MR arthrography of the shoulder; correlation with arthroscopy.

IF 0.9 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Acta radiologica open Pub Date : 2021-12-03 eCollection Date: 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1177/20584601211062059
Janni Jensen, Maja T Kristensen, Lene Bak, Søren S Kristensen, Ole Graumann
{"title":"MR arthrography of the shoulder; correlation with arthroscopy.","authors":"Janni Jensen,&nbsp;Maja T Kristensen,&nbsp;Lene Bak,&nbsp;Søren S Kristensen,&nbsp;Ole Graumann","doi":"10.1177/20584601211062059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shoulder dislocation is a common injury, particularly in the younger population. Common long-term sequelae include pain, recurrence, and shoulder arthritis. Immediate and correct diagnosis following shoulder dislocation is key to achieving optimum outcomes. Although magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) is frequently used for diagnosing shoulder instabilities, arthroscopy is still considered the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to compare the diagnostic value of arthroscopy and MRA of the shoulder joint.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study estimates the sensitivity and specificity of MRA of the shoulder. Data from patients who had undergone shoulder MRA and subsequent arthroscopy during a 5-year period were retrospectively collected. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using the arthroscopic findings as the gold standard. Moreover, diagnostic accuracy was estimated using McNemar's test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 205 cases were included from which 372 pathological findings were uncovered during the arthroscopic procedures as opposed to 360 findings diagnosed from the MRA images. The glenoid labral tear was the most common finding reported by MRA and arthroscopy. For the detection of glenoid labral tears on MRA, the sensitivity was 0.955 but with eight missed lesions; the specificity was 0.679. Capsular tears, rotator cuff tears, and cartilage lesions proved the most difficult to correctly diagnose using MRA with sensitivities of 0.2, 0.346, and 0.366, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With a sensitivity of 95%, MRA is a valuable diagnostic tool for assessing shoulder instabilities, particularly when diagnosing labral lesions, including bony and soft-tissue Bankart lesions. Sensitivities and specificities for other glenohumeral lesions are less convincing, however.</p>","PeriodicalId":72063,"journal":{"name":"Acta radiologica open","volume":"10 11","pages":"20584601211062059"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/70/21/10.1177_20584601211062059.PMC8646798.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta radiologica open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20584601211062059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Shoulder dislocation is a common injury, particularly in the younger population. Common long-term sequelae include pain, recurrence, and shoulder arthritis. Immediate and correct diagnosis following shoulder dislocation is key to achieving optimum outcomes. Although magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) is frequently used for diagnosing shoulder instabilities, arthroscopy is still considered the gold standard.

Purpose: This study aims to compare the diagnostic value of arthroscopy and MRA of the shoulder joint.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study estimates the sensitivity and specificity of MRA of the shoulder. Data from patients who had undergone shoulder MRA and subsequent arthroscopy during a 5-year period were retrospectively collected. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using the arthroscopic findings as the gold standard. Moreover, diagnostic accuracy was estimated using McNemar's test.

Results: In total, 205 cases were included from which 372 pathological findings were uncovered during the arthroscopic procedures as opposed to 360 findings diagnosed from the MRA images. The glenoid labral tear was the most common finding reported by MRA and arthroscopy. For the detection of glenoid labral tears on MRA, the sensitivity was 0.955 but with eight missed lesions; the specificity was 0.679. Capsular tears, rotator cuff tears, and cartilage lesions proved the most difficult to correctly diagnose using MRA with sensitivities of 0.2, 0.346, and 0.366, respectively.

Conclusions: With a sensitivity of 95%, MRA is a valuable diagnostic tool for assessing shoulder instabilities, particularly when diagnosing labral lesions, including bony and soft-tissue Bankart lesions. Sensitivities and specificities for other glenohumeral lesions are less convincing, however.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

肩关节MR造影术;与关节镜相关。
背景:肩关节脱位是一种常见的损伤,尤其是在年轻人群中。常见的长期后遗症包括疼痛、复发和肩关节关节炎。肩关节脱位后的及时和正确诊断是获得最佳结果的关键。虽然磁共振关节造影(MRA)经常用于诊断肩部不稳定,但关节镜检查仍被认为是金标准。目的:比较关节镜与磁共振成像对肩关节的诊断价值。材料和方法:本回顾性研究估计肩部MRA的敏感性和特异性。回顾性收集了5年期间接受肩部MRA和关节镜检查的患者的数据。以关节镜检查结果为金标准计算灵敏度和特异性。此外,使用McNemar试验估计诊断的准确性。结果:共纳入205例病例,其中372例病理发现是在关节镜检查过程中发现的,而MRA图像诊断的结果为360例。关节盂唇撕裂是MRA和关节镜检查中最常见的发现。MRA检测盂唇撕裂的灵敏度为0.955,漏诊8例;特异性为0.679。肩膜撕裂、肩袖撕裂和软骨病变最难被MRA正确诊断,其敏感性分别为0.2、0.346和0.366。结论:MRA的灵敏度为95%,是评估肩部不稳定性的有价值的诊断工具,特别是在诊断唇部病变时,包括骨和软组织Bankart病变。然而,其他肩关节病变的敏感性和特异性则不那么令人信服。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信