PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of multi-detector CT arthrography (CTA) and 1.5-T MR arthrography (MRA) in detecting hyaline cartilage lesions of the shoulder, with arthroscopic correlation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CTA and MRA prospectively obtained in 56 consecutive patients following the same arthrographic procedure were independently evaluated for glenohumeral cartilage lesions (modified Outerbridge grade ≥2 and grade 4) by two musculoskeletal radiologists. The cartilage surface was divided in 18 anatomical areas. Arthroscopy was taken as the reference standard. Diagnostic performance of CTA and MRA was compared using ROC analysis. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was determined by κ statistics. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of CTA varied from 46.4 to 82.4 % and from 89.0 to 95.9 % respectively; sensitivity and specificity of MRA varied from 31.9 to 66.2 % and from 91.1 to 97.5 % respectively. Diagnostic performance of CTA was statistically significantly better than MRA for both readers (all p ≤ 0.04). Interobserver agreement for the evaluation of cartilage lesions was substantial with CTA (κ = 0.63) and moderate with MRA (κ = 0.54). Intraobserver agreement was almost perfect with both CTA (κ = 0.94-0.95) and MRA (κ = 0.83-0.87). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of CTA and MRA for the detection of glenohumeral cartilage lesions is moderate, although statistically significantly better with CTA. KEY POINTS: • CTA has moderate diagnostic performance for detecting glenohumeral cartilage substance loss. • MRA has moderate diagnostic performance for detecting glenohumeral cartilage substance loss. • CTA is more accurate than MRA for detecting cartilage substance loss.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of multi-detector CT arthrography (CTA) and 1.5-T MR arthrography (MRA) in detecting hyaline cartilage lesions of the shoulder, with arthroscopic correlation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CTA and MRA prospectively obtained in 56 consecutive patients following the same arthrographic procedure were independently evaluated for glenohumeral cartilage lesions (modified Outerbridge grade ≥2 and grade 4) by two musculoskeletal radiologists. The cartilage surface was divided in 18 anatomical areas. Arthroscopy was taken as the reference standard. Diagnostic performance of CTA and MRA was compared using ROC analysis. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was determined by κ statistics. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of CTA varied from 46.4 to 82.4 % and from 89.0 to 95.9 % respectively; sensitivity and specificity of MRA varied from 31.9 to 66.2 % and from 91.1 to 97.5 % respectively. Diagnostic performance of CTA was statistically significantly better than MRA for both readers (all p ≤ 0.04). Interobserver agreement for the evaluation of cartilage lesions was substantial with CTA (κ = 0.63) and moderate with MRA (κ = 0.54). Intraobserver agreement was almost perfect with both CTA (κ = 0.94-0.95) and MRA (κ = 0.83-0.87). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of CTA and MRA for the detection of glenohumeral cartilage lesions is moderate, although statistically significantly better with CTA. KEY POINTS: • CTA has moderate diagnostic performance for detecting glenohumeral cartilage substance loss. • MRA has moderate diagnostic performance for detecting glenohumeral cartilage substance loss. • CTA is more accurate than MRA for detecting cartilage substance loss.
Authors: Frédéric E Lecouvet; Paolo Simoni; Sophie Koutaïssoff; Bruno C Vande Berg; Jacques Malghem; Jean-Emile Dubuc Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Patrick Omoumi; Francis R Verdun; Yosr Ben Salah; Bruno C Vande Berg; Frederic E Lecouvet; Jacques Malghem; Julien G Ott; Reto Meuli; Fabio Becce Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Meredith L Hayes; Mark S Collins; Joseph A Morgan; Doris E Wenger; Diane L Dahm Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2010-04-22 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Tobias Johannes Dietrich; Marco Zanetti; Nadja Saupe; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Sandro F Fucentese; Juerg Hodler Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Daniel V Guntern; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Marius R Schmid; Marco Zanetti; Christoph A Binkert; Alberto G Schneeberger; Juerg Hodler Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J A Gagliardi; E M Chung; V P Chandnani; K L Kesling; K P Christensen; R N Null; M G Radvany; M F Hansen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1994-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Giovanni Foti; William Mantovani; Matteo Catania; Paolo Avanzi; Simone Caia; Claudio Zorzi; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 3.469