Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGyftopoulos, Soterios
dc.contributor.authorBaccei, Steven J
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:46.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:19:36Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:19:36Z
dc.date.issued2016-11-01
dc.date.submitted2017-05-08
dc.identifier.citationJ Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Nov;13(11):1324-1336. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn1546-1440 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028
dc.identifier.pmid27814833
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/48111
dc.description<p>Full author list omitted for brevity. For the full list of authors, see article.</p>
dc.description.abstractThere 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.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=27814833&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.028
dc.subjectAppropriateness Criteria
dc.subjectCT
dc.subjectMRI
dc.subjectaseptic loosening
dc.subjectperiprosthetic infection
dc.subjectshoulder arthroplasty
dc.subjectRadiology
dc.titleACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR
dc.source.volume13
dc.source.issue11
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/radiology_pubs/216
dc.identifier.contextkey10133382
html.description.abstract<p>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.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathradiology_pubs/216
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Radiology
dc.source.pages1324-1336


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record