Literature DB >> 32502712

Three-Dimensional Zero Echo Time Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography for Glenoid Bone Assessment.

Ricardo Andrade Fernandes de Mello1, Ya-Jun Ma2, Aria Ashir2, Saeed Jerban2, Heinz Hoenecke3, Michael Carl4, Jiang Du2, Eric Y Chang5.   

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).
Copyright © 2020 Arthroscopy Association of North America. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32502712      PMCID: PMC7483823          DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.05.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  29 in total

1.  Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.

Authors:  S S Burkhart; J F De Beer
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.772

2.  Evolving concept of bipolar bone loss and the Hill-Sachs lesion: from "engaging/non-engaging" lesion to "on-track/off-track" lesion.

Authors:  Giovanni Di Giacomo; Eiji Itoi; Stephen S Burkhart
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Automated 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Allows for Accurate Evaluation of Glenoid Bone Loss Compared With 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography.

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

4.  Editorial Commentary: Methodology of Measuring Bone Loss in Recurrent Shoulder Instability Surgery: Traditional Computed Tomography Scan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Do Not Tell the Full Story.

Authors:  Matthew T Provencher; Liam A Peebles; Ramesses A Akamefula
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  3-D CT is the most reliable imaging modality when quantifying glenoid bone loss.

Authors:  Julie Y Bishop; Grant L Jones; Michael A Rerko; Chris Donaldson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-09-21       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Feasibility of using an inversion-recovery ultrashort echo time (UTE) sequence for quantification of glenoid bone loss.

Authors:  Ya-Jun Ma; Justin West; Amin Nazaran; Xin Cheng; Heinz Hoenecke; Jiang Du; Eric Y Chang
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  ZTE imaging in humans.

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

9.  Use of preoperative three-dimensional computed tomography to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability.

Authors:  Tai-Yuan Chuang; Christopher R Adams; Stephen S Burkhart
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2007-12-31       Impact factor: 4.772

10.  Does Bone Loss Imaging Modality, Measurement Methodology, and Interobserver Reliability Alter Treatment in Glenohumeral Instability?

Authors:  Peter N Chalmers; Garrett Christensen; Dillon O'Neill; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 4.772

View more
  10 in total

1.  CT-like MRI: a qualitative assessment of ZTE sequences for knee osseous abnormalities.

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

Review 2.  Ultrashort Echo Time Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques: Met and Unmet Needs in Musculoskeletal Imaging.

Authors:  Amir Masoud Afsahi; Yajun Ma; Hyungseok Jang; Saeed Jerban; Christine B Chung; Eric Y Chang; Jiang Du
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 5.119

3.  Evaluation of MR-derived simulated CT-like images and simulated radiographs compared to conventional radiography in patients with shoulder pain: a proof-of-concept study.

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

4.  Design and validation of a semi-automatic bone segmentation algorithm from MRI to improve research efficiency.

Authors:  Lauren N Heckelman; Brian J Soher; Charles E Spritzer; Brian D Lewis; Louis E DeFrate
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  Prepolarized MRI of hard tissues and solid-state matter.

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

Review 6.  Imaging Modalities for the Glenoid Track in Recurrent Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review.

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

7.  High-Contrast Lumbar Spinal Bone Imaging Using a 3D Slab-Selective UTE Sequence.

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

8.  CT estimation of glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability : a systematic review of existing techniques.

Authors:  Gemma L Green; Magnus Arnander; Eyiyemi Pearse; Duncan Tennent
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-02

9.  MRI-based synthetic CT shows equivalence to conventional CT for the morphological assessment of the hip joint.

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

Review 10.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three-Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review.

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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.