PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2007; 17(03): 194-200
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.34727
Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Symposium

USG of normal musculoskeletal structures

Arun Kinare
Department of Ultrasound, K.E.M Hospital & Jehangir Apollo Hospital, Pune, India
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
  als PDF herunterladen Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Advances in high-resolution technology, have had the greatest impact on the use of USG for musculoskeletal imaging. Structures previously considered inaccessible can now be evaluated accurately using this imaging modality. Though MRI still remains the gold standard, USG has now emerged as the initial imaging modality in a large proportion of musculoskeletal disorders. Among the distinct advantages of USG, are the ability to perform a dynamic study to demonstrate the function of the structure under question and to have transverse as well as longitudinal sections. This is now aided by 3D technology, which is becoming popular. USG is more easily available and is cheaper than MRI. Its portablity and the ease with which follow-up examinations can be done are also big assets. There are two major drawbacks with this technique. One is the long learning curve and the other is that there is very little tissue differentiation when it comes to the acoustic properties of various structures. A sound knowledge of musculoskeletal anatomy is a prerequisite.

Keywords

Musculoskeletal - normal - ultrasound


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. Juli 2021

© 2007. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hashimoto BE, Kramer DJ, Wiitala L. Applications of musculoskeletal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 1999;27:293-318.
  • 2 Newman JS, Adler RS, Bude RO, Rubin JM. Detection of soft-tissue hyperemia: Value of power Doppler sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:385-9.
  • 3 KTH research project. Tissue ultrasound and musculoskeletal research. Research leaders. Prof. Lars AKE Brodin, Anna Bjallmark, Matilda Larsson, Michael Peolsson.
  • 4 Crass JR, van de Vegte GL, Harkavy LA. Tendon echogenicity: Ex vivo study. Radiology 1998;167:499-501.
  • 5 van Holsbeeck MT, Introcaso JH. Musculoskeletal ultrasound, Sonography of muscle. 2 nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1991. p. 23-75.
  • 6 Campbell RS, Wood J. Ultrasound of muscle. Imaging 2002;14:229-40.
  • 7 Finlay K, Friedman L. Ultrasonography of the lower extremity. Orthop Clin North Am 2006;37:245-75.
  • 8 Waitches GM, Rockett M, Brage M, Sudakoff G. Ultrasonographic - surgical correlation of ankle tendon tears. J Ultrasound Med 1997;17:249-56.
  • 9 Martiloni C, Bianchi S, Derchi LE. Tendon and nerve sonography. Radiol Clin North Am 1999;37:691-711.
  • 10 Nazarian NL, Rawool NM, Martin CE, Schweitzer ME. Synovial fluid in the hind foot and ankle: Detection of amount and distribution with US. Radiology 1995;197:275-8.
  • 11 Jacobson JA, van Holsbeeck MT. Musculoskeletal ultrasound. Orthop Clin North Am 1998;29:135-67.
  • 12 Martinoli C, Derchi LE, Pastorino C, Bertolotto M, Silvestri E. Analysis of echotexture of tendons with US. Radiology 1993;186:839-43.
  • 13 van Holsbeeck MT, Introcaso JH. Musculoskeletal ultrasound. Sonography of tendons, 2 nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1991. p. 77-129
  • 14 van Holsbeeck MT, Introcaso JH. Musculoskeletal ultrasound, Sonography of ligaments, 2 nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1991. p .171-92.
  • 15 Mahlfeld K, Kayser R, Mahlfeld A, Grasshoff H, Franke J. Value of ultrasound in diagnosis of bursopathies in the area of Achilles tendon. Ultraschall Med 2001;22:87-90.
  • 16 Wang CL, Shieh JY, Wang TG, Hsieh FJ. Sonographic detection of occult fractures in foot and ankle. J Clin Ultrasound 1999;27:421-5.
  • 17 Craig JG, Jacobson JA, Moed BR. Ultrasound of fractures and bone healing. Radiol Clin North Am 1999;37:737-51.
  • 18 Silvestri E, Martinoli C, Derchi LE, Bertolotto M, Chiaramondia M, Rosenberg I. Echotexture of peripheral nerves: Correlation between US and histologic findings and criteria to differentiate tendons. Radiology 1995;197:291-6.
  • 19 Peer S, Harpf C, Willeit J, Piza-Katzer H, Bodner G. Sonographic evaluation of primary peripheral nerve repair. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:1317-22.
  • 20 Durkee NJ, Jacobson JA, Jamadar DA, Femino JE, Karunakar MA, Hayes CW. Sonographic evaluation of lower extremity interosseous membrane injuries. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:1369-75.