A New Method for Measuring Glenoid Version on Standard Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Chondrolabral
glenoid version
magnetic resonance imaging
reliability
shoulder
Journal
Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty
ISSN: 2471-5492
Titre abrégé: J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763114
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
04
12
2019
accepted:
03
04
2020
entrez:
9
9
2021
pubmed:
21
5
2020
medline:
21
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The most effective method and modality for measuring glenoid version for different shoulder conditions is uncertain. Computed tomography (CT) imaging exposes the patient to radiation, and standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) does not consistently image the entire scapula. This study investigates the reliability of a new method for assessing glenoid version using routine shoulder MRI. MRI images of 20 patients undergoing arthroscopy for shoulder instability were independently assessed by 3 clinicians for osseous and chondrolabral glenoid version. To assess glenoid version, a line was drawn from medial corner of the glenoid body to midpoint of the glenoid face. A line perpendicular to this was the reference against which to measure glenoid version. Measurements were repeated after 3 months to assess intra- and interobserver reliability. Reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Interclass correlation coefficients showed at least good reliability for most estimates of intraobserver reliability (ICC ≥ .66) and excellent reliability for most estimates of interobserver reliability (ICC ≥ .84), with the exception of some inferior glenoid measurements where ICC was poor (ICC ≤.41). We propose that this new method of measuring glenoid on standard axial MRI can be used as a simple, practical, and reliable method in shoulder instability patients, which will reduce the requirement for CT in this group.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The most effective method and modality for measuring glenoid version for different shoulder conditions is uncertain. Computed tomography (CT) imaging exposes the patient to radiation, and standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) does not consistently image the entire scapula. This study investigates the reliability of a new method for assessing glenoid version using routine shoulder MRI.
METHODS
METHODS
MRI images of 20 patients undergoing arthroscopy for shoulder instability were independently assessed by 3 clinicians for osseous and chondrolabral glenoid version. To assess glenoid version, a line was drawn from medial corner of the glenoid body to midpoint of the glenoid face. A line perpendicular to this was the reference against which to measure glenoid version. Measurements were repeated after 3 months to assess intra- and interobserver reliability. Reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Interclass correlation coefficients showed at least good reliability for most estimates of intraobserver reliability (ICC ≥ .66) and excellent reliability for most estimates of interobserver reliability (ICC ≥ .84), with the exception of some inferior glenoid measurements where ICC was poor (ICC ≤.41).
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
We propose that this new method of measuring glenoid on standard axial MRI can be used as a simple, practical, and reliable method in shoulder instability patients, which will reduce the requirement for CT in this group.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34497961
doi: 10.1177/2471549220926826
pii: 10.1177_2471549220926826
pmc: PMC8282165
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2471549220926826Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Mar;92(3):692-9
pubmed: 20194328
J Anat. 2001 Sep;199(Pt 3):323-8
pubmed: 11554509
J Sci Med Sport. 2018 Aug;21(8):760-764
pubmed: 29198379
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008 Feb;23(2):175-83
pubmed: 17983693
J Rehabil Med. 2001 Jan;33(1):36-41
pubmed: 11480468
Skeletal Radiol. 2000 Apr;29(4):204-10
pubmed: 10855468
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Aug;88(8):1105-9
pubmed: 16877616
Shoulder Elbow. 2019 May;11(1 Suppl):52-58
pubmed: 31019563
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Mar;21(3):329-35
pubmed: 21782473
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Dec;20(8):1335-9
pubmed: 21723749
Skeletal Radiol. 2007 Jun;36(6):509-14
pubmed: 17375296
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2008 Oct;2(4):77-8
pubmed: 20300323
J Orthop Surg Res. 2014 Mar 11;9(1):17
pubmed: 24618285
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Dec;18(12):1748-51
pubmed: 20221586
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Jun;68(5):724-31
pubmed: 3722229
J Orthop Res. 2004 Jan;22(1):202-7
pubmed: 14656681
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Aug;74(7):1032-7
pubmed: 1522089
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Mar;184(3):984-8
pubmed: 15728629
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Mar;19(2):166-71
pubmed: 19959378
Int Orthop. 2012 Mar;36(3):595-8
pubmed: 21922256
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Jul;(208):151-6
pubmed: 3720117
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jan;87(1):92-8
pubmed: 15634818