{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03332188251459979, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03710065269666781, 'mean_word_length': 5.24892703862661, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Application of ultrasound for evaluation of anterosuperior acetabular labral tear].

OBJECTIVE
To explore the value of ultrasound in the diagnosis of anterosuperior acetabular labral tear.


METHODS
A total of 102 patients [(42 males and 60 females, age from 13 to 60 years, average age was (35.14±9.16) years] with suspected anterosuperior acetabular labral tear were included in this study, including 44 left hip joints and 58 right hip joints. All the patients received hip joint ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation before arthroscopy surgery. Using arthroscopy as golden standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy between ultrasound and MRI were calculated and compared.


RESULTS
There were 91 antero-superior acetabular labral tears of 102 patients which were confirmed during arthroscopy surgery. Sixty-nine patients were diagnosed correctly by ultrasound, including 60 anterosuperior acetabular labral tears and 9 with no acetabular labral tears, whereas 2 were false-positive and 31 were found to be false-negative. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy by ultrasound were respectively 65.93%, 81.82%, 96.77%, 22.50% and 67.65%. In contrast, seventy-seven patients were diagnosed correctly by MRI, including 70 anterosuperior acetabular labral tears and 7 with no acetabular labral tears, whereas 4 were false-positive and 21 were found to be false-negative. For MRI, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were respectively 76.92%, 63.64%, 94.59%, 25.00% and 75.49%. The results of ultrasound and MRI were in accordance in 68 of the 102 patients. There were 51 anterosuperior acetabular labral tears of the 68 patients who were diagnosed by both ultrasound and MRI, whereas there were 17 with no acetabular labral tears of the 68 patients who were diagnosed by both ultrasound and MRI. The results of ultrasound and MRI were inconsistent in 34 of the 102 patients. In 11 of the 34 patients, in which case ultrasound diagnosed anterosuperior acetabular labral tear, MRI found no acetabular labral tear. Whereas, in 23 of the 34 patients, in which case MRI diagnosed anterosuperior acetabular labral tear, ultrasound found no acetabular labral tear. As compared with MRI findings, ultrasound had a lower accuracy for anterosuperior acetabular labral tear than MRI, there was statistical difference on the accuracy for anterosuperior acetabular labral tear (P<0.01).


CONCLUSION
Although ultrasound had a slightly lower sensitivity for anterosuperior acetabular labral tear, it had a higher specificity than MRI. Dynamic evaluation of antero-superior acetabular labral tear is an advantage of ultrasound. Ultrasound could be used as a feasible method to evaluate anterosuperior acetabular labral tear.