Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Musculoskeletal ultrasound: changing times, changing practice?
  1. Bruce B Forster,
  2. Mark Cresswell
  1. Department of Radiology, Vancouver General and St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Bruce B Forster MD FRCPC, Professor and Head, UBC Department of Radiology, Room 3350-950 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver BC, Canada V5Z 4E3; bruce.forster{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The paper by Finnoff et al (see page 1144) is an important first step in formalising a detailed curriculum for ultrasound (US) education for sports medicine fellows.1 It is also advantageous in that it is based on the existing American Institute for Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) curriculum, as this agency has a wealth of experience in sports medicine.

As radiologists, we are acutely aware of the great value of sonographic assessment of musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries. Non-radiologist clinicians have also recognised this utility, and begun to use laptop-sized US units which are able to achieve an image quality that is satisfactory for examining MSK systems as long as high-frequency (10–12 MHz) probes are utilised. The more recent availability of truly hand-held units has generated even greater interest in sonographic augmentation of the physical examination, although currently these ultraportable machines are used mainly for basic assessment of, for example, free fluid in the abdomen in trauma cases, and are not designated by the vendors for MSK use. Other advantages of US, such as a lack of ionising radiation, ability to perform a dynamic examination, high spatial resolution and ability to guide intervention, further exemplify this modality's important role in …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.