Poster 376 Ultrasound‐Guided Aspiration and Lavage Treatment for Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinitis: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T. Ha: I Have No Relevant Financial Relationships To Disclose. To evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound-guided aspiration and lavage in treating rotator cuff calcific tendinitis (RCCT). Literature search using PubMed®, Ovid®, EMBASE®, and Google Scholar®. Search key words: “Ultrasound, Shoulder, Calcific Tendonitis, Lavage”. Search limited to human studies in English. Academic and clinical settings. Adults with rotator cuff calcific tendonitis (RCCT) related shoulder pain. Decompression of symptomatic rotator cuff calcific tendonitis using various ultrasound-guided barbotage techniques Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Constant Shoulder Scores (CS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Scores (ASES), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and radiographic evaluation of calcification size. Four studies were selected for critical review. Bas de Witte et al (2013) compared barbotage combined with subacromial injection (SAI) (N=23) to SAI alone (N=25) for the treatment of RCCT. At 1 year, both groups displayed a statistically significant improvement in mean CS (P=.05). The barbotage group (mean CS-86; 95% CI, 80.3-91.6) had a statistically better outcome over the non-barbotage group (mean CS-73.9; 95% CI, 67.7-80.1); (P=.005). Serfnini et al (2009) compared double needle lavage technique (N=219) to those without treatment (N=68) for RCCT. At 1 year, double needle lavage patients fared better than non-treated patients (P<.001). At 5 years and 10 years their CS and VAS were similar (P> .795 and P> .413 respectively). Yoo et al (2010) looked at US-guided needle decompression with SAI in 35 shoulders in 30 patients with no comparison group. At 6 months post-procedure, 25/35 (71%) shoulders had significantly improved ASES and CS scores (P<.01). Mean calcific deposit size reduced in those patients from 13.6 to 5.6mm (P<.01). De Conti et al (2010) treated 123 patients with long standing RCCT symptoms with US lavage. Fifty-five percent (68/123) of the patients required one treatment where as 45% (55/123) required two or more treatments. Post-treatment CS was better in all patients (P<.01 in both groups). US-guided needle aspiration and lavage for treatment of rotator cuff calcific tendonitis appears to be effective, safe and cost friendly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".