Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurements of Supraspinatus Muscle Thickness, Acromiohumeral Distance, and Coracohumeral Distance in Patients with Shoulder Pain

Mustafa Turgut Yildizgoren , Burak Tayyip Dede , Muhammed Oğuz , Berat Bulut , FATİH BAĞCIER, Ebru Aytekin

  • Mustafa Turgut Yildizgoren: KONYA ŞEHİR HASTANESİ
  • Burak Tayyip Dede: Istanbul Training and Research Hospital
  • Muhammed Oğuz: Istanbul Training and Research Hospital
  • Berat Bulut: Istanbul Training and Research Hospital
  • FATİH BAĞCIER: ATATÜRK ÜNİV. HASTANESİ FTR SERVİSİ
  • Ebru Aytekin: Istanbul Training and Research Hospital
  • Year : 2024
  • Vol : 40
  • Issue : 1
  •  Page : 34-38
ABSTRACT
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability coefficients of the supraspinatus muscle thickness (SMT ), acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and coracohumeral distance (CHD) in patients with shoulder pain. 
Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 80 patients who presented with complaints of shoulder pain at a single centre between January 2023 and January 2024. The supraspinatus muscle thickness, acromiohumeral distance, and coracohumeral distance measurements were obtained one week apart by two observers. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), minimum detectable change, and standard error of measurement were subsequently calculated. 
Results: AHD intra-rater reliability results evaluated on coronal sections were excellent (Rater 1, ICC=0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97; Rater 2 ICC=0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.84). AHD intra-rater reliability results evaluated on sagittal sections were excellent (Rater 1, ICC=0.94; 95% CI; 0.91-0.96; Rater 2 ICC=0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). The results of CHD measured using coronal sections were good (Rater 1, ICC=0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.90; Rater 2 ICC=0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.88). SMT measurement results measured using coronal sections were excellent (Rater 1, ICC=0.98; CI, 0.98-0.99; Rater 2, ICC=0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93).The inter-rater reliability values were good for AHD-Coronal (ICC= 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.84) and AHD-Sagittal (ICC=0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.91), were fair for CHD evaluated on coronal sections (ICC=0.74; %95 CI, 0.58-0.83), and were excellent for SMT evaluated on coronal sections  (ICC=0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.95). 
Conclusion: These results suggest that magnetic resonance imaging measurements of the supraspinatus muscle thickness and acromiohumeral distance can be reliable and consistent for the clinical evaluation of patients with shoulder pain. 
Keywords: Reliability, shoulder measurement, magnetic resonance imaging
Cite this Article As : Dede BT, Oguz M, Bulut B, Bagcier F, Yıldızgoren MT, Aytekin E. Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurements of Supraspinatus Muscle Thickness, Acromiohumeral Distance, and Coracohumeral Distance in Patients With Shoulder Pain. Selcuk Med J 2024;40(1): 34-38

Download Citation: Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) RIS File

Download Citation: BibTeX BibTeX File

Conflict of interest : The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article is published under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Selcuk Medical Journal
2024, Vol. 40 (1)
ISSN: 1017-6616
E-ISSN: 2149-8059
Received : , Accepted : , Published Online :

References

  1. 1. Lewis J. Rotator cuff related shoulder pain: Assessment, management and uncertainties. Man Ther. 2016;23:57-68.
  2. 2. Zoga AC, Kamel SI, Hynes JP, et al. The Evolving Roles of MRI and Ultrasound in First-Line Imaging of Rotator Cuff Injuries. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;217(6):1390-400.
  3. 3. Graichen H, Bonel H, Stammberger T, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of the width of the subacromial space in healthy subjects and patients with impingement syndrome. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(4):1081-6.
  4. 4. Cholewinski JJ, Kusz DJ, Wojciechowski P, et al. Ultrasound measurement of rotator cuff thickness and acromio-humeral distance in the diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome of the shoulder. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(4):408-14.
  5. 5. Goutallier D, Le Guilloux P, Postel JM, et al. Acromio humeral distance less than six millimeter: its meaning in full-thickness rotator cuff tear. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(3):246-51.
  6. 6. Nové-Josserand L, Lévigne C, Noël E, et al. L'espace sous-acromial. Etude des facteurs influençant sa hauteur [The acromio-humeral interval. A study of the factors influencing its height]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1996;82(5):379-85.
  7. 7. Michener LA, Subasi Yesilyaprak SS, Seitz AL, et al. Supraspinatus tendon and subacromial space parameters measured on ultrasonographic imaging in subacromial impingement syndrome. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(2):363-9.
  8. 8. Hunter DJ, Rivett DA, McKiernan S, et al. Acromiohumeral distance and supraspinatus tendon thickness in people with shoulder impingement syndrome compared to asymptomatic age and gender-matched participants: a case control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):1004.
  9. 9. Zhu S, Tan J, Wu D, et al. Bilateral coracohumeral distance discrepancy is associated with subscapularis tear in rotator cuff rupture patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(12):3936-42.
  10. 10. Di Mario M, Fraracci L. MR study of the intrinsic acromial angle in 74 symptomatic patients. Radiol Med. 2005;110(3):273-9.
  11. 11. Asal N, Şahan MH. Radiological Variabilities in Subcoracoid Impingement: Coracoid Morphology, Coracohumeral Distance, Coracoglenoid Angle, and Coracohumeral Angle. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:8678-84.
  12. 12. Balke M, Banerjee M, Greshake O, et al. The Coracohumeral Distance in Shoulders With Traumatic and Degenerative Subscapularis Tendon Tears. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):198-201.
  13. 13. Blume C, Wang SS. Comparison of changes in supraspinatus muscle thickness in persons with subacromial impingement syndrome and asymptomatic adults. Physiother Theory Pract. 2014;30(8):544-51.
  14. 14. Naredo AE, Aguado P, Padrón M, et al. A comparative study of ultrasonography with magnetic resonance imaging in patients with painful shoulder. J Clin Rheumatol. 1999;5(4):184-92.
  15. 15. Bernhardt GA, Glehr M, Zacherl M, et al. Observer variability in the assessment of the acromiohumeral interval using anteroposterior shoulder radiographs. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(2):185-90.
  16. 16. Werner CM, Conrad SJ, Meyer DC, et al. Intermethod agreement and interobserver correlation of radiologic acromiohumeral distance measurements. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(2):237-40.
  17. 17. Bagcier F, Geler Kulcu D, Yorulmaz E, et al. Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability of Ultrasound Measurements of Supraspinatus Tendon Thickness, Acromiohumeral Distance, and Occupation Ratio in Patients With Shoulder Impingement Syndrome. Arch Rheumatol. 2020;35(3):385-93.
  18. 18. Temes WC, Temes Clifton A, Hilton V, et al. Reliability and validity of thickness measurements of the supraspinatus muscle of the shoulder: an ultrasonography study. J Sport Rehabil. 2014;23(2):2013-23.
  19. 19. Yi TI, Han IS, Kim JS, et al. Reliability of the supraspinatus muscle thickness measurement by ultrasonography. Ann Rehabil Med. 2012;36(4):488-95.
  20. 20. Schneebeli A, Egloff M, Giampietro A, et al. Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging of the supraspinatus muscle: Intra- and interrater reliability of thickness and cross-sectional area. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2014;18(2):266-72.
  21. 21. Cavaggion C, Navarro-Ledesma S, Juul-Kristensen B, et al. Reliability of coracohumeral distance and subcoracoid tendons in subacromial pain syndrome. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):2383.
  22. 22. Saupe N, Pfirrmann CW, Schmid MR, et al. Association between rotator cuff abnormalities and reduced acromiohumeral distance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(2):376-82.
  23. 23. Reichel T, Herz S, Tabbakh ME, et al. Less than 9.5-mm coracohumeral distance on axial magnetic resonance imaging scans predicts for subscapularis tear. JSES Int. 2021;5(3):424-9.
  24. 24. Hinterwimmer S, Von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Siebert M, et al. Influence of adducting and abducting muscle forces on the subacromial space width. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(12):2055-9.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.