Evaluation of glenoid labral tears: comparison between dual-energy CT arthrography and MR arthrography of the shoulder.

Giovanni Foti, William Mantovani, Matteo Catania, Paolo Avanzi, Simone Caia, Claudio Zorzi, Giovanni Carbognin
Author Information
  1. Giovanni Foti: Department of Radiology, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Hospital, Negrar, Italy. gfoti81@yahoo.it. ORCID
  2. William Mantovani: Department of Preventive Medicine Public Health Trust, Trento, Italy.
  3. Matteo Catania: Department of Radiology, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Hospital, Negrar, Italy.
  4. Paolo Avanzi: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Italy.
  5. Simone Caia: Department of Radiology, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Italy.
  6. Claudio Zorzi: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sacro Cuore Hospital, Negrar, Italy.
  7. Giovanni Carbognin: Department of Radiology, Sacro Cuore Hospital, Negrar, Italy.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography arthrography (DE-CTA) and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) of the shoulder in depicting glenoid labral tears.
METHODS: This prospective institutional review board-approved study included 47 consecutive patients (28 males, 19 females; mean age of 34.2 years) studied between January 2017 and October 2018. All patients underwent DE-CTA and MRA the same day. Two radiologists (25 and 11 years of experience, respectively), blinded to clinical data, evaluated the presence labral tears on virtual-blended 120 kV standard CTA and on DE-CTA images. A third radiologist (18 years of experience) evaluated the MRA images. Diagnostic accuracy values were calculated by using surgery as standard of reference. Inter-observer and intra-observer agreements were calculated with k statistics. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Surgery revealed the presence of labral tears in 38/47 patients (80.9%). Sensitivity and specificity values in diagnosing labral tears were 84.2% and 77.8% for MRA (Reader 3), 84.2% and 77.8% for CTA (Reader 1), 84.2% and 88.9% for CTA (Reader 2), 89.5% and 88.9% for DE-CTA (Reader 1), and 92.1% and 88.9% for DE-CTA (Reader 2). A nonsignificant increase in AUC values with respect to MRA was obtained by reading the CTA (p = 0.470) and DE-CTA dataset (p = 0.217), respectively. Inter-observer agreements were near perfect for CTA (k = 0.84) and substantial for DE-CTA reading (k = 0.76). Intra-observer agreements were near perfect both for CTA (k = 0.88) and for DE-CTA reading (k = 0.82).
CONCLUSION: DE-CTA and MRA were not different in terms of diagnostic performance.

Keywords

References

  1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Jan;172(1):171-5 [PMID: 9888763]
  2. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Jul 7;92(7):1605-11 [PMID: 20595566]
  3. Eur Radiol. 2015 Apr;25(4):961-9 [PMID: 25377772]
  4. Insights Imaging. 2016 Apr;7(2):167-77 [PMID: 26746976]
  5. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015 Dec;19(5):431-7 [PMID: 26696081]
  6. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):661-7 [PMID: 22358006]
  7. Radiol Med. 2018 Aug;123(8):593-600 [PMID: 29637389]
  8. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Feb;212(2):411-417 [PMID: 30476457]
  9. Musculoskelet Surg. 2017 Mar;101(Suppl 1):15-22 [PMID: 28168636]
  10. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):1083-1091 [PMID: 30240300]
  11. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Apr;30(3):336-46 [PMID: 22260933]
  12. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Apr;91(4):791-6 [PMID: 19339562]
  13. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Nov;205(5):1056-60 [PMID: 26496553]
  14. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Mar 5;:1-6 [PMID: 30835522]
  15. Skeletal Radiol. 2018 Sep;47(9):1253-1261 [PMID: 29549380]
  16. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Jan;19(1):14-20 [PMID: 19556150]
  17. Skeletal Radiol. 2002 Feb;31(2):63-80 [PMID: 11828327]
  18. Eur J Radiol. 2008 Oct;68(1):120-36 [PMID: 18400443]
  19. Radiology. 2012 Sep;264(3):812-22 [PMID: 22919041]
  20. Radiol Med. 2017 May;122(5):353-360 [PMID: 28197872]
  21. Radiol Med. 2017 Oct;122(10):774-784 [PMID: 28597240]
  22. Radiology. 2012 Mar;262(3):921-31 [PMID: 22267587]
  23. Eur Radiol. 2006 Feb;16(2):451-8 [PMID: 16047149]
  24. Korean J Radiol. 2014 Nov-Dec;15(6):771-80 [PMID: 25469089]
  25. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015 Dec;19(5):438-45 [PMID: 26696082]
  26. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Mar 5;:1-10 [PMID: 30835517]
  27. Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45 [PMID: 3203132]

MeSH Term

Adult
Area Under Curve
Arthrography
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Prospective Studies
Rotator Cuff Injuries
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tomography, X-Ray Computed

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0DE-CTAMRACTAlabralReaderarthrographytears9%8488k = 0accuracypatientsvaluesagreements2%readingdiagnosticdual-energycomputedtomographyshoulderglenoidexperiencerespectivelyevaluatedpresencestandardimagesDiagnosticcalculatedInter-observer778%12p = 0nearperfectOBJECTIVE:comparemagneticresonancedepictingMETHODS:prospectiveinstitutionalreviewboard-approvedstudyincluded47consecutive28males19femalesmeanage342 yearsstudiedJanuary2017October2018underwentdayTworadiologists2511 yearsblindedclinicaldatavirtual-blended120 kVthirdradiologist18 yearsusingsurgeryreferenceintra-observerkstatisticsvaluep < 005consideredstatisticallysignificantRESULTS:Surgeryrevealed38/4780Sensitivityspecificitydiagnosing3895%921%nonsignificantincreaseAUCrespectobtained470dataset217substantial76Intra-observer82CONCLUSION:differenttermsperformanceEvaluationtears:comparisonCTMRArthrographyDual-energyGlenoidlabrumShoulder

Similar Articles

Cited By