OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard for evaluating glenoid bone loss in patients with glenohumeral dislocations. The aim of this study was to verify if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can quantify the area of bone loss without any significant difference from CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients, who had experienced one or more post-traumatic unilateral glenohumeral dislocations, underwent MRI and CT. MR and multiplanar reconstruction CT images were acquired in the sagittal plane: the glenoid area and the area of bone loss were calculated using the PICO method. Mean values, percentages, Cohen's kappa coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were all used to confirm the working hypothesis. RESULTS: The mean glenoid surface area was 575.29 mm(2) as measured by MRI, and 573.76 mm(2) as measured by CT; the calculated mean glenoid bone loss was respectively 4.38% and 4.34%. The interobserver agreement was good (k>0.81), and the coefficient of variance was 5% of the mean value using both methods. The two series of measurements were within two standard deviations of each other. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a valid alternative to CT for measuring glenoid bone loss in patients with glenohumeral dislocation.
OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard for evaluating glenoid bone loss in patients with glenohumeral dislocations. The aim of this study was to verify if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can quantify the area of bone loss without any significant difference from CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients, who had experienced one or more post-traumatic unilateral glenohumeral dislocations, underwent MRI and CT. MR and multiplanar reconstruction CT images were acquired in the sagittal plane: the glenoid area and the area of bone loss were calculated using the PICO method. Mean values, percentages, Cohen's kappa coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were all used to confirm the working hypothesis. RESULTS: The mean glenoid surface area was 575.29 mm(2) as measured by MRI, and 573.76 mm(2) as measured by CT; the calculated mean glenoid bone loss was respectively 4.38% and 4.34%. The interobserver agreement was good (k>0.81), and the coefficient of variance was 5% of the mean value using both methods. The two series of measurements were within two standard deviations of each other. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a valid alternative to CT for measuring glenoid bone loss in patients with glenohumeral dislocation.
Authors: Matthew T Provencher; Sanjeev Bhatia; Neil S Ghodadra; Robert C Grumet; Bernard R Bach; Christopher B Dewing; Lance LeClere; Anthony A Romeo Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Pol E Huijsmans; Pieter S Haen; Martin Kidd; Wouter J Dhert; Victor P M van der Hulst; W Jaap Willems Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Timothy S Mologne; Matthew T Provencher; Kyle A Menzel; Tyler A Vachon; Christopher B Dewing Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Troy D Bornes; Jacob L Jaremko; Lauren A Beaupre; Martin J Bouliane Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Alexander E Weber; Ioanna K Bolia; Andrew Horn; Diego Villacis; Reza Omid; James E Tibone; Eric White; George F Hatch Journal: Clin Orthop Surg Date: 2021-03-09
Authors: Peter N Chalmers; Bradley Hillyard; Jun Kawakami; Garrett Christensen; Dillon O'Neill; Victoria Childress; Robert Z Tashjian Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-05-30