Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Imaging After Shoulder Arthroplasty

  • Soterios Gyftopoulos(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Zehava S. Rosenberg
    ,
  • Catherine C. Roberts
    ,
  • Jenny T. Bencardino
    ,
  • Marc Appel
    ,
  • Steven J. Baccei
*Corresponding author for this work
  • New York University
    ,
  • Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, AZ
    ,
  • VA Medical Center
    ,
  • University of Massachusetts Medical School
    ,
  • Lexington Kentucky
    ,
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

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.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 1324-1336 (13 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of the American College of Radiology (Volume 13, Issue 11)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 11/01/2016

Publication status

Published - 11/01/2016

ISSN

1546-1440

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 84995691216
  • PubMed: 27814833

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
SciVal
FWCI
0.95
SciVal
Author count
17
SciVal
citations
8
SciVal
Paper percentile
67
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.06
Fractional count
16
Fractional count
0.94
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
56
Citation count
17
Usage
3