MRI versus CT for glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Emanuela Mendes Junqueira de Barros, Renata Vidal Leão, Sarah Verdan, Marília da Cruz Fagundes, Bruno Murad, Gustavo da Fonseca Monjardim, Thiago de Gautier Oliveira do Amarante de Paulo, Stephan Altmayer, Giovanni Brondani Torri
{"title":"MRI versus CT for glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Emanuela Mendes Junqueira de Barros, Renata Vidal Leão, Sarah Verdan, Marília da Cruz Fagundes, Bruno Murad, Gustavo da Fonseca Monjardim, Thiago de Gautier Oliveira do Amarante de Paulo, Stephan Altmayer, Giovanni Brondani Torri","doi":"10.1007/s00256-025-05029-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically assess whether MRI-based measurements of glenoid bone loss (GBL) are comparable to CT in patients with shoulder instability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase for studies comparing GBL measurements between CT and MRI through May 16, 2024. We performed subgroup analyses based on 2D versus 3D imaging and linear versus area measurement methods. We conducted statistical analysis using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1, applying a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies were included, totaling 492 shoulders. Of these, 119 shoulders were evaluated using 3D MRI versus 3D CT, 126 using 2D MRI versus 2D CT, 292 using the linear method, and 149 using the area method. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in GBL measurements between MRI and CT (mean difference -0.05; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.15; p = 0.61). Subgroup analyses also showed no significant differences (p = 0.94 for 3D, p = 0.14 for 2D, p = 0.67 for linear, p = 0.46 for area, and p = 0.51 comparing linear vs area methods).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MRI provides GBL measurements comparable to CT across various imaging protocols including 2D and 3D approaches and the linear and area methods. MRI may be sufficient as the sole imaging modality for comprehensive preoperative evaluation in patients with shoulder instability.</p>","PeriodicalId":21783,"journal":{"name":"Skeletal Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Skeletal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-025-05029-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To systematically assess whether MRI-based measurements of glenoid bone loss (GBL) are comparable to CT in patients with shoulder instability.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase for studies comparing GBL measurements between CT and MRI through May 16, 2024. We performed subgroup analyses based on 2D versus 3D imaging and linear versus area measurement methods. We conducted statistical analysis using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1, applying a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference.

Results: Eleven studies were included, totaling 492 shoulders. Of these, 119 shoulders were evaluated using 3D MRI versus 3D CT, 126 using 2D MRI versus 2D CT, 292 using the linear method, and 149 using the area method. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in GBL measurements between MRI and CT (mean difference -0.05; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.15; p = 0.61). Subgroup analyses also showed no significant differences (p = 0.94 for 3D, p = 0.14 for 2D, p = 0.67 for linear, p = 0.46 for area, and p = 0.51 comparing linear vs area methods).

Conclusions: MRI provides GBL measurements comparable to CT across various imaging protocols including 2D and 3D approaches and the linear and area methods. MRI may be sufficient as the sole imaging modality for comprehensive preoperative evaluation in patients with shoulder instability.

肩关节不稳定患者肩关节骨丢失的MRI与CT对比:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:系统评估肩关节不稳定患者中基于mri的肩关节骨丢失(GBL)测量是否与CT相当。方法:我们检索了PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science和Embase,以比较2024年5月16日CT和MRI之间GBL测量的研究。我们进行了基于二维与三维成像和线性与面积测量方法的亚组分析。我们使用Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4.1版本进行统计分析,采用随机效应模型计算均值差。结果:纳入11项研究,共492个肩。其中,119例肩部采用3D MRI对比3D CT, 126例采用2D MRI对比2D CT, 292例采用线性方法,149例采用面积法。合并分析显示MRI和CT在GBL测量上无显著差异(平均差异为-0.05;95% CI: -0.26 ~ 0.15; p = 0.61)。亚组分析也显示无显著差异(3D方法p = 0.94, 2D方法p = 0.14,线性方法p = 0.67,面积方法p = 0.46,线性方法与面积方法比较p = 0.51)。结论:MRI提供了与CT相当的GBL测量,包括2D和3D方法以及线性和面积方法。MRI可能足以作为唯一的影像学手段,对肩关节不稳患者进行全面的术前评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Skeletal Radiology
Skeletal Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.50%
发文量
253
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Skeletal Radiology provides a forum for the dissemination of current knowledge and information dealing with disorders of the musculoskeletal system including the spine. While emphasizing the radiological aspects of the many varied skeletal abnormalities, the journal also adopts an interdisciplinary approach, reflecting the membership of the International Skeletal Society. Thus, the anatomical, pathological, physiological, clinical, metabolic and epidemiological aspects of the many entities affecting the skeleton receive appropriate consideration. This is the Journal of the International Skeletal Society and the Official Journal of the Society of Skeletal Radiology and the Australasian Musculoskelelal Imaging Group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信