Yoav Rosenthal1, Mohammad Samim2, Soterios Gyftopoulos2, Oluwadamilola O Kolade3, Young W Kwon4, Joseph D Zuckerman4, Mandeep S Virk4. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Jabutinsky Street, 4941492, Petah Tikva, Israel. yoav.rosenthal@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, 660 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedics, Howard University Hospital, 2041 Georgia Avenue NW, 20060, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare MRI with 3D reconstructions and 3D-CT with respect to assessment of glenoid wear in osteoarthritic shoulders. METHODS: 3D reconstructions were generated for CT and MR (utilizing the Dixon technique) imaging performed on 29 osteoarthritic shoulders. Two reviewers independently performed glenoid morphometric measurements and evaluated glenoid erosion. Mean differences between the two modalities were calculated. Inter-observer agreement was calculated using kappa coefficient. RESULTS: The combined mean absolute difference (bias) in glenoid version between 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was 2.7° ± 1.6° (range 0.15-7.85, P value = 0.7). The combined mean absolute difference in glenoid inclination between 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was 6.8° ± 4.1° (range 0.8°-15.75°, P value = 0.17). No significant inter-reader variation in glenoid version and inclination measurements on 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was found (P > 0.05). The inter-reader reliability for both CT and MRI was high for Walch grading of glenoid bone loss (κ = 1, κ = 0.81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: 3D-MRI is comparable to 3D-CT with respect to axial glenoid bone loss, as measured by glenoid version. However, for coronal bone loss estimation, measured by glenoid inclination, 3D-CT remains the gold standard. Thus, 3D-MR can be used as an alternative for preoperative assessment of glenoid version in arthritic shoulders.
OBJECTIVE: To compare MRI with 3D reconstructions and 3D-CT with respect to assessment of glenoid wear in osteoarthritic shoulders. METHODS: 3D reconstructions were generated for CT and MR (utilizing the Dixon technique) imaging performed on 29 osteoarthritic shoulders. Two reviewers independently performed glenoid morphometric measurements and evaluated glenoid erosion. Mean differences between the two modalities were calculated. Inter-observer agreement was calculated using kappa coefficient. RESULTS: The combined mean absolute difference (bias) in glenoid version between 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was 2.7° ± 1.6° (range 0.15-7.85, P value = 0.7). The combined mean absolute difference in glenoid inclination between 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was 6.8° ± 4.1° (range 0.8°-15.75°, P value = 0.17). No significant inter-reader variation in glenoid version and inclination measurements on 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was found (P > 0.05). The inter-reader reliability for both CT and MRI was high for Walch grading of glenoid bone loss (κ = 1, κ = 0.81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: 3D-MRI is comparable to 3D-CT with respect to axial glenoid bone loss, as measured by glenoid version. However, for coronal bone loss estimation, measured by glenoid inclination, 3D-CT remains the gold standard. Thus, 3D-MR can be used as an alternative for preoperative assessment of glenoid version in arthritic shoulders.
Authors: M De Filippo; A Bertellini; N Sverzellati; F Pogliacomi; C Costantino; M Vitale; M Zappia; D Corradi; G Garlaschi; M Zompatori Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Sorin Daniel Iordache; Natalia Goldberg; Lior Paz; Jacques Peylan; Ran Ben Hur; Adam Steinmetz Journal: Acta Orthop Belg Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 0.500
Authors: Anne Karelse; Alexander Van Tongel; Tom Van Isacker; Bart Berghs; L De Wilde Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 3.166