Magnetic Resonance Imaging Correlates With Computed Tomography for Glenoid Version Calculation Despite Lack of Visibility of Medial Scapula

Parada, Stephen A.; Shaw, K. Aaron; Antosh, Ivan J.; Eichinger, Josef K.; Li, Xinning; Curry, Emily J.; Provencher, Matthew T.

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.030

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, for some patients, these measurements could differ drastically due to blurring and reduced FOVs on the MR images. 59,95 The intermodal limits of agreements were within the interobserver limits of agreement. 59 In a similar way, the geometrical accuracy of MR-based 3D bone renderings was compared to CT.…”

Section: Shouldersupporting

confidence: 58%

“…Overall, MR and CT showed good to excellent inter‐ and intraobserver variability in diagnosing bone pathologies or performing morphometric measurements in the shoulder, 19,26,35,40,93,95 with good to excellent intermodal agreement 19,26,59,86 . Figure 9 compares the CT image of a shoulder to the corresponding ZTE images acquired at different resolutions.…”

Section: Mri For Diagnosing Bone Pathologiesmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Florkow

Willemsen

Mascarenhas

et al. 2022

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly utilized as a radiation‐free alternative to computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis and treatment planning of musculoskeletal pathologies. MR imaging of hard tissues such as cortical bone remains challenging due to their low proton density and short transverse relaxation times, rendering bone tissues as nonspecific low signal structures on MR images obtained from most sequences. Developments in MR image acquisition and post‐processing have opened the path for enhanced MR‐based bone visualization aiming to provide a CT‐like contrast and, as such, ease clinical interpretation. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of studies comparing MR and CT imaging for diagnostic and treatment planning purposes in orthopedic care, with a special focus on selective bone visualization, bone segmentation, and three‐dimensional (3D) modeling. This review discusses conventional gradient‐echo derived techniques as well as dedicated short echo time acquisition techniques and post‐processing techniques, including the generation of synthetic CT, in the context of 3D and specific bone visualization. Based on the reviewed literature, it may be concluded that the recent developments in MRI‐based bone visualization are promising. MRI alone provides valuable information on both bone and soft tissues for a broad range of applications including diagnostics, 3D modeling, and treatment planning in multiple anatomical regions, including the skull, spine, shoulder, pelvis, and long bones. Level of Evidence 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 3

show abstract

Section: Shouldersupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Mri For Diagnosing Bone Pathologiesmentioning

confidence: 95%

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

Florkow

Willemsen

Mascarenhas

et al. 2022

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when the entire scapula is not imaged on CT scans and MRI and glenoid version is measured using the most medial scapula imaged, we found more variation and retroversion with cadavers using the Robertson method. 25 Future studies are needed evaluating the Robertson method with MRI using appropriate sample size to address glenoid version variation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glenoid Version Assessment When the CT Field of View Does Not Permit the Friedman Method: The Robertson Method

Robertson

Sharma

McMahon

et al. 2022

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To improve spatial resolution, current clinical shoulder cross-sectional imaging studies reduce the field of view of the shoulder, excluding the medial scapula border and preventing glenoid version measurement according to the Friedman method. Purpose: To evaluate a method to accurately and reliably measure glenoid version on cross-sectional shoulder images when the medial scapula border is not included in the field of view, and to establish measurements equivalent to the Friedman method. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Sixty-five scapulae underwent computed tomography (CT) scanning with an optimal shoulder CT-positioning protocol. Glenoid version was measured on CT images of the full scapula using the Friedman method. We developed a measurement method (named the Robertson method) based on the glenoid vault version from partial scapula images, with a correction angle subtracted from the articular-surface-glenoid vault measurement. Comparison with the Friedman method defined the accuracy of the Robertson method. Three observers tested inter- and intraobserver reliability of the Robertson method. Accuracy was statistically evaluated with t tests and reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The statistical distribution of glenoid version was similar to published data,–0.5° ± 3° [mean ± SD]. The initial measurement using the Robertson method resulted in a more retroverted angle compared with the Friedman method, and a correction angle of 7° was then applied. After this adjustment, the difference between the 2 methods was nonsignificant (0.1° ± 4°; P > .65). Reliability of the Robertson method was excellent, as the interrater ICC was 0.77, the standard error of measurement (SEM) was 1.1° with P < .001. The intrarater ICC ranged between 0.84 and 0.92, the SEM ranged between 0.9° and 1.2° with P < .01. Conclusion: A validated glenoid version measurement method is now available for current clinical shoulder CT protocols that reliably create Friedman-equivalent values. Clinical Relevance: Friedman-equivalent values may be made from common clinical CTs of the shoulder and compared with prior and future Friedman measurements of the scapula.

show abstract

“…1,3 In the study, "Magnetic Resonance Imaging Correlates With Computed Tomography for the Glenoid Version Calculation Despite Lack of Visibility of Medial Scapula," Parada, Shaw, Antosh, Eichinger, Li, Curry, and Provencher set out to answer this question by examining the reliability of measuring glenoid version on MRI versus CT imaging. 4 They studied 32 patients who were treated operatively for glenohumeral instability in the absence of glenohumeral arthritis. Each patient underwent both CT and MRI scans, and 2 fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons independently measured scapular width and glenoid version for each imaging series on 2 separate occasions.…”

Section: See Related Article On Page 99mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ó 2019 by the Arthroscopy Association of North America 0749-8063/191135/$36.00 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.09.037 different conclusions. 4 In a research environment that relies almost exclusively on P values, the authors should be praised for examining the clinical significance of their results. Parada et al determined a priori that a 5 difference in glenoid version between imaging modalities represented a clinically significant difference.…”

Section: See Related Article On Page 99mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial Commentary: How Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Stack up in Comparison to Computed Tomography Imaging for Measurement of Glenoid Version?

Kluczynski¹

2020

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computed tomography (CT) has been the gold standard for measuring glenoid version in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis or instability. However, few studies have compared measurements of glenoid version on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) versus CT. Clinicians should feel confident in assessing glenoid version on MRI in the absence of CT imaging. In fact, MRI could be comparable to CT even in cases where the entire scapula is not visible on MRI. A 5 difference in glenoid version between imaging modalities represents a clinically significant difference. See related article on page 99G lenoid version plays an important role in the normal biomechanics of the shoulder and can be adversely affected by glenohumeral arthritis or instability. 1,2 The normal range is considered to be 2 of anteversion and 9 of retroversion. The Friedman et al. 3 study was the first to demonstrate that the glenoid was more retroverted on computed tomography (CT) in patients with severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis compared with controls. This landmark study helped to establish CT as the gold standard measurement for glenoid version, but the question remains whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be used for measuring glenoid version. 1,3 In the study, "Magnetic Resonance Imaging Correlates With Computed Tomography for the Glenoid Version Calculation Despite Lack of Visibility of Medial Scapula," Parada, Shaw, Antosh, Eichinger, Li, Curry, and Provencher set out to answer this question by examining the reliability of measuring glenoid version on MRI versus CT imaging. 4 They studied 32 patients who were treated operatively for glenohumeral instability in the absence of glenohumeral arthritis. Each patient underwent both CT and MRI scans, and 2 fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons independently measured scapular width and glenoid version for each imaging series on 2 separate occasions. Intrarater reliability was excellent for scapular width and glenoid version, and interrater reliability was excellent for scapular width but moderate for glenoid version. Scapular width was 24.7 mm longer on CT versus MRI, and 78% of the scapular width could be seen on MRI versus CT. Glenoid version did not differ between MRI and CT.Similar to Parada et al., previous studies have found no difference in glenoid version on MRI versus CT in patients with shoulder dislocation, primary shoulder osteoarthritis, and those planning to undergo shoulder arthroplasty. 2,4-6 Beaulieu-Jones et al. 7 found that posterior glenoid bone loss was associated with increased posterior glenoid version on CT or MRI in patients with recurrent posterior shoulder instability and bone injury; however, there was no comparison between imaging modalities. Two studies have also demonstrated that posterior instability was associated with glenoid version measured on MRI. 8,9 Based on these results, clinicians should feel confident in assessing glenoid version on MRI in the absence of CT imaging.Parada et al. should be commended for assessing intra-and interrater reliability, alt...

show abstract

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Correlates With Computed Tomography for Glenoid Version Calculation Despite Lack of Visibility of Medial Scapula

Cited by 14 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Glenoid Version Assessment When the CT Field of View Does Not Permit the Friedman Method: The Robertson Method

Editorial Commentary: How Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Stack up in Comparison to Computed Tomography Imaging for Measurement of Glenoid Version?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About