Evaluation of glenoid labral tears: comparison between dual-energy CT arthrography and MR arthrography of the shoulder.
Arthrography
Diagnostic accuracy
Dual-energy computed tomography
Glenoid labrum
Shoulder
Journal
La Radiologia medica
ISSN: 1826-6983
Titre abrégé: Radiol Med
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 0177625
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
02
05
2019
accepted:
12
09
2019
pubmed:
22
9
2019
medline:
18
1
2020
entrez:
22
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). DE-CTA and MRA were not different in terms of diagnostic performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31541346
doi: 10.1007/s11547-019-01083-z
pii: 10.1007/s11547-019-01083-z
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
39-47Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Jan;172(1):171-5
pubmed: 9888763
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Jul 7;92(7):1605-11
pubmed: 20595566
Eur Radiol. 2015 Apr;25(4):961-9
pubmed: 25377772
Insights Imaging. 2016 Apr;7(2):167-77
pubmed: 26746976
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015 Dec;19(5):431-7
pubmed: 26696081
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):661-7
pubmed: 22358006
Radiol Med. 2018 Aug;123(8):593-600
pubmed: 29637389
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Feb;212(2):411-417
pubmed: 30476457
Musculoskelet Surg. 2017 Mar;101(Suppl 1):15-22
pubmed: 28168636
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):1083-1091
pubmed: 30240300
Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Apr;30(3):336-46
pubmed: 22260933
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Apr;91(4):791-6
pubmed: 19339562
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Nov;205(5):1056-60
pubmed: 26496553
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Mar 5;:1-6
pubmed: 30835522
Skeletal Radiol. 2018 Sep;47(9):1253-1261
pubmed: 29549380
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Jan;19(1):14-20
pubmed: 19556150
Skeletal Radiol. 2002 Feb;31(2):63-80
pubmed: 11828327
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Oct;68(1):120-36
pubmed: 18400443
Radiology. 2012 Sep;264(3):812-22
pubmed: 22919041
Radiol Med. 2017 May;122(5):353-360
pubmed: 28197872
Radiol Med. 2017 Oct;122(10):774-784
pubmed: 28597240
Radiology. 2012 Mar;262(3):921-31
pubmed: 22267587
Eur Radiol. 2006 Feb;16(2):451-8
pubmed: 16047149
Korean J Radiol. 2014 Nov-Dec;15(6):771-80
pubmed: 25469089
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015 Dec;19(5):438-45
pubmed: 26696082
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Mar 5;:1-10
pubmed: 30835517
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132