Adam B Yanke1, Jason J Shin2, Ian Pearson3, Bernard R Bach4, Anthony A Romeo4, Brian J Cole4, Nikhil N Verma4. 1. Sports Medicine Division, Department of Orthopaedics, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.. Electronic address: Adam.Yanke@RushOrtho.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. 3. Rush University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 4. Sports Medicine Division, Department of Orthopaedics, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the ability of 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, 1.5 and 3 tesla [T]) to quantify glenoid bone loss in a cadaveric model compared with the current gold standard, 3D computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Six cadaveric shoulders were used to create a bone loss model, leaving the surrounding soft tissues intact. The anteroposterior (AP) dimension of the glenoid was measured at the glenoid equator and after soft tissue layer closure the specimen underwent scanning (CT, 1.5-T MRI, and 3-T MRI) with the following methods (0%, 10%, and 25% defect by area). Raw axial data from the scans were segmented using manual mask manipulation for bone and reconstructed using Mimics software to obtain a 3D en face glenoid view. Using calibrated Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine images, the diameter of the glenoid at the equator and the area of the glenoid defect was measured on all imaging modalities. RESULTS: In specimens with 10% or 25% defects, no difference was detected between imaging modalities when comparing the measured defect size (10% defect P = .27, 25% defect P = .73). All 3 modalities demonstrated a strong correlation with the actual defect size (CT, ρ = .97; 1.5-T MRI, ρ = .93; 3-T MRI, ρ = .92, P < .0001). When looking at the absolute difference between the actual and measured defect area, no significance was noted between imaging modalities (10% defect P = .34, 25% defect P = .47). The error of 3-T 3D MRI increased with increasing defect size (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Both 1.5- and 3-T-based 3D MRI reconstructions of glenoid bone loss correlate with measurements from 3D CT scan data and actual defect size in a cadaveric model. Regardless of imaging modality, the error in bone loss measurement tends to increase with increased defect size. Use of 3D MRI in the setting of shoulder instability could obviate the need for CT scans. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The goal of our work was to develop a reproducible method of determining glenoid bone loss from 3D MRI data and hence eliminate the need for CT scans in this setting. This will lead to decreased cost of care as well as decreased radiation exposure to patients. The long-term goal is a fully automated system that is as approachable for clinicians as current 3D CT technology.
PURPOSE: To assess the ability of 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, 1.5 and 3 tesla [T]) to quantify glenoid bone loss in a cadaveric model compared with the current gold standard, 3D computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Six cadaveric shoulders were used to create a bone loss model, leaving the surrounding soft tissues intact. The anteroposterior (AP) dimension of the glenoid was measured at the glenoid equator and after soft tissue layer closure the specimen underwent scanning (CT, 1.5-T MRI, and 3-T MRI) with the following methods (0%, 10%, and 25% defect by area). Raw axial data from the scans were segmented using manual mask manipulation for bone and reconstructed using Mimics software to obtain a 3D en face glenoid view. Using calibrated Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine images, the diameter of the glenoid at the equator and the area of the glenoid defect was measured on all imaging modalities. RESULTS: In specimens with 10% or 25% defects, no difference was detected between imaging modalities when comparing the measured defect size (10% defect P = .27, 25% defect P = .73). All 3 modalities demonstrated a strong correlation with the actual defect size (CT, ρ = .97; 1.5-T MRI, ρ = .93; 3-T MRI, ρ = .92, P < .0001). When looking at the absolute difference between the actual and measured defect area, no significance was noted between imaging modalities (10% defect P = .34, 25% defect P = .47). The error of 3-T 3D MRI increased with increasing defect size (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Both 1.5- and 3-T-based 3D MRI reconstructions of glenoid bone loss correlate with measurements from 3D CT scan data and actual defect size in a cadaveric model. Regardless of imaging modality, the error in bone loss measurement tends to increase with increased defect size. Use of 3D MRI in the setting of shoulder instability could obviate the need for CT scans. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The goal of our work was to develop a reproducible method of determining glenoid bone loss from 3D MRI data and hence eliminate the need for CT scans in this setting. This will lead to decreased cost of care as well as decreased radiation exposure to patients. The long-term goal is a fully automated system that is as approachable for clinicians as current 3D CT technology.
Authors: Madeleine A Salesky; Alan L Zhang; C Benjamin Ma; Brian T Feeley; Valentina Pedoia; Drew A Lansdown Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-02-13
Authors: Thomas D Alter; Derrick M Knapik; Martina Guidetti; Alejandro Espinoza; Jorge Chahla; Shane J Nho; Philip Malloy Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Thomas D Alter; Philip Malloy; Alex C Newhouse; Sunikom Suppauksorn; Alejandro Espinzoa Orias; Jorge Chahla; Nozomu Inoue; Shane J Nho Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-09-27
Authors: Peter N Chalmers; Garrett V Christensen; Hiroaki Ishikawa; Heath B Henninger; Eugene G Kholmovski; Megan Mills; Robert Z Tashjian Journal: JSES Int Date: 2021-12-11
Authors: Audrey Delage Royle; Frédéric Balg; Martin J Bouliane; Fanny Canet-Silvestri; Laurianne Garant-Saine; David M Sheps; Peter Lapner; Dominique M Rouleau Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2017-10-30
Authors: Mateusz C Florkow; Koen Willemsen; Vasco V Mascarenhas; Edwin H G Oei; Marijn van Stralen; Peter R Seevinck Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 5.119