Bryan G Vopat1, Wenli Cai2, Martin Torriani2, Matthew L Vopat3, Murali Hemma2, Gordon J Harris2, Kati Schantz2, Matthew T Provencher4. 1. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, U.S.A. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 3. University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, Kansas, U.S.A.. Electronic address: mvopat@kumc.edu. 4. Steadman Philippon Research Institute and The Steadman, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the measurement of glenoid bone surface area (GBSA) and glenoid bone loss (GBL) between 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) and an autosegmentation approach for 3D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients with recurrent shoulder instability. METHODS: Eight subjects (2 women and 6 men; age range, 15-72 years [mean, 44 ± 19 years]) were consecutively enrolled who had both CT and MRI of the shoulder for clinical shoulder instability. Inclusion criteria were patients with shoulder instability or other shoulder injury who had both a CT scan and MRI performed of the same shoulder. All patients underwent a 3D CT scan and a 3-Tesla 3D MRI with additional volumetric and autosegmented sequences. En face views of the glenoid for both CT and MRI were auto- and manually measured for overall GBSA and GBL using best-fit circle technique; the amount of GBL was compared with loss of GBSA and was expressed as a percentage of bone loss. RESULTS: There were no differences in GBL measured by 3D CT (41 mm2, 6.6%) vs 3D MRI (40 mm2, 6.5%, P = .852). The mean GBSA was not different among the manual- and autocalculated 3D CT (644 mm2 vs 640 mm2, P = .482). In addition, the manual MRI scan glenoid area was similar to the autocalculated 3D MRI (622 mm2 vs 618 mm2, respectively; P = .482). Overall regression analysis demonstrated excellent correlation between CT and MRI for both GBSA and GBL calculations (R2 = 0.84-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: 3D MRI of the glenoid is nearly identical to 3D CT scans for measurement of GBSA and GBL, making 3D MRI a reliable alternative to a CT scan for a preoperative shoulder evaluation of the glenoid pathology. This study shows that a 3D MRI could be a radiation-free and reliable alternative to a preoperative CT shoulder scan. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.
PURPOSE: To compare the measurement of glenoid bone surface area (GBSA) and glenoid bone loss (GBL) between 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) and an autosegmentation approach for 3D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients with recurrent shoulder instability. METHODS: Eight subjects (2 women and 6 men; age range, 15-72 years [mean, 44 ± 19 years]) were consecutively enrolled who had both CT and MRI of the shoulder for clinical shoulder instability. Inclusion criteria were patients with shoulder instability or other shoulder injury who had both a CT scan and MRI performed of the same shoulder. All patients underwent a 3D CT scan and a 3-Tesla 3D MRI with additional volumetric and autosegmented sequences. En face views of the glenoid for both CT and MRI were auto- and manually measured for overall GBSA and GBL using best-fit circle technique; the amount of GBL was compared with loss of GBSA and was expressed as a percentage of bone loss. RESULTS: There were no differences in GBL measured by 3D CT (41 mm2, 6.6%) vs 3D MRI (40 mm2, 6.5%, P = .852). The mean GBSA was not different among the manual- and autocalculated 3D CT (644 mm2 vs 640 mm2, P = .482). In addition, the manual MRI scan glenoid area was similar to the autocalculated 3D MRI (622 mm2 vs 618 mm2, respectively; P = .482). Overall regression analysis demonstrated excellent correlation between CT and MRI for both GBSA and GBL calculations (R2 = 0.84-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: 3D MRI of the glenoid is nearly identical to 3D CT scans for measurement of GBSA and GBL, making 3D MRI a reliable alternative to a CT scan for a preoperative shoulder evaluation of the glenoid pathology. This study shows that a 3D MRI could be a radiation-free and reliable alternative to a preoperative CT shoulder scan. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.
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: 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: 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