Ricardo Andrade Fernandes de Mello1, Ya-Jun Ma2, Aria Ashir2, Saeed Jerban2, Heinz Hoenecke3, Michael Carl4, Jiang Du2, Eric Y Chang5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, California; Department of Internal Medicine, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil. Electronic address: ricardoafmello@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, California. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California. 4. GE Healthcare, San Diego, California. 5. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, California; Radiology Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the 3-dimensional (3D) zero echo time (ZTE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique and compare it with 3D computed tomography (CT) for the assessment of the glenoid bone. METHODS: ZTE MRI using multiple resolutions and multislice CT were performed in 6 shoulder specimens before and after creation of glenoid defects and in 10 glenohumeral instability patients. Two musculoskeletal radiologists independently generated 3D volume-rendered images of the glenoid en face. Post-processing times and glenoid widths were measured. Inter-modality and inter-rater agreement was assessed. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for inter-modality assessment showed almost perfect agreement for both readers, ranging from 0.949 to 0.991 for the ex vivo study and from 0.955 to 0.987 for the in vivo patients. Excellent interobserver agreement was found for both the ex vivo (ICCs ≥ 0.98) and in vivo (ICCs ≥ 0.92) studies. For the ex vivo study, Bland-Altman analyses for CT versus MRI showed a mean difference of 0.6 to 1 mm at 1.0-mm3 MRI resolution, 0.3 to 0.6 mm at 0.8-mm3 MRI resolution, and 0.3 to 0.6 mm at 0.6-mm3 MRI resolution for both readers. For the in vivo study, Bland-Altman analyses for CT versus MRI showed a mean difference of 0.6 to 0.8 mm at 1.0-mm3 MRI resolution, 0.5 to 0.6 mm at 0.8-mm3 MRI resolution, and 0.4 to 0.8 mm at 0.7-mm3 MRI resolution for both readers. Mean post-processing times to generate 3D images of the glenoid ranged from 32 to 46 seconds for CT and from 33 to 64 seconds for ZTE MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional ZTE MRI can potentially be considered as a technique to determine glenoid width and can be readily incorporated into the clinical workflow. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, development of diagnostic criteria (consecutive patients with consistently applied reference standard and blinding).
PURPOSE: To evaluate the 3-dimensional (3D) zero echo time (ZTE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique and compare it with 3D computed tomography (CT) for the assessment of the glenoid bone. METHODS: ZTE MRI using multiple resolutions and multislice CT were performed in 6 shoulder specimens before and after creation of glenoid defects and in 10 glenohumeral instability patients. Two musculoskeletal radiologists independently generated 3D volume-rendered images of the glenoid en face. Post-processing times and glenoid widths were measured. Inter-modality and inter-rater agreement was assessed. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for inter-modality assessment showed almost perfect agreement for both readers, ranging from 0.949 to 0.991 for the ex vivo study and from 0.955 to 0.987 for the in vivo patients. Excellent interobserver agreement was found for both the ex vivo (ICCs ≥ 0.98) and in vivo (ICCs ≥ 0.92) studies. For the ex vivo study, Bland-Altman analyses for CT versus MRI showed a mean difference of 0.6 to 1 mm at 1.0-mm3 MRI resolution, 0.3 to 0.6 mm at 0.8-mm3 MRI resolution, and 0.3 to 0.6 mm at 0.6-mm3 MRI resolution for both readers. For the in vivo study, Bland-Altman analyses for CT versus MRI showed a mean difference of 0.6 to 0.8 mm at 1.0-mm3 MRI resolution, 0.5 to 0.6 mm at 0.8-mm3 MRI resolution, and 0.4 to 0.8 mm at 0.7-mm3 MRI resolution for both readers. Mean post-processing times to generate 3D images of the glenoid ranged from 32 to 46 seconds for CT and from 33 to 64 seconds for ZTE MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional ZTE MRI can potentially be considered as a technique to determine glenoid width and can be readily incorporated into the clinical workflow. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, development of diagnostic criteria (consecutive patients with consistently applied reference standard and blinding).
Authors: Drew A Lansdown; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Nikhil N Verma; Brian J Cole; Bernard R Bach; Gregory Nicholson; Anthony Romeo; Robert Dawe; Adam B Yanke Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Markus Weiger; David O Brunner; Benjamin E Dietrich; Colin F Müller; Klaas P Pruessmann Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Upasana Upadhyay Bharadwaj; Adam Coy; Daria Motamedi; Dong Sun; Gabby B Joseph; Roland Krug; Thomas M Link Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 2.128
Authors: Georg C Feuerriegel; Felix K Kopp; Daniela Pfeiffer; Jonas Pogorzelski; Markus Wurm; Yannik Leonhardt; Christof Boehm; Sophia Kronthaler; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Jan Neumann; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Marcus R Makowski; Klaus Woertler; Alexandra S Gersing Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Jose Borreguero Morata; José M González; Eduardo Pallás; Juan P Rigla; José M Algarín; Rubén Bosch; Fernando Galve; Daniel Grau-Ruiz; Rubén Pellicer; Alfonso Ríos; José M Benlloch; Joseba Alonso Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 4.478
Authors: Matthew L Vopat; Christina A Hermanns; Kaare S Midtgaard; Jordan Baker; Reed G Coda; Sana G Cheema; Armin Tarakemeh; Liam Peebles; Bryan G Vopat; Matthew T Provencher Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-06-03
Authors: Amir Masoud Afsahi; Alecio F Lombardi; Zhao Wei; Michael Carl; Jiyo Athertya; Koichi Masuda; Mark Wallace; Roland R Lee; Ya-Jun Ma Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Mateusz C Florkow; Koen Willemsen; Frank Zijlstra; Wouter Foppen; Bart C H van der Wal; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Max A Viergever; René M Castelein; Harrie Weinans; Marijn van Stralen; Ralph J B Sakkers; Peter R Seevinck Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 3.102
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