Welcome to NGC. Skip directly to: Search Box, Navigation, Content.


Brief Summary

GUIDELINE TITLE

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® chronic elbow pain.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • Jacobson JA, Daffner RH, Weissman BN, Bennett DL, Blebea JS, Morrison WB, Resnik CS, Roberts CC, Rubin DA, Schweitzer ME, Seeger LL, Taljanovic M, Wise JN, Haralson RH III, Payne WK, Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® chronic elbow pain. [online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR); 2008. 8 p. [51 references]

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

This guideline updates a previous version: Steinbach LS, Dalinka MK, Daffner RH, DeSmet AA, El-Khoury GY, Kneeland JB, Manaster BJ, Morrison WB, Pavlov H, Rubin DA, Schneider R, Weissman BN, Haralson RH III, Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging. Chronic elbow pain. [online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR); 2005. 5 p. [37 references]

The appropriateness criteria are reviewed annually and updated by the panels as needed, depending on introduction of new and highly significant scientific evidence.

BRIEF SUMMARY CONTENT

 
RECOMMENDATIONS
 EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY
 DISCLAIMER

 Go to the Complete Summary

RECOMMENDATIONS

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

ACR Appropriateness Criteria®

Clinical Condition: Chronic Elbow Pain

Variant 1: Initial evaluation for chronic elbow pain. First test.

Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
X-ray elbow 9   Min
MRI elbow without contrast 1   None
MR arthrography elbow 1   None
CT elbow without contrast 1   Min
CT arthrography elbow 1   Min
US elbow 1   None
NUC Tc-99m bone scan elbow 1   Med
Rating Scale: 1=Least appropriate, 9=Most appropriate *Relative Radiation Level

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 2: Suspect intra-articular osteocartilaginous body; radiographs nondiagnostic.

Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MRI elbow without contrast 9 Either routine MRI or MR arthrogram is appropriate. Depends on availability, expertise, and local conditions. If effusion is present, without contrast is preferred. None
MR arthrography elbow 9 Either routine MRI or MR arthrogram is appropriate. Depends on availability, expertise, and local conditions. See comments regarding contrast in the text below under "Anticipated Exceptions." None
CT elbow without contrast 8   Min
CT arthrography elbow 8 If double contrast is used, dose of less than 0.5 cc of contrast should be used. Min
US elbow 6 With appropriate expertise. None
NUC Tc-99m bone scan elbow 1   Med
Rating Scale: 1=Least appropriate, 9=Most appropriate *Relative Radiation Level

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 3: Suspect occult injury; e.g., osteochondral injury; radiographs nondiagnostic.

Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MRI elbow without contrast 9   None
CT elbow without contrast 2   Min
MR arthrography elbow 2   None
CT arthrography elbow 2   Min
NUC Tc-99m bone scan elbow 2   Med
US elbow 1   None
Rating Scale: 1=Least appropriate, 9=Most appropriate *Relative Radiation Level

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 4: Suspect unstable osteochondral injury; radiographs nondiagnostic.

Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MRI elbow without contrast 9 Either routine MRI or MR arthrogram is appropriate. Depends on availability, expertise, and local conditions. None
MR arthrography elbow 9 Either routine MRI or MR arthrogram is appropriate. Depends on availability, expertise, and local conditions. See comments regarding contrast in the text below under "Anticipated Exceptions." None
CT arthrography elbow 8 If MR is contraindicated or not available. Min
CT elbow without contrast 2   Min
US elbow 1   None
NUC Tc-99m bone scan elbow 1   Med
Rating Scale: 1=Least appropriate, 9=Most appropriate *Relative Radiation Level

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 5: Suspect mass; radiographs nondiagnostic.

Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MRI elbow with contrast 9 See comments regarding contrast in the text below under "Anticipated Exceptions." None
US elbow 5 An alternative to MRI if expertise is available. None
NUC Tc-99m bone scan elbow 2   Med
CT elbow without and with contrast 2   Min
CT arthrography elbow 1   Min
MR arthrography elbow 1   None
Rating Scale: 1=Least appropriate, 9=Most appropriate *Relative Radiation Level

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 6: Suspect chronic epicondylitis; radiographs nondiagnostic.

Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MRI elbow without contrast 9   None
US elbow 8 An alternative to MRI if expertise is available None
MR arthrography elbow 2   None
CT elbow without contrast 1   Min
CT arthrography elbow 1   Min
NUC Tc-99m bone scan elbow 1   Med
Rating Scale: 1=Least appropriate, 9=Most appropriate *Relative Radiation Level

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 7: Suspect collateral ligament tear; radiographs nondiagnostic.

Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MR arthrography elbow 9 Either routine MRI or MR arthrogram is appropriate. Depends on availability, expertise, and local conditions. See comments regarding contrast in the text below under "Anticipated Exceptions." None
MRI elbow without contrast 9 Either routine MRI or MR arthrogram is appropriate. Depends on availability, expertise, and local conditions. None
US elbow 6 An alternative to MRI if expertise is available. None
CT arthrography elbow 5   Min
CT elbow without contrast 2   Min
NUC Tc-99m bone scan elbow 1   Med
Rating Scale: 1=Least appropriate, 9=Most appropriate *Relative Radiation Level

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 8: Suspect biceps tendon tear and/or bursitis; radiographs nondiagnostic.

Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MRI elbow without contrast 9   None
US elbow 8 An alternative to MRI if expertise is available. None
MR arthrography elbow 1   None
CT elbow without contrast 1   Min
CT arthrography elbow 1   Min
NUC Tc-99m bone scan elbow 1   Med
Rating Scale: 1=Least appropriate, 9=Most appropriate *Relative Radiation Level

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 9: Suspect nerve abnormality; radiographs nondiagnostic.

Radiologic Procedure Rating Comments RRL*
MRI elbow without contrast 9   None
US elbow 8 An alternative to MRI if expertise is available. Dynamic US is ideal for assessing ulnar nerve dislocation and snapping triceps syndrome. None
MR arthrography elbow 1   None
CT elbow without contrast 1   Min
CT arthrography elbow 1   Min
NUC Tc-99m bone scan elbow 1   Med
Rating Scale: 1=Least appropriate, 9=Most appropriate *Relative Radiation Level

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Summary of Literature Review

Chronic elbow pain may be caused by a variety of osseous abnormalities, soft-tissue abnormalities, or both. Exclusion of an osseous abnormality with radiographs may be helpful when conservative therapy is planned. In some cases, radiographs may reveal the cause of the problem (e.g., intra-articular osteocartilaginous body, calcification around the joint in the form of hydroxyapatite deposition or calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition). When the etiology of the chronic pain is uncertain and the patient has failed appropriate conservative therapeutic trials, (e.g., anti-inflammatory medication, physical therapy, and/or corticosteroid injection), other imaging studies may be considered. While imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) may be used for specific indications, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be used to display most abnormalities in the elbow. The success of US varies depending on the training and experience of the person performing the examination, as well as the ultrasound equipment. Imaging choices will be considered for a variety of clinical conditions.

Osteochondral Lesion or Intra-articular Body

Radiographs are required before other imaging studies and may be diagnostic for osteochondral fracture, osteochondritis dissecans, and osteocartilaginous intra-articular body (IAB). CT, as well as CT arthrography with single-contrast (iodinated contrast or air) and double-contrast (iodinated contrast and air) techniques have been used for detecting an osteochondral lesion or IAB. All of these studies have limitations; a small IAB may be obscured by contrast or confused with air bubbles (double-contrast arthrography). A CT air arthrogram can avoid confusion of air bubbles with IABs. MRI has been advocated as the initial study for suspected osteochondral fracture or IAB. Regardless of method, detection of an IAB is limited by its size and location within the elbow joint, although detection is enhanced by the presence of joint effusion. Both CT and MRI can assess for osteochondral fragment stability. MRI following direct intra-articular contrast administration is preferred to routine MRI for diagnosing IAB and may also play a role in improving diagnosis of stability of an osteochondral lesion. While US may show osteochondral abnormalities in some situations, MRI offers a more comprehensive evaluation of them.

Other Osseous Abnormalities

There are a number of other osseous abnormalities about the elbow that may cause chronic elbow pain; initial evaluation should begin with radiography. Both traumatic and stress fractures may be identified with MRI and bone scan. Osteoid osteomas may produce synovitis if intra-articular and can be identified with MRI, CT, or bone scan. Primary bone tumors are characterized with radiography and MRI before and after intravenous gadolinium administration. While the extent of osseous metastatic disease is assessed with bone scan, MRI will evaluate local extent.

Tendon, Ligament, Muscle, Nerve, or Other Soft-Tissue Abnormality

MRI may provide important diagnostic information for evaluating the elbow in many different conditions, including collateral ligament injury, epicondylitis, injury to the biceps and triceps tendons, and abnormality of the ulnar, radial, or median nerve, and for evaluating masses about the elbow joint. There is a lack of studies showing the sensitivity and specificity of MRI in many of these conditions; most of the studies demonstrate MRI findings in patients either known or highly likely to have a specific condition. US has been shown to be helpful for diagnosing abnormalities of the distal biceps tendon, flexor and extensor tendons, and ligaments, providing an alternative to MRI.

Radiographs can be useful to identify heterotopic calcification (ossification) of the ulnar collateral ligament. This finding may be associated with partial or complete tears of that structure. Avulsion of the ulnar collateral ligament at the insertion site on the ulna is a source of chronic medial elbow pain in the throwing athlete. While US has been shown to detect medial epicondylar fragmentation of the humerus in throwing athletes, this finding is optimally evaluated with a combination of radiographs and coronal MRI. MR arthrography has been advocated to distinguish complete tears from partial tears of the medial collateral ligament, and it improves detection of ulnar collateral ligament tears.

With use of appropriate pulse sequences, MRI is an effective tool in the preoperative diagnosis of posterolateral rotatory instability. This includes assessment of the ulnar band of the lateral collateral ligament. Epicondylitis--caused by tendon degeneration and tear of the common extensor tendon laterally ("tennis elbow") or common flexor tendon medially (in pitchers, golfers, and tennis players)--is a common clinical diagnosis, and imaging is usually not necessary. MRI or US may be useful for confirming the diagnosis in refractory cases and to exclude associated tendon and ligament tear.

Bicipitoradial and interosseous bursitis around the distal biceps tendon is a source of elbow pain that can be assessed with MRI or US. MRI also demonstrates the effects of the bursa on adjacent structures, including the posterior interosseous and median nerves. MRI effectively characterizes a soft-tissue mass, showing its extent and differentiating between intra-articular mass, lymph node (as in cat scratch disease), pseudomass from tendon tear, and other soft-tissue masses.

The ulnar nerve is particularly vulnerable to trauma from a direct blow in the region of its superficial location in the restricted space of the cubital tunnel. Anatomic variations of the cubital tunnel retinaculum may contribute to ulnar neuropathy. Axial T1-weighted images have been shown to depict the size and shape of the nerve, and axial T2-weighted or STIR images may show increased signal in the presence of neuritis, and both are more sensitive than conventional nerve conduction studies. US may also show ulnar nerve enlargement and when added to electrodiagnostic tests, increases sensitivity for the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow from 78% to 98%. A snapping of the medial head of the triceps can cause recurrent dislocation of the ulnar nerve. This diagnosis can be confirmed with MRI or CT using axial images with the elbow in flexion and extension. US is ideal for dynamic assessment of ulnar nerve subluxation and dislocation, as well as for confirmation of snapping triceps syndrome. Radial nerve and median nerve entrapment syndromes may also be evaluated with MRI.

Chronic elbow pain may also be caused by a number of joint-related processes, such as inflammatory arthritis (and chronic infection), as well as other synovial proliferative disorders. Evaluation begins with radiography to assess for joint distention and erosions. MRI can also show erosions, and is effective in characterizing synovitis (low signal suggests hemosiderin) and the extent and activity of disease. In the setting of rheumatoid arthritis, US can be used to detect joint effusion, synovitis, and erosions.

Summary

Initial evaluation of chronic elbow pain should begin with radiography. Chondral and osteochondral abnormalities can be further evaluated with MRI or CT, although the addition of arthrography is helpful. Radiographically occult bone abnormalities can be detected with MRI. Soft-tissue abnormalities (tendon, ligament, nerve, joint recess) are well-demonstrated with MRI or US. Dynamic assessment with US is effective for diagnosing nerve or muscle subluxation.

Anticipated Exceptions

Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF, also known as nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy) was first identified in 1997 and has recently generated substantial concern among radiologists, referring doctors and lay people. Until the last few years, gadolinium-based MR contrast agents were widely believed to be almost universally well tolerated, extremely safe and non-nephrotoxic, even when used in patients with impaired renal function. All available experience suggests that these agents remain generally very safe, but recently some patients with renal failure who have been exposed to gadolinium contrast agents (the percentage is unclear) have developed NSF, a syndrome that can be fatal. Further studies are necessary to determine what the exact relationships are between gadolinium-containing contrast agents, their specific components and stoichiometry, patient renal function and NSF. Current theory links the development of NSF to the administration of relatively high doses (e.g., >0.2mM/kg) and to agents in which the gadolinium is least strongly chelated. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently issued a "black box" warning concerning these contrast agents (http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/InfoSheets/HCP/gcca_200705HCP.pdf)

This warning recommends that, until further information is available, gadolinium contrast agents should not be administered to patients with either acute or significant chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <30 mL/min/1.73m2), recent liver or kidney transplant or hepato-renal syndrome, unless a risk-benefit assessment suggests that the benefit of administration in the particular patient clearly outweighs the potential risk(s).

Abbreviations

  • CT, computed tomography
  • Med, medium
  • Min, minimal
  • MR, magnetic resonance
  • MRI, magnetic resonance imaging
  • NUC, nuclear medicine
  • Tc, technetium
  • US, ultrasound

Relative Radiation Level Effective Dose Estimated Range
None 0
Minimal <0.1 mSv
Low 0.1-1 mSv
Medium 1-10 mSv
High 10-100 mSv

CLINICAL ALGORITHM(S)

None provided

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

TYPE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations are based on analysis of the current literature and expert panel consensus.

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • Jacobson JA, Daffner RH, Weissman BN, Bennett DL, Blebea JS, Morrison WB, Resnik CS, Roberts CC, Rubin DA, Schweitzer ME, Seeger LL, Taljanovic M, Wise JN, Haralson RH III, Payne WK, Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® chronic elbow pain. [online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR); 2008. 8 p. [51 references]

ADAPTATION

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

DATE RELEASED

1998 (revised 2008)

GUIDELINE DEVELOPER(S)

American College of Radiology - Medical Specialty Society

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING

The American College of Radiology (ACR) provided the funding and the resources for these ACR Appropriateness Criteria®.

GUIDELINE COMMITTEE

Committee on Appropriateness Criteria, Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging

COMPOSITION OF GROUP THAT AUTHORED THE GUIDELINE

Panel Members: Jon A. Jacobson, MD; Richard H. Daffner, MD; Barbara N. Weissman, MD; D. Lee Bennett, MD; Judy S. Blebea, MD; William B. Morrison, MD; Charles S. Resnik, MD; Catherine C. Roberts, MD; David A. Rubin, MD; Mark E. Schweitzer, MD; Leanne L. Seeger, MD; Mihra Taljanovic, MD; James N. Wise, MD; Robert H. Haralson III, MD; William K. Payne, MD

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Not stated

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

This guideline updates a previous version: Steinbach LS, Dalinka MK, Daffner RH, DeSmet AA, El-Khoury GY, Kneeland JB, Manaster BJ, Morrison WB, Pavlov H, Rubin DA, Schneider R, Weissman BN, Haralson RH III, Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging. Chronic elbow pain. [online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR); 2005. 5 p. [37 references]

The appropriateness criteria are reviewed annually and updated by the panels as needed, depending on introduction of new and highly significant scientific evidence.

GUIDELINE AVAILABILITY

Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the American College of Radiology (ACR) Web site.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Anytime, Anywhere™ (PDA application). Available from the ACR Web site.

Print copies: Available from the American College of Radiology, 1891 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 20191. Telephone: (703) 648-8900.

AVAILABILITY OF COMPANION DOCUMENTS

PATIENT RESOURCES

None available

NGC STATUS

This summary was completed by ECRI on May 6, 2001. The information was verified by the guideline developer as of June 29, 2001. This summary was updated by ECRI on July 31, 2002. The updated information was verified by the guideline developer on October 1, 2002. This NGC summary was updated by ECRI on January 4, 2006. The updated information was verified by the guideline developer on January 19, 2006. This summary was updated by ECRI Institute on June 25, 2009.

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

DISCLAIMER

NGC DISCLAIMER

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion.aspx .

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.


 

 

   
DHHS Logo