Ultrasound in Sports Medicine

dawn ultrasound

Dawn Thompson, MD using the sports med doc’s ‘stethoscope’

The subject of ‘sports’ or ‘musculoskeletal’ (MSK) ultrasound in sports medicine is one of the hot topics in our profession….all around the globe.

It’s been a particular focus here at CJSM since the beginning of the year, when we published two important documents about the subject in the January 2015 issue:  the AMSSM Position Statement on Interventional Musculoskeletal Ultrasound in Sports Medicine and the AMSSM Recommended Sports Ultrasound Curriculum for Sports Medicine Fellowships.

One of the more popular CJSM podcasts we’ve ever produced was the interview I conducted with the lead author of those statements, Jonathan Finnoff, with whom I’m looking forward to catching up at the AMSSM annual meeting taking place this week in Florida.

The issue of ultrasound in sports medicine is not of interest uniquely to Americans, however.  And so I reached out to our newest editorial board member, Junior Associate Editor Dawn Thompson, from the UK, for her perspective from ‘across the pond.’

Dr. Thompson, as well as being a new member of the CJSM Editorial Board, is a member of the  European College of Sports Medicine and Exercise Physicians (ECOSEP) Junior Doctors Committe and a fine writer.  You can expect more guest blog posts coming from here, I’m sure of that.

Thanks Dawn for the post.  And I hope soon to see many of you–reading this post, checking out the position statements, and listening to the podcast–in Florida or elsewhere!


Dawn Thompson

As a newly qualified doctor interested in pursuing a career in the increasingly popular and competitive field of Sports and Exercise Medicine (SEM) I find myself faced with the same decisions and questions I’m sure many of my peers are also troubling over. For any aspiring SEM doctor what is the best route into the specialty? The options are fairly endless: General Practice, Emergency Medicine, Orthopaedics or even General Medicine seem to be on the cards. Should I complete any post graduate course or qualifications and if so which? And of course the holy grail of any individual lusting over a career in SEM – how do I get practical hands on experience with a sports team or professional athletes?! Read more of this post

Sports Ultrasound and the New Year


Chillin’ like Bob Dylan: Folly Beach, Charleston, S.C.

Happy New Year y’all!

Returning from lovely Charleston, South Carolina after a relaxing week, I’ll be able to retain a southern, laid-back lilt to my voice for perhaps a day or two more….As many of you would likely agree, there’s nothing quite as bracing as the need to attend to the post-vacation crunch of full email accounts, urgent work-inbox tasks, and full clinic days!

It certainly makes a difference to return to a job and profession one loves.  Sports medicine:  what would I do without you?

I hope you have had a chance to peruse the new, January 2015 CJSM, which is as full of excellent articles as the aforementioned inboxes.  One of the highlights of the issue is the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine Position Statement on Interventional Radiology, which is currently freely available.  I hope, too, you’ve had a chance to catch the new podcast interview with Dr. Jonathan Finnoff, the lead author of the paper.

As a clinician who currently (and regretfully) does not employ sports ultrasound in my current practice, I’m always curious about those professional colleagues who do.  With that in mind, it’s time for the first poll of the year:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Spondylolysis Part II: Imaging and Radiation Safety

I’ve wanted to return to the issue I wrote about in a blog post a week ago, “Spondylolysis:  Issues of Incidence and Imaging, Part I.”   In that post and this one, I have been primarily looking at a provocative new study published in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, “Imaging Modalities for Low Back Pain in Children:  a Review of Spondylolysis and Undiagnosed Mechanical Back pain.”

spectSingle Photon Emission Computerized Tomography, or SPECT scans, like the image to the left showing bilateral L5 spondylolyses, are highly sensitive for detecting spondylolysis but expose the patient to radiation.  This is something I have known, of course, since training.  In my current practice at Nationwide Children’s Hospital Division of Sports Medicine I and my group of fellow clinicians focus on youth athletes, and so we see large numbers of potential ‘spondys’ and, correspondingly, order a large number of diagnostic images.  In 2012 we saw 548 new patients whose chief complaint was back pain; we ordered 227 SPECT images for ‘back pain’  in that same year.

Read more of this post

MRI scans in Sports Medicine – use or abuse?

There was an interesting article in the New York Times this week that caught my eye, thanks to an alert from our Publisher at CJSM (thanks, Paul!)

In the article by Gina Kolata, a science journalist for the New York Times, Dr James Andrews, of the Andrews Institute for Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, was quoted as saying ‘If you want an excuse to operate on a pitcher’s throwing shoulder, just get an MRI.’

The article claims that Dr Andrews was involved in a piece of research where the pitching shoulders of 31 asymptomatic Professional Baseball pitchers were scanned using MRI, with findings of ‘abnormal shoulder cartilage’ in 90% of the shoulders, and ‘abnormal rotator cuff tendons’ in 87% of the shoulders. There was no indication as to whether or not this research was published.

Other clinicians are subsequently quoted, including Professor Bruce Sangeorzan, Vice Chairman of the Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine at the University of Washington saying ‘an MRI is unlike any other imaging tool we use… It is a very sensitive tool, but it is not very specific. That’s the problem.’

In addition, Professor Christopher DiGiovanni, Sports Medicine and Orthopaedic Specialist at Brown University, is quoted as saying ‘It is very rare for an MRI to come back with the words “normal study” … I can’t tell you the last time I’ve seen it.’

Following quotes from these clinicans, the author goes on to make what some might call a leap of faith in then stating that ‘MRIs are not the only scans that are overused in medicine, but in sports medicine where many injuries involve soft tissues like muscles and tendons, they rise to the fore,’ the statement regarding ‘overuse’ having been drawn, presumably, from inferences from some of the clinicians quoted in the article.

Later on in the article, a retrospective study from 2005 by Bradley and colleagues  of 101 patients with chronic atraumatic shoulder pain is mentioned which examined the effect of pre-evaluation MRI on patient treatment and outcome, and concluded that MRI was not helpful as a screening tool for atraumatic shoulder pain before a comprehensive clinical evaluation of the shoulder.

In addition, another retrospective study from 2007 was mentioned by Tocci and colleagues who set out to prove the alternative hypothesis that rising accessibility of MRI may be resulting in it’s overuse by retrospectively reviewing 221 patients seen over a 3 month period for the treatment of a lower extremity problem. The authors concluded that ‘many of the pre-referral foot or ankle MRI scans obtained before evaluation by a foot and ankle specialist are not necessary.’

The New York Times article certainly seems to have sparked a flame of interest spreading amongst other newspaper and website authors and has been widely quoted in the few days since it has been published.

There is no doubt that there are a number of factors that could lead MRI scans to become overused as an investigation in the assessment of patients seen by Sports Medicine clinicians. These could include improved accessibility to MRI scanners, reduced cost for examinations, inadequate clinician history taking and / or examination skills, laziness on the part of clinicians in performing an appropriate assessment, financial incentives, patient pressure for scans, and defensive medical practice.

However, any clinician worth their salt surely recognises the need for an excellent history, targeted clinical examination, formulation of a differential diagnosis and appropriate investigation on the basis of these.

They would also surely realise issues regarding the sensitivity and specificity of MRI scans for detecting lesions, and the fact that the natural history of some lesions detected by MRI scans that have hitherto been undetectable is not well known, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn from some scans relating to treatment and prognosis.

In addition, the limitations of MRI scanning as a screening tool should also be known by responsible clinicians, although there is no doubt in my mind that some colleagues are using MRI scanning in a non-evidence based way for screening and that this may ultimately lead to unnecessary procedures and psychosocial harm.

I don’t agree with the quote from Dr Andrews implying that if one wants to operate on a pitcher’s shoulder then all one needs to do is order an MRI scan – good surgeons operate on patients, not scans, and should surely follow the time-honoured approach I have highlighted above.

The article by Kolata in the New York Times presents little if any evidence that MRI scans are indeed overused in Sports Medicine, and it is my opinion that the views of a few individuals plus a couple of retrospective studies don’t really form a convincing argument to support the inference in the title of author’s article, that MRIs are indeed overused in Sports Medicine.

It’s interesting that our Specialty was targeted in this article.

Is this a thinly-veiled attack on Sports Medicine clinicians?

What do our readers think?

Leave a Comment

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: