MG, Greenspan, BS, Hochman, MG, Jacobson, JA, Mintz, DN, Newman, JS, Shah, NA, Small, KM & Weissman, BN 2016, 'ACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty', Journal of the American College of Radiology, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1324-1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028
Gyftopoulos S, Rosenberg ZS, Roberts CC, Bencardino JT, Appel M, Baccei SJ et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2016 Nov 1;13(11):1324-1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028
Gyftopoulos, Soterios ; Rosenberg, Zehava S. ; Roberts, Catherine C. ; Bencardino, Jenny T. ; Appel, Marc ; Baccei, Steven J. ; Cassidy, R. Carter ; Chang, Eric Y. ; Fox, Michael G. ; Greenspan, Bennett Steven ; Hochman, Mary G. ; Jacobson, Jon A. ; Mintz, Douglas N. ; Newman, Joel S. ; Shah, Nehal A. ; Small, Kirstin M. ; Weissman, Barbara N. / ACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty. In: Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2016 ; Vol. 13, No. 11. pp. 1324-1336.
@article{89d37747d95b462a88fe7aefe406cea6,
title = "ACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty",
abstract = "There has been a rapid increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties, including partial or complete humeral head resurfacing, hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, performed in the United States over the past two decades. Imaging can play an important role in diagnosing the complications that can occur in the setting of these shoulder arthroplasties. This review is divided into two parts. The first part provides a general discussion of various imaging modalities, comprising radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine, and their role in providing useful, treatment-guiding information. The second part focuses on the most appropriate imaging algorithms for shoulder arthroplasty complications such as aseptic loosening, infection, fracture, rotator cuff tendon tear, and nerve injury. The evidence-based ACR Appropriateness Criteria guidelines offered in this report were reached via an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) for rating the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. Further analysis and review of the guidelines were performed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. In those instances in which there was insufficient or equivocal data for recommending the appropriate imaging algorithm, expert opinion may have supplemented the available evidence.",
keywords = "Appropriateness Criteria, CT, MRI, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic infection, shoulder arthroplasty",
author = "Soterios Gyftopoulos and Rosenberg, {Zehava S.} and Roberts, {Catherine C.} and Bencardino, {Jenny T.} and Marc Appel and Baccei, {Steven J.} and Cassidy, {R. Carter} and Chang, {Eric Y.} and Fox, {Michael G.} and Greenspan, {Bennett Steven} and Hochman, {Mary G.} and Jacobson, {Jon A.} and Mintz, {Douglas N.} and Newman, {Joel S.} and Shah, {Nehal A.} and Small, {Kirstin M.} and Weissman, {Barbara N.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "1324--1336",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - ACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty

AU - Gyftopoulos, Soterios

AU - Rosenberg, Zehava S.

AU - Roberts, Catherine C.

AU - Bencardino, Jenny T.

AU - Appel, Marc

AU - Baccei, Steven J.

AU - Cassidy, R. Carter

AU - Chang, Eric Y.

AU - Fox, Michael G.

AU - Greenspan, Bennett Steven

AU - Hochman, Mary G.

AU - Jacobson, Jon A.

AU - Mintz, Douglas N.

AU - Newman, Joel S.

AU - Shah, Nehal A.

AU - Small, Kirstin M.

AU - Weissman, Barbara N.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - There has been a rapid increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties, including partial or complete humeral head resurfacing, hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, performed in the United States over the past two decades. Imaging can play an important role in diagnosing the complications that can occur in the setting of these shoulder arthroplasties. This review is divided into two parts. The first part provides a general discussion of various imaging modalities, comprising radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine, and their role in providing useful, treatment-guiding information. The second part focuses on the most appropriate imaging algorithms for shoulder arthroplasty complications such as aseptic loosening, infection, fracture, rotator cuff tendon tear, and nerve injury. The evidence-based ACR Appropriateness Criteria guidelines offered in this report were reached via an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) for rating the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. Further analysis and review of the guidelines were performed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. In those instances in which there was insufficient or equivocal data for recommending the appropriate imaging algorithm, expert opinion may have supplemented the available evidence.

AB - There has been a rapid increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties, including partial or complete humeral head resurfacing, hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, performed in the United States over the past two decades. Imaging can play an important role in diagnosing the complications that can occur in the setting of these shoulder arthroplasties. This review is divided into two parts. The first part provides a general discussion of various imaging modalities, comprising radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine, and their role in providing useful, treatment-guiding information. The second part focuses on the most appropriate imaging algorithms for shoulder arthroplasty complications such as aseptic loosening, infection, fracture, rotator cuff tendon tear, and nerve injury. The evidence-based ACR Appropriateness Criteria guidelines offered in this report were reached via an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) for rating the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. Further analysis and review of the guidelines were performed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. In those instances in which there was insufficient or equivocal data for recommending the appropriate imaging algorithm, expert opinion may have supplemented the available evidence.

KW - Appropriateness Criteria

KW - CT

KW - MRI

KW - aseptic loosening

KW - periprosthetic infection

KW - shoulder arthroplasty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995691216&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995691216&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028

M3 - Article

C2 - 27814833

AN - SCOPUS:84995691216

VL - 13

SP - 1324

EP - 1336

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 11

ER -