Correlation of magnetic resonance and arthroscopy in the diagnosis of shoulder injury.
arthroscopy
magnetic resonance
sensitivity
shoulder
specificity
Journal
ANZ journal of surgery
ISSN: 1445-2197
Titre abrégé: ANZ J Surg
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101086634
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
revised:
13
07
2021
received:
04
02
2021
accepted:
11
08
2021
pubmed:
27
8
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
entrez:
26
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Advances in shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and arthrography (MRA) have revolutionised musculoskeletal diagnosis and surgical planning. Despite this, the overall accuracy of MRI, with or without intra-articular contrast, can be variable. In this prospective non-randomised analysis, 200 participants (74.5% males) with suspected shoulder injuries underwent MRI (41.0%) or MRA followed by arthroscopy. A study specific proforma was developed to ensure consistency of reporting by radiologists and surgeons. The reports were compared to assess the predictive power of MRI/MRA. Specific assessment of rotator cuff tendon appearance, long head of biceps (LHB) tendon appearance, position and anchor, subacromial space, glenoid labrum and humeral cartilage grade were included. Shoulder MRA demonstrated a higher agreement with arthroscopy than MRI for supraspinatus, infraspinatus and subscapularis tendon appearance (κ = 0.77 vs. κ = 0.61, κ = 0.55 vs. κ = 0.53 and κ = 0.58 vs. κ = 0.46 respectively). There were also superior agreement rates with MRA compared to MRI for LHB tendon appearance (κ = 0.70 vs. κ =0.54) and position (κ = 0.89 vs. κ = 0.72). As an overall assessor of shoulder pathology we found significantly higher total agreement scores when MRA was used (p = 0.002). Whilst magnetic resonance imaging with arthrography is an extremely useful tool to assess underlying pathological shoulder states it does not confer 100% accuracy. In cases whereby this modality is inconclusive, an examination under anaesthesia and diagnostic arthroscopic assessment for the detection of intra-articular shoulder pathology may be considered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Advances in shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and arthrography (MRA) have revolutionised musculoskeletal diagnosis and surgical planning. Despite this, the overall accuracy of MRI, with or without intra-articular contrast, can be variable.
METHODS
In this prospective non-randomised analysis, 200 participants (74.5% males) with suspected shoulder injuries underwent MRI (41.0%) or MRA followed by arthroscopy. A study specific proforma was developed to ensure consistency of reporting by radiologists and surgeons. The reports were compared to assess the predictive power of MRI/MRA. Specific assessment of rotator cuff tendon appearance, long head of biceps (LHB) tendon appearance, position and anchor, subacromial space, glenoid labrum and humeral cartilage grade were included.
RESULTS
Shoulder MRA demonstrated a higher agreement with arthroscopy than MRI for supraspinatus, infraspinatus and subscapularis tendon appearance (κ = 0.77 vs. κ = 0.61, κ = 0.55 vs. κ = 0.53 and κ = 0.58 vs. κ = 0.46 respectively). There were also superior agreement rates with MRA compared to MRI for LHB tendon appearance (κ = 0.70 vs. κ =0.54) and position (κ = 0.89 vs. κ = 0.72). As an overall assessor of shoulder pathology we found significantly higher total agreement scores when MRA was used (p = 0.002).
DISCUSSION
Whilst magnetic resonance imaging with arthrography is an extremely useful tool to assess underlying pathological shoulder states it does not confer 100% accuracy. In cases whereby this modality is inconclusive, an examination under anaesthesia and diagnostic arthroscopic assessment for the detection of intra-articular shoulder pathology may be considered.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2145-2152Informations de copyright
© 2021 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.
Références
Lange T, Matthijs O, Jain NB, Schmitt J, Lützner J, Kopkow C. Reliability of specific physical examination tests for the diagnosis of shoulder pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:511-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096558.
Tuite MJ and Small KM. Imaging evaluation of nonacute shoulder pain. Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209: 525-533. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18085.
Jonas SC, Walton MJ and Sarangi PP. Is MRA an unnecessary expense in the management of a clinically unstable shoulder? A comparison of MRA and arthroscopic findings in 90 patients. Acta Orthop 2012; 83: 267-270. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.672090.
Giaconi JC, Link TM, Vail TP, Fisher Z, Hong R, Singh R, et al. Morbidity of direct MR arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:868-74. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5145.
Lenza M, Buchbinder R, Takwoingi Y, Johnston RV, Hanchard NCA, Faloppa F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(9):CD009020. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009020.pub2.
Landis JR and Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.
de Jesus JO, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Nazarian LN. Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1701-7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1241.
Smith TO, Daniell H, Geere JA, Toms AP, Hing CB. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the detection of partial- and full-thickness rotator cuff tears in adults. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:336-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2011.12.008.
McGarvey C, Harb Z, Smith C, Houghton R, Corbett S, Ajuied A. Diagnosis of rotator cuff tears using 3-tesla MRI versus 3-tesla MRA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol. 2016;45:251-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2299-x.
Saqib R, Harris J, Funk L. Comparison of magnetic resonance arthrography with arthroscopy for imaging of shoulder injuries: retrospective study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017;99:271-4. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0249.
Magee T. MR versus MR arthrography in detection of supraspinatus tendon tears in patients without previous shoulder surgery. Skeletal Radiol. 2014;43:43-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1745-x.
Gyftopoulos S, O' Donnell J, Shah NP, Goss J, Babb J, Recht MP. Correlation of MRI with arthroscopy for the evaluation of the subscapularis tendon: a musculoskeletal division's experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42:1269-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1669-5.
Torstensen ET, Hollinshead RM. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopy in the evaluation of shoulder pathology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8:42-5.
Polster JM and Schickendantz MS. Shoulder MRI: what do we miss? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 577-584. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4683.
Lee CS, Davis SM, McGroder C, Kouk S, Sung RM, Stetson WB, et al. Analysis of low-field MRI scanners for evaluation of shoulder pathology based on arthroscopy. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2:2325967114540407. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967114540407.
Joshi UP, Puri S. Clinical, MRI and arthroscopic correlation in anterior and posterior shoulder instability. Int J Res Med Sci. 2017;2:857-60.
Bhatnagar A, Bhonsle S, Mehta S. Correlation between MRI and arthroscopy in diagnosis of shoulder pathology. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:RC18-21. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/14867.7309.
Pavic R, Margetic P, Bensic M, Brnadic RL. Diagnostic value of US, MR and MR arthrography in shoulder instability. Injury. 2013;44(Suppl 3):S26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(13)70194-3.
Kalson NS, Geoghegan JM, Funk L. Magnetic resonance arthrogram and arthroscopy of the shoulder: a comparative retrospective study with emphasis on posterior labral lesions and radiologist locality. Shoulder Elbow. 2011;3:210-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5740.2011.00149.x.
Parmar H, Jhankaria B, Maheshwari M, Singrakhia M, Shanbag S, Chawla A, et al. Magnetic resonance arthrography in recurrent anterior shoulder instability as compared to arthroscopy: a prospective comparative study. J Postgrad Med. 2002;48:270-3; discussion 273-274.
Smith TO, Drew BT, Toms AP. A meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of MRA and MRI for the detection of glenoid labral injury. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:905-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1493-8.
Ajuied A, McGarvey CP, Harb Z, Smith CC, Houghton RP, Corbett SA. Diagnosis of glenoid labral tears using 3-tesla MRI vs. 3-tesla MRA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138:699-709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2894-0.
Tadros AS, Huang BK, Wymore L, Hoenecke H, Fronek J, Chang EY. Long head of the biceps brachii tendon: unenhanced MRI versus direct MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 2015;44:1263-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2152-2.
Schaeffeler C, Waldt S, Holzapfel K, Kirchhoff C, Jungmann PM, Wolf P, et al. Lesions of the biceps pulley: diagnostic accuracy of MR arthrography of the shoulder and evaluation of previously described and new diagnostic signs. Radiology. 2012;264:504-13. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112007.
VanBeek C, Loeffler BJ, Narzikul A, Gordon V, Rasiej MJ, Kazam JK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast MRI for detection of glenohumeral cartilage lesions: a prospective comparison to arthroscopy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:1010-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.048.
Omoumi P, Rubini A, Dubuc JE, Vande Berg BC, Lecouvet FE. Diagnostic performance of CT-arthrography and 1.5T MR-arthrography for the assessment of glenohumeral joint cartilage: a comparative study with arthroscopic correlation. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:961-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3469-2.