COMPARISON OF ULTRASOUND-GUIDED LAVAGE AND SUBACROMIAL BURSA INJECTION FOR CALCIFIC TENDINITIS: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND TRIAL.
rct · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42364757.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2026.06.019.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare ultrasound (US)-guided subacromial bursa injection (SBI) and USG-guided lavage in calcific tendinitis with clinical and ultrasonographic findings. Double-blind, block-randomized controlled study with a one-month follow-up period. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department of a University Hospital PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one patients with calcific tendinitis resistant to conservative treatment were included. The first group (n=15) received both US-guided lavage and SBI, while the second group (n=16) received only US-guided SBI. Patients were evaluated at baseline and one month after the procedures. Clinical measures included the Constant shoulder score (CSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, and pain intensity via a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for resting, movement, and night pain. Ultrasonographic measures included calcific deposit size, shape, acoustic shadowing, and power Doppler activity. After treatment, both groups demonstrated significant improvements in CSS (SBI: +16.18 ± 19.74; lavage: +17.06 ± 9.78), SDQ (-26.67 ± 30.14 vs. -31.93 ± 23.80) and Quick DASH (19.62 ± 18.27 vs. -29.39 ± 17.51), with no intergroup differences (p>0.05). A significant decrease in resting pain, assessed by the NRS, was observed only in the lavage group (3.00 ± 2.96, p<0.05), while the SBI group did not show a statistically significant change in resting pain (p>0.05). No significant differences were found between the groups in NRS scores for pain during shoulder movement and night pain. Ultrasonographically, lavage group demonstrated a significant reduction in deposit size (5.75±4.64 cm, p<0.01) and acoustic shadowing (p<0.05), while the subacromial group showed no significant changes in these parameters (p>0.05). Both treatment methods provided clinical improvement in the early period. However, lavage was significantly more effective in reducing resting pain, decreasing calcific deposit size, and minimizing acoustic shadowing on ultrasound.