Thanks Steve, I was led to believe that echogenic linear lines = linear calcifications hence why I called it a “delamination calc” but I should be very careful calling something a “linear calc”.
I have a couple of questions:
1) Are calcifications considered dystrophic IF there are signs of granulation tissue (like the 1st video labelled “subscap-calc-and-delamination”) and/or signs of tendinosis.
If it is just a sole calcification with no tendinopathy, do you just call it a hydroxyapatite deposit?
2) Is the term delamination just another word for linear/longitudinal?
Im just a bit confused because the first video has a calcification with associated granulation tissue but the calc doesn’t look linear, rather oval shape to me? Maybe I’m thinking too much in the naming of the video.
3) What is essentially the difference between granulation tissue and a true linear hydroxyapatite deposit on Ultrasound?
In the video “subscap-delammm-calcium”, the delamination calc definitely looks thicker/bulkier? Since granulation tissue is linear and extends to the enthesis, are linear hydroxyapatite deposits more randomly distributed?
Or is an x-ray absolutely required to distinguish the two?
4) Also for the case I posted above, How would you describe it? Just trying to see how I can improve my ultrasound reports.
I would put on the worksheet “There appears to be a delamination tear involving the mid subscapularis fibres measuring 3 x 1 mm. Linear granulation tissue is seen in the inferior subscapularis fibres”.
Or would you not bother writing linear granulation tissue and just classify it under general enthesopathic changes?
Thanks for reading my word vomit
🙂